• ubergeek@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Previous satellite Internet using satellites in geosynchronous orbit had 1500ms latency, for comparison.

    Yes, and are far more stable, not hyped, and are already at pretty much peak congestion. Starlink will get progressively worse, the more people use it. Right now, it’s over provisioned.

    The point is, unless you’re playing some hyper competitive game where a 30ms difference in reaction time is noticeable (

    Ever try a voice call with 30ms of latency?

    • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Ever try a voice call with 30ms of latency?

      Lol what? You’re not gonna notice a 30ms delay in a voice call…

      @ubergeek@lemmy.today downvote with no reply even though you were painfully wrong. Sad.

      • towerful@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeh, 30ms is still inside the haas delay.
        If you are a professional listener (sound engineer, musician, dancer) then you can probably perceive it (in a similar way that eyes theoretically only need 25fps, but 60/120/144 is noticeably better).

        In 30ms, sound can travel 10 meters.
        So, if you’ve ever had a conversation with someone across a classroom, you’ve had a conversation with 30ms latency.

        For data, 30ms is 8100 km for electricity over copper, or 6000km for light over fibre.

        Meaning 30ms over fibre (considering no transmission delays) would be roughly the direct distance between US and UK.

        So yeh, 30ms is nothing

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        52 minutes ago

        And I’ll downvote ya again, if I could :)

        FWIW, I don’t owe you a reply :)

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Yes, and are far more stable, not hyped, and are already at pretty much peak congestion. Starlink will get progressively worse, the more people use it. Right now, it’s over provisioned.

      They were not more stable. Any occlusion, including thick clouds, would degrade the signal to being unusable. I used Hughsnet for years, then swapped to cellular (100ms+ latency) and finally to Starlink. Starlink is a pretty solid 100Mb/s, with low jitter, packet loss and latency.

      Ever try a voice call with 30ms of latency?

      Yeah, I use voice chat every day, it’s not noticeable.

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        They were not more stable. Any occlusion, including thick clouds, would degrade the signal to being unusable

        You have the same issue with Starlink…

        Yeah, I use voice chat every day, it’s not noticeable.

        The people on the call do…

        • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 minutes ago

          The people on the call do…

          LMAO you’re really doubling down?

          No, they absolutely will not notice a 30ms delay. Why would you even say something so absurd?