FBO's and WiFi

"Peter Duniho" writes:

TCP uses sliding windows to allow constant streaming of data to occur as
long as the latency in the connection is "reasonable". That is, it will
send many packets before needing to receive any acknowledgement even for the
first packet. As long as the acknowledgements start coming in time, the
latency of the connection will NOT affect throughput AT ALL. A latency of
500ms is MORE than reasonable in this context.

Everything you're saying makes sense to me, but you might want to hang
around on news:comp.protocols.tcp-ip for awhile. I regularly notice
people trying to debug satellite TCP issues there.

It's quite possible that it's just a matter of getting all of the
settings tweaked everywhere, but it seems to cause a lot of grief.

--kyler

"Scott Lowrey" wrote in message om...
Pete Zaitcev wrote in message ...
"Lag" in the original poster's case, is actually referred to as
"latency" in the world of computer networking. Latency is defined as
the time it takes to set up and send a message,

Well, it's the overall transmission time from source to destination. The
overhead to set up and send a satellite packet isn't really any worse
than anything else, it just takes a long time to deliever.

Since all data is transported in TCP packets (in the case of Web
traffic), there is continual send AND receive on BOTH sides since TCP
requires acknowledgement of every packet on the part the of the
receiver (remember, TCP is a *reliable* protocol).

Actually, it's acknowledgement of the position in the byte stream.

Granted, the ACK
packets are much smaller than the data packets

There's no such thing as an ACK packet. A TCP packet can have
data as well as the ack for data received.

"Ron Natalie" wrote:

There's no such thing as an ACK packet. A TCP packet can have
data as well as the ack for data received.

I wouldn't say there's "no such thing". The people I work with
generally call a packet with the ACK bit set an "ACK". :-). And
if you examine the packets flying in and out during a web surfing
session, they usually don't contain any data.

The latency in the network is going to affect the retransmission
timer on the sending end. Delay is delay. It's not constant, but
it is cumulative.

I'll concede, though, that as long as the acknowledgement timing is
not highly variable, the window will stabilize and you'll get your
nominal throughput *for that particular HTTP request*. Another click
or a redirect and, presto, another delay. It all adds up.

Sorry to flog the dead horse... I'll shut up.

-Scott

"Pete Zaitcev" wrote in message
news
[...]
Solstices only knock communication off for several minutes a day,
when the Sun is directly behind the satellite. It is a well known
effect.

By the way, surely you and the others mean equinoxes, not solstices? During
a solstice, the sun is at its greatest deflection from the equator (and thus
a geostationary satellite), while during an equinox, the sun is directly
over the equator.

Not that it matters in the context of this discussion, since the downtime
still is present, regardless of what time during the year it happens.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" writes:

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
...
500ms ping time minimum... So count on lots of lag...

Unless you are playing online computer games, you would never notice the
lag.

Interactive logins (telnet, etc) would suck with such a lag.

-jav

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I have no idea why the solstices would have any effect on data
transmission.
Perhaps you could explain that one.


During solstices, or even within a few days, the elevation to the sun and
the satelite is nearly the same. As the sun transits across the sky, for a
period of time, your reciever, the satelite, and the sun are all nearly in
line. The sun; since it appears directly on the other side of the
transmitter, overcomes the transmitter signal with white noise (radiation)
--
Jim in NC--

Morgans wrote:


During solstices, or even within a few days, the elevation to the sun and
the satelite is nearly the same. As the sun transits across the sky, for a
period of time, your reciever, the satelite, and the sun are all nearly in
line. The sun; since it appears directly on the other side of the
transmitter, overcomes the transmitter signal with white noise (radiation)

Directv is unaffected. I have had my system for 7 years now. Not so
much as a hiccup excpet when there is a heavy wet snow. The snow sticks
to the feedhorn. Brush it off and the picture is back. I have turned
the TV on in a heavy downpour and checked signal strength, no change.
Always in the high 80's here.

Newps writes:

Morgans wrote:


During solstices, or even within a few days, the elevation to the sun and
the satelite is nearly the same. As the sun transits across the sky, for a
period of time, your reciever, the satelite, and the sun are all nearly in
line. The sun; since it appears directly on the other side of the
transmitter, overcomes the transmitter signal with white noise (radiation)

Directv is unaffected. I have had my system for 7 years now. Not so
much as a hiccup excpet when there is a heavy wet snow. The snow
sticks to the feedhorn. Brush it off and the picture is back. I have
turned the TV on in a heavy downpour and checked signal strength, no
change. Always in the high 80's here.

DirecTV and Dishnetwork are indeed affected. The affection lasts just
a few minutes twice a year. Check it at the next equinox, you will
see. The exact time varies with your location, I'm sure there's a web
page somewhere that will calculate the service-out time for your
lat/lon.

-jav

"Peter Duniho" writes:

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
. ..
500ms ping time minimum... So count on lots of lag...

Unless you are playing online computer games, you would never notice the
lag.

Call me on my Asterisk VoIP phone and let's talk about that.

Some don't network very well...

Not sure what that means.

Consumer satellite network systems have traditionally been closed. I
recall one (StarBand, I think) that had a USB interface but someone
figured out that it just went to a USB Ethernet adapter which would be
easily bypassed to get plain old Ethernet. Still, MS Windows is often
an official requirement and setting up a NATed network is not always
straightforward (because of special caching clients?).

None will work when it rains hard or the sun is in transit (summer /
winter
soltice)...

Why would you say that? The satellite data systems I've seen are based on
similar technology to that used for my digital broadcast satellite system.
At worst, data throughput drops *some*, and that's in the very worst
downpours.

The downlink is not as much of a problem as the uplink.

I have no idea why the solstices would have any effect on data transmission.
Perhaps you could explain that one.

Probably has something to do with naked people dancing in front of the
dish.

All end up with more customers than they can actually support (whether it
be
on the transponders, gateways or internet bandwidth)...

That may well be true. Though, of course, it happens with DSL and cable as
well.

Sure, but DSL and cable have comparatively huge data capacities. It
takes a tiny amount of usage to swamp a satellite uplink.

Make sure to check out some reviews of satellite services before jumping
in. Lots of people have gotten burned when they planned on using them
just like other high-speed services. (I'd still like to get one with a
folding antenna for plane camping someday.)

--kyler

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:52:58 -0500, Montblack wrote:

http://www.orderdsl.net/satellite.htm How well do these systems work?

2-way satellite "high speed" internet access.

Anyone with experience with these systems? Hidden costs?

Looks like a good $99 month solution - if it works.

Less than that, actually. Around here, lots of gas stations
use it to connect to their HQ. Perhaps they get discounts.

I do not have experience, but there are some obvious gotchas.
First, you must have USB, and you must have Windows (2K or XP).
Second, interactive traffic is a pain in the ass because
of the delay, so gaming is out. Neither are fatal for FBO
or a gas station, I suppose.

-- Pete