Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk's Next Mission: Internet Satellites

An anonymous reader writes: According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk is looking at a new project: smaller, cheaper satellites that can provide internet access for people all across the world. "Mr. Musk is working with Greg Wyler, a satellite-industry veteran and former Google Inc. executive, these people said. Mr. Wyler founded WorldVu Satellites Ltd., which controls a large block of radio spectrum. In talks with industry executives, Messrs. Musk and Wyler have discussed launching around 700 satellites, each weighing less than 250 pounds, the people said. That is about half the size of the smallest communications satellites now in commercial use. The satellite constellation would be 10 times the size of the largest current fleet, managed by Iridium Communications Inc. ... The smallest communications satellites now weigh under 500 pounds and cost several million dollars each. WorldVu hopes to bring the cost of manufacturing smaller models under $1 million, according to two people familiar with its plans."

74 comments

  1. Another Teledesic? by etudiant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Shades of Teledesic!
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic

    The idea is not new, the technology is probably better, especially for efficient solid state RF transmitters, success depends on the spectrum available and the money. Do note that one of the gotchas in satellite internet access is that it is not easy to for apartment dwellers to get an adequate signal, whereas rural users should rejoice, as they usually get left out by the wireline/cable providers..

    1. Re:Another Teledesic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back-in-the-Day, I knew of at least 5 different plans for the same "Internet in the Sky".

    2. Re:Another Teledesic? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Of note, high efficiency station-keeping engine technology has exploded in recent years, there's at least six cubesat kickstarter projects, mostly in the 2U-3U size which can at least partially get out of LEO on just a tiny, tiny amount of "fuel". Ion/electron propulsion has made huge advances in the last 15 years and is expected to bring the cost and size of communications satellites way, way down.
       
      Right now fuel + engines + station keeping makes up 50% or more of a communication's launch mass. With electric propulsion, station keeping will make up less than 10% of the satellite, which in turn means less fuel required to push that mass around.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  2. All very nice by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But I don't relish the possibility of something like this having a kill switch. We need an internet that nobody can interfere with, independent of the current business model, we also need the same for food, shelter, energy, and transportation, so I guess I'm barking up a tree without a paddle.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:All very nice by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      The internet is designed so that it's fault tolerant, and trying to build a network that nobody can interfere with is nearly impossible and not worth the effort.

      Regarding apartment dwellers, who cares? They're not the target market and they're already well served.

      The question is whether the internet-by-satellite folks are going to lose the race to provide ubiquitous broadband service to everybody as the ground based networks get built out, just like Motorola lost billions on Iridium.

    2. Re:All very nice by DevConcepts · · Score: 2

      But I don't relish the possibility of something like this having a kill switch.

      At anytime someone from ATT/ComCrap/Other/Drunk Driver/weather/NSA/CIA/ETC can turn your internet off by accident or on purpose.

      There is no such thing as interfere-less internet.

    3. Re:All very nice by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      It is not fault tolerant when you only have one provider selling the service. The seller has internet anywhere in the world now. We already have the tech. And we receive it via supply side economics. That is its single biggest point of failure. More money is spent on blocking the internet than building it. That is what we have to change.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:All very nice by DevConcepts · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is not fault tolerant when you only have one provider selling the service.

      So I should be paying multiple ISP's for redundant internet access at home?

    5. Re:All very nice by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, we need to do it differently. Ultimately it will be a neural mesh. The impediment is purely economic/political. There is no technical reason for anybody on the whole planet to be without internet right now. It is strictly business. In the meantime you should at least do what you can to prevent monopoly/duopoly contracts. You have to pry the market open to all comers, including the state where needed, like out in the sticks. But... I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Anyway, that's what I mean by 'one provider'.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:All very nice by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as interfere-less internet.

      That's why we have to make one!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re: All very nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes. Car analogy, please.

    8. Re: All very nice by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:All very nice by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Iridium ran out of money before they could get enough satellites up to make the service viable and lost billions. It was also very expensive compared to ground based networks so was only viable in isolated areas, giving them a very limited market. But post bankruptcy is still operational and will start launching it's next generation of satellites (with better data capacity) next year. Elon Musk's SpaceX has been contracted to launch the satellites. Now, twenty years later it is a viable business.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    10. Re:All very nice by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Iridium had the foresight or luck to get the US Military addicted to it. They have essentially floated it along until it has (sort of) become a viable proposition. Furthermore, the original debt incurred by Iridium has been retired in at least two bankruptcies. The new Iridium managed to get a nice bargain.

      Not a very straightforward business model....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:All very nice by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Even an amateur radio operator mesh network (which exists in places at the moment) would be subject to interference at practical levels. Just because a packet can go somewhere doesn't mean it's a useful communication system. You want it to go where you want it to go. If Nasty Government blocks a mesh network via jamming in a few key cities, then it makes little difference to those in the cities if those packets are visible in Peoria.

      The exception, I suppose, would be Netflix. However, if and when the shit hits the fan, reruns of World War Z won't have the same cachet.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:All very nice by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Even an amateur radio operator mesh network (which exists in places at the moment) would be subject to interference at practical levels.

      Yes, I know all that. We live in primitive times. So, then we need to learn to use their jamming signal as our carrier, turning it into a repeater. Mix your signal with theirs(heterodyne) and modulate that frequency... Exploit the plain old sidebands maybe. You can modulate any noise to carry a message if you time your pings right, I would hope... Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but it seems to me we can get anything, whether it was intended to or not, to carry a message, with throughput and latency being the major hurdles to overcome.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:All very nice by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      No, Irridium's failure was in that they had an extremely low bandwidth design initially, when other higher bandwidth options were becoming available for the majority of applications, at substantially lower costs. Adding to the challenge is the fact that upgrades are harder.

      A new generation can be planned out as needing to eventually compete with gigabit networks. $700MM For a constellation (plus launch and ground facilities of course) might make it possible to refine the design and do faster upgrades if warranted.

    14. Re:All very nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying Mr. Universe was right?
      "You can't stop the signal, Mal."

    15. Re:All very nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strange comment to make on an article announcing the possible *addition* of a provider.

    16. Re:All very nice by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It was only viable in the sense that it generated positive cash flow. They never paid off their creditors.

    17. Re:All very nice by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Your drunk driver scenario would depend on the driver crashing into a local distribution box, where the teleco's network backbone gets multiplexed into copper pairs for the "last mile". Most of the time, taking out a telegraph pole with a cable on it wouldn't take out the associated distribution box if it has a feed from another distribution box. Whether they're arranged in a star network, or a mesh is probably a local choice, but a relatively small amount of cross-linking greatly improves fault tolerance.

      Of course, if the drunk driver takes out your "last mile" of copper, then your line is fucked, and possibly a couple of your neighbours. But not many more. However, even then, in dense areas (where most drunk drivers and consumers are, there's also a good chance of a sufficiently good mobile phone signal to work with, and you should be able to pass the costs back to the landline company for the loss of service. Who'll then pass it onto the driver's insurance company. And insurance rates go up again - oh dear, what a pity, never mind.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. A global network of high-latency torrent servers by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    We're going to need this to get around Hollywood's increasingly weird hash of restrictions on streamed content. Let's see now: one network we can stream TV episodes from the day after air, another network that makes us wait a week, another network with certain shows mysteriously missing, another network whose commercial always freeze and require an app restart, and all those networks that let you stream so long as your cable company is one of their three Verify Your Provider choices.

    If Musk doesn't build this network, Pirate Bay will.

  4. How long by penguinoid · · Score: 0

    Soon (if not already) individuals will be able to afford their own personal spy satellites.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  5. 90's are calling by amightywind · · Score: 0

    The 90's are calling. They want their failed ideas back. Did anyone ever tell Musk that the only reason that Iridium operates at all is because the assets were bought out of bankrupcy for pennies on the dollar? It wasn't so good for Motorola Space, which no longer exists. Still, it might be a good way for Musk to get more government subsidies.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:90's are calling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To become a space millionaire one simply starts as a billionaire.

    2. Re:90's are calling by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Iridium didn't have enough bandwidth to work for data, for any commercial pursuits. Satellite Internet is a growing industry. Doing satellite data better than the other guys would be a winning plan. Iridium didn't do satellite data. Just voice, and even that wasn't that good (no coverage in cities, the tall buildings block signal, no coverage indoors or heavy canopy). Great for a handset in the middle of the flat desert. Thankfully, the military needed that, so they kept afloat, after writing off the debt.

  6. Just a hint of musk by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The people familiar with the matter cautioned the venture is in its formative stages, and Mr. Musk's participation isn't certain.

    Maybe, but dropping his rather formidable name into a venture produces instant positive reception.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  7. Re:A global network of high-latency torrent server by BenJeremy · · Score: 2

    High latency is right. Back around 1999 I got sick of waiting for Charter to flip the switch on broadband and got Echostar/Dish 2-way. My ping times were around 800ms for the trip to satellites 22,000 miles out. Luckily, I only had to deal with it for a year.

    Cranking up a multiplayer game of Serious Sam with my son on our LAN was funny though... the games would appear on the internet, and people would try and join. Satellite wasn't conducive to multiplayer games, for sure.

  8. I wish them every success by John.Banister · · Score: 2

    I hope this works well for them, and I can buy access to the service several years from now. If the satellites pass messages directly to each other and could relay messages between two customers on the ground with the only centralized communications occurring in orbit, then it seems to me that it could be more challenging for organizations like the NSA to get in the middle of large numbers of those user communications simultaneously.

    1. Re:I wish them every success by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      If they start building these, you can rest assured that at least half the engineers working on the project will be on the NSA payroll.

    2. Re:I wish them every success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, they just have to park another satelite they control in the vicinity to capture the same signal, like they allready do with the middle-eastern ones.

    3. Re:I wish them every success by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the NSA would pay. If they plan for this in advance, it might provide for significant savings.

    4. Re:I wish them every success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      recent orbital tech is about LOS Lasercoms. trying to intercept satellite coms that use this is like trying to find waldo in the cistine chapel while looking through a drinking straw.

  9. Re:A global network of high-latency torrent server by del_diablo · · Score: 1

    Yeah, ping is a issue. A very large one. And if this goes on ahead, its going to be the nr 1 issue. Now, it would not surprise me that the bandwidth could be good, but even then, ping is a big issue.

  10. Re:A global network of high-latency torrent server by Thagg · · Score: 5, Informative

    These will not be high latency. If you have 700 satellites more-or-less evenly distributed around the globe (say from 60S to 60N latitude) and you want a minimum of 45 degree elevation to the nearest satellite, they can be lower than 400 miles altitude, or 600 miles away. Assuming that the system will bounce signals from the satellites to a distributed network of fiber connected ground stations, latency should only be 10ms more than a pure cable transmissions.

    Previous satellite internet to geosynchronous satellites are nothing like this.

    I agree with other commenters that this is pretty unlikely, but SpaceX and Tesla were quite unlikely to succeed as well.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  11. Re:A global network of high-latency torrent server by d0ran$ · · Score: 1

    Replying to undo accidental moderation.

  12. astronomers might not like this. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure these will be smaller than the Irridium satellites, but I have to wonder about satellite flare . Irridium satellites can ruin long exposure images. But there are only 66 of those. I have to wonder what 700 birds are going to do. Even at a much lower magnitude, they could show up in long exposure images very easily.

    1. Re:astronomers might not like this. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      What if you put a large, flat solar panel such that the rest of the satellite is permanently in the shade? Also, make the edges super black. Then all the light gets reflected back toward the sun. It could still occasionally flare, if the panels are aimed slightly towards the earth or aren't smooth, but that could be solved by aiming the panels slightly away from earth. (Or, of course, we could let the astronomers worry about it -- they are predictable after all)

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:astronomers might not like this. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Photoshop.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:astronomers might not like this. by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      Kappa-sigma stacking is your friend...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  13. Re:A global network of high-latency torrent server by smaddox · · Score: 2

    Free space communications also have the advantage of a group velocity of c, rather than c / 1.5. This may not seem like much a difference, but it's enough that there is a considerable amount of research going into air-core fiber (although air-core is also promising for high power due to lower non-linearity).

  14. Hmm, don't see it working by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    If you put them in geosynchronous, you're stuck trying to pull head shots off with 2 second ping times. Doesn't matter how good your auto-aim is, that's just not going to work. If you put them lower, you'd need a satellite-tracking antenna. Actually you'd probably want at least TWO satellite-tracking antennas and you'd have to dick around with the protocol so that acquiring a new bird when the old one goes behind the horizon doesn't screw up that head shot you're lining up. Long story short, satellite internet is going to screw up your head shots, and that's why Google is laying fiber instead of launching satellites. OK, they're launching satellites TOO, just not for that.

    I bet you could put together a software satellite simulator to test your design for significantly less than what it'd cost to launch one satellite. The math to describe an orbit isn't particularly hard -- it's basically just trig. Put a couple dozen fake birds in fake orbit, set up your fake antennas on the ground and start pushing fake packets between them. No sense in building a rocket if that tells you it's not going to work.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Hmm, don't see it working by Hodr · · Score: 2

      I think the point of having 700 satellites is that you will always have at two within line of sight (obstacles not withstanding). So you could possibly get away with two non-tracking dishes. Or, given that these are LEO there may be more than enough signal strength to make beam steering flat antennas more practical (like the Kymeta antenna). They work with MEO, but typically need to be rather large to get decent gain. With LEO they may work great.

    2. Re:Hmm, don't see it working by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, read up on the Iridium system, which already exists. You don't need satellite tracking, you can use an omnidirectional antenna to communicate with low earth orbit. You just need more power.

      That said, Iridium ping times are horrible, but that's more a function of 1980s technology than the speed of light or information theory.

    3. Re:Hmm, don't see it working by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. LEO uses omnis on the ground, no tracking, no second antenna. Works more like a GPS receiver, but 2-way.

    4. Re:Hmm, don't see it working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phased array domes will be handy for LEO birds. Also, a more intelligent handshake protocol will help.

    5. Re:Hmm, don't see it working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not link the 700 satellites with ground work on earth (fiber; ISPs) so you don't have to worry about "behind-the-horizon" problems...But you will have to worry about collisions with space junk. (need some sort of magnet field to bounce off incoming objects)

  15. Trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I like about the projects elon does, is that they generally just take expensive existing tech and make it cheaper so the masses can benefit from it. Compare this to many companies now that simply try to carve out a monopoly position through unproductive business practices or make luxuries for rich people. I hope others follow his lead. We need more companies pushing progress rather than playing legal and accounting games.

  16. Uplink? by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

    An array of satellites will provide a very nice downlink. Now how do you do the uplink?

    Current satellite internet does it two ways: one, by standard old telephone modem. I suppose you could do it by wireless phone as well, but the basic problem is the same - very low bandwidth. The other way is by a microwave transmitter - which requires professional installation, and is a highly dangerous thing to have in a consumer environment. (Jack goes on the roof to fix a loose shingle while Jill is shopping online... and hey presto, Jack and Jill aren't having kids).

    1. Re:Uplink? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three ways, actually. Bi-directional communication exists using the same receiver for transmission and is usually professionally installed.

    2. Re:Uplink? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Cell phones have uplinks. Do you have those problems with them? No? Satellite doesn't either. Iridium works just fine without killing people.

  17. Same problem as Iridium by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Informative

    This suffers from the same problems that Iridium had:
    * The people in the world with money to buy this already have good Internet access.
    * The system doesn't work until it's global: you need to pay for the entire system before you get customers.

    Land-based networks can build out a region at a time, starting in the wealthiest areas, creating paying customers who provide the capital for the next phase of expansion. Satellite systems are egalitarian, which sounds nice but is a problem: if you need 700 satellites to cover the globe but can only afford 350, you get global coverage that only works half the time, which nobody wants to pay for. And you have to set your asking price lower than what the poorest community that can't afford cell service can pay, which is a very low limbo bar to get under, and getting lower all the time.

    1. Re:Same problem as Iridium by irq-1 · · Score: 0

      The system doesn't work until it's global

      What? They can start with 1 satellite over a wealthy area... or 10, or 100. Global coverage is a very rare concern. Most people care if their home is covered.

      The challenges are collecting payment under a huge variety of legal and tax systems, and charging a cheap enough rate in poor areas.

    2. Re:Same problem as Iridium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, do you know and understand the difference between a geostationary satellite and a LEO (Low Earth Orbiting) Satellite?

      Research those two concepts and then explain how "They can start with 1 satellite over a wealthy area"...

    3. Re: Same problem as Iridium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These satellites are orbiting. You can't just park a low earth orbit satellite over a region. You can park a satellite over a region at geosync orbit, but you have the serious downsides of massive latency, a limited number of orbital slots, and expensive transport (it takes a large rocket to get the satellite out there, and then the spacecrafts own boosters to widen the orbit from geosync transitional to true geosync).

    4. Re:Same problem as Iridium by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      You might be underestimating the cost benefit ratio for wireline service. Incremental cost to provide service to a customer in the coverage area with fiber ranges from $700-10,000. For satellite you are looking at $300-500 worst-case, anywhere in the world (you are able to provide service).

      The advantage of wireline (especially fiber) is you can realistically recapture your investment over 20-50 years. Satellite is more like 5-10 years.

    5. Re:Same problem as Iridium by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      No doubt fiber is expensive, but what's the incremental cost to provide *cell* service? There's a reason many third-world countries are skipping wireline service altogether. Sure, a cell link can't compete with fiber for speed, but then neither can the satellite. The correct comparison is between satellite and cell, not fiber.

  18. Re: A global network of high-latency torrent serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LEO satellites, like these are progressed to be have very, very little latency. GEO satellites are so far out that's a big problem, but the latency on these is only a couple hundred miles. Depending upon route, you can sometimes get lower coast to coast pings than terrestrial.

  19. Cool by koan · · Score: 1

    Focus on the launch platform, get that cheap and you own the World.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  20. 3M per satellite in orbit is a very low cost. by QuebecNerd · · Score: 1

    Their Falcon Heavy launcher would be able to launch more than 50 of those in one shot bring the launch cost at just under 2M per bird witch is quite cheap.

  21. Ever use sat internet? by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Good for movies (except bandwidth is REALLY expensive) and the ping times to space and back make ssh unusable.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
    1. Re:Ever use sat internet? by QuebecNerd · · Score: 1

      Internet satellite usually come from a single Geosynchronous satellite which is located at a 42,000km orbit. At the speed of light it take 280 msec to cross that distance back and forth and you can add some more delays for the earth network time. This delay doesn't affect streaming or downloads but it will affect lag sensitive operations like ssh, gaming, vpn, voip, etc.

      The proposed 700 sat network will most likely be in low earth orbit like the iridium satellites at around 750km. At that altitude, the delay becomes 5 msec which is more than reasonable.

  22. Re:Boycott Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't understand the cult of personality around this near-convicted pervert and sex offender. This guy shouldn't be given more attention.

    Sex offender? I think you've confused Elon Musk with someone else.

  23. enslavement of the poor by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2

    well, we live in a ridiculous time in history where some people can actually make money shooting things into space, or providing internet to people groups that any other sane superpower would have handily enslaved for their laborious productivity (IMF is close but not nearly physically painful enough).

    If anyone can do it, it'll be Musk. He does what he Musk, because, he can...for the good of all of us.

    Except the ones who are dead.
    But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
    You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
    And the Science gets done.
    And you make a neat gun.
    For the people who are still alive.
    I'm not even angry.
    I'm being so sincere right now.
    Even though you broke my heart.
    And killed me.
    And tore me to pieces.
    And threw every piece into a fire.
    As they burned it hurt because I was so happy for you!
    Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
    And we're out of beta.
    We're releasing on time.
    So I'm GLaD. I got burned.
    Think of all the things we learned
    for the people who are still alive.
    Go ahead and leave me.
    I think I prefer to stay inside.
    Maybe you'll find someone else to help you.
    Maybe Black Mesa
    THAT WAS A JOKE.
    HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
    Anyway, this cake is great.
    It's so delicious and moist.
    Look at me still talking
    when there's Science to do.
    When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I'm not you.
    I've experiments to run.
    There is research to be done.
    On the people who are still alive.
    And believe me I am still alive.
    I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    I feel FANTASTIC and I'm still alive.
    While you're dying I'll be still alive.
    And when you're dead I will be still alive.
    STILL ALIVE

    what?
    oh, that must have been the beer...

    1. Re: enslavement of the poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Some people' don't make money from shooting stuff up. They make it because a media campaign successfully convinced them NASA cannot do it. The mental recovery may begin when China shows why the ensemble of various Musks can't really compete with a government dedicated to space development.

  24. enough from lunatic Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His ideas are always lunacy/fringe. Ready to see some new ideas from more sane people.

  25. IPv6 by corychristison · · Score: 1

    As long as it's got IPv6 built in.

    I don't understand why I still cannot get native IPv6 at home. I can tunnel it, sure, but that's a pain in the ass.

    I have a /64 IPv6 block from my datacenter. Why can't I get one at home?

  26. You are probably thinking of Assange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiot.

  27. Re:A global network of high-latency torrent server by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    That's why these and others like it are LEO. The latency is not much different from DSL.

  28. Re:A global network of high-latency torrent server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LEO vs GEO

    with LEO, the ping is in the mid 100s. Kind of meh for twitch fighters but FPSes with good netcode it is doable.