Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 12/Jul/20 14:00, Paul Nash wrote:

> Not quite VSAT, but in the bad old SA days (pre-demicracy), I did some work 
> for a company that used a UK-based satellite provider for data to the client 
> (data was sent in the VBI), and dial-up for the traffic from the client.
>
> Still relied on a local provider for the dial-up, though, so could be 
> censored.

Yes, in these scenarios, we called the uplink the "back-channel" :-).
And it could be anything, including dial-up.

It was not uncommon to buy uplink via SCPC from one provider, and
downlink via DVB on an inclined orbit satellite from a totally different
provider. This was a very common model between 2000 - 2009, where your
uplink and downlink ISP's were vastly different.

And who says the Internet must be symmetric :-)?

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Paul Nash]

Not quite VSAT, but in the bad old SA days (pre-demicracy), I did some work for 
a company that used a UK-based satellite provider for data to the client (data 
was sent in the VBI), and dial-up for the traffic from the client.

Still relied on a local provider for the dial-up, though, so could be censored.

Before TICSA, I also looked at buying a private (pirate) satellite earth 
station.  The Russian government were selling off surplus 8-wheel-drive 
military satellite earth stations, and I was thinking of parking one in my back 
garden (I lived on a farm).

paul

> On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/Jul/20 17:51, Joel M Snyder wrote:
> 
>> Oh man I wish that were wholly true... Satellite/VSAT has another very
>> very important attribute: it's not subject to the whims of the local
>> government or regulators.  So when there's an election or some unrest or
>> coup or the prime minister has very bad flatulence, and some person says
>> "turn off the Internet," your non-terrestrial connection is there so
>> that you can continue to do business.
> 
> Very true, except there are still a few countries that require a single
> operator to have all "gateway" access out of the country, even via
> satellite. So yes, install, for sure. But if someone does the rounds and
> catches an "unlicensed" installation, that could be interesting.
> 
> 
>> (Plus, there are also still many places outside of capital cities in the
>> world where the Internet is truly awful and if you want bits, you have
>> to bring your own)
> 
> I did mention that use-case, already, in a previous post.
> 
> Simple applications such as ATM's in remote locations is still quite
> typical.
> 
> Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Jul/20 10:50, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> With common Ku band TVRO (receive only) dishes and decoders, one of
> the constraints for moving to higher bitrates is the physical sizes of
> the customer dish and economics.
>
> For a good example go to a very densely populated developing nation
> environment. Saddar, central Rawalpindi, Pakistan would be one such
> place. Get up on a tall roof and look at the numerous low cost Ku dish
> and LNB setups on other roofs.
>
> Achievable bps/Hz and modulation type, code rates, and type of FEC are
> very limited when the antenna has to be so small. Usually something
> like qpsk 3/4. In order to have something like a 4k stream and not
> require end users to replace their 75-100cm size dishes with something
> much bigger, you'd need to use a lot more MHz on the geostationary
> satellite's transponder. Greatly increasing monthly transponder fees
> for the tv broadcaster. Any sort of modulation like 8PSK or a 16QAM is
> probably not achievable as long as the end user consumer antennas
> remain so small.
>
> For people who are accustomed to a terrestrial microwave link budget
> and path loss, Geostationary will seem weird. For SCPC two way data
> links you can spend a lot of money and construct 3.8-4.5m size earth
> stations, definitely a construction project with a capital P, but the
> laws of physics will dictate your link sees only 4 bps/Hz or less.
> Even with the very best modems on the market now. 
>
> Ultimately advances in codecs may help this somewhat. 4k AV1 at fairly
> low bitrates is remarkably not terrible. H.266 was just standardized.
> It'll take a long time for full hardware decode to show up in ultra
> low cost satellite TV boxes.

When the leading satellite TV provider in Africa first started
delivering service via satellite back in 1997, it was on C-Band, with
the smallest dish needing to be 2.4m.

When they moved to Ku-Band around 2010, every home now has 90cm dishes.
While they do say 60cm dishes are viable, you won't be able to pick up
any HD service with those.

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Eric Kuhnke]

With common Ku band TVRO (receive only) dishes and decoders, one of the
constraints for moving to higher bitrates is the physical sizes of the
customer dish and economics.

For a good example go to a very densely populated developing nation
environment. Saddar, central Rawalpindi, Pakistan would be one such place.
Get up on a tall roof and look at the numerous low cost Ku dish and LNB
setups on other roofs.

Achievable bps/Hz and modulation type, code rates, and type of FEC are very
limited when the antenna has to be so small. Usually something like qpsk
3/4. In order to have something like a 4k stream and not require end users
to replace their 75-100cm size dishes with something much bigger, you'd
need to use a lot more MHz on the geostationary satellite's transponder.
Greatly increasing monthly transponder fees for the tv broadcaster. Any
sort of modulation like 8PSK or a 16QAM is probably not achievable as long
as the end user consumer antennas remain so small.

For people who are accustomed to a terrestrial microwave link budget and
path loss, Geostationary will seem weird. For SCPC two way data links you
can spend a lot of money and construct 3.8-4.5m size earth stations,
definitely a construction project with a capital P, but the laws of physics
will dictate your link sees only 4 bps/Hz or less. Even with the very best
modems on the market now.

Ultimately advances in codecs may help this somewhat. 4k AV1 at fairly low
bitrates is remarkably not terrible. H.266 was just standardized. It'll
take a long time for full hardware decode to show up in ultra low cost
satellite TV boxes.






On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 9:01 AM Christopher Munz-Michielin <
christop...@ve7alb.ca> wrote:

> > On 09/07/2020 08:00, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > So is there a reason why we are not seeing widespread 1080p TV via
> > satellite? They seem to exist where a broadcaster also supports an IPTV
> > platform.
> >
> > Mark.
> I'd assume it's a question of available bandwidth and availability of
> decoders.  From my observations most HD satellite feeds seem to sit
> between 3 and 5 mbps, a typical Ku band transponder might have a
> bandwidth of around 20-25mbps.  This means you can cram 5-8 HD feeds
> onto a single transponder.  With 4K streams the bandwidth requirements
> double, meaning you can cram a lot less in the same amount of
> transponder space and satellite bandwidth is expensive!
>
> The other issue is on the decoder side.  Right now, the vast majority of
> satellite subscribers receive programming though dedicated decoders (set
> top boxes).  Most of these decoders only have hardware to decode MPEG2
> and H.264 video, while 4K stuff is almost exclusively H.265.   That
> means it's not a simple matter of turning on 4K, you'd have to arrange
> to send new decoders to all your subscribers wanting to receive 4K.
>
> As time moves along, I'm sure we'll start to see more satellite feeds
> available in 4K but like the transition to HD video, it'll be a slow
> process.
>
> Chris
>
>

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Jul/20 22:49, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> We should also use IP even over radio waves. IP over MPEG2-TS
> over DVB (or terrestrial broadcast network) is doable though
> IP directly over DVB should be better.

Well, when we moved over from traditional satellites to inclined orbit
satellites back in 2000 across most of Africa, IP was carried directly
over DVB for downlink traffic. The uplink traffic still required regular
SCPC modems.

We had to use a DVB decoder reconfigured for IP carriage (rather than
video) to decode the DVB stream (via a unique key, since DVB is a
Multicast-type medium) and pass the IP packets over to your router.

So yes, this technology does exist, and is way cheaper than SCPC in the
downlink direction.


>
> Unicast video over satellite link costs a lot.

Which is my point, and makes me wonder whether we shall ever see 1080p
or greater via satellite, en masse.

DVB, however, is more Multicast-y. So technically, you aren't unicasting
video over DVB, which is what a number of satellite TV providers are
using to deliver their services.

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Masataka Ohta]

Mark Tinka wrote:


It's just that with more and more stuff being loaded on to IP (not to
mention, good ol' IPTV),


Good.


does it make sense for broadcasters to upgrade
satellite infrastructure and decoders to support 1080p, 4K, 8K, 16K,
e.t.c., when all you need is an app and an Internet connection for the
very same (if not better) quality?


There is a jump of logic.

First, we should have STBes to generate not decoded video
signal over HDMI but encoded video over IP over Ethernet.

Though IP packets may be carried to anywhere, which makes
regional restrictions meaningless, (re-encoded) decoded
video can be carried by IP anyway.

We should also use IP even over radio waves. IP over MPEG2-TS
over DVB (or terrestrial broadcast network) is doable though
IP directly over DVB should be better.


Not to mention, considerations for eyeball time in the fight between the
linear TV and VoD?


Unicast video over satellite link costs a lot.

Masataka Ohta

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

Proprietary startups for M2M in most of cases bad idea, especially if 
they require

custom hardware (those operate in VHF band).
And with such history: >

https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2019/10/18/swarm-receives-fcc-approval-to-launch-150-satellites/

Here is example, Sigfox in UK seems powered by startup, and startup went 
defunct:

https://twitter.com/cybergibbons/status/1280892048787243008

And my own experience, if you embed in your design proprietary modem, it 
will be very pricey to replace it,

if startup fail to reach profit margin.
I rather will trust technologies based on open standards, like FossaSat 
or Lacuna,
often they are built with terrestrial fallback, and in fact you can 
build your own gateways, if required.
And more than that, some modules, like Murata, support both Sigfox + 
LoRaWAN, and technically possible
to support LoRa satellites as well at same time, without significant 
hardware mods.


On 2020-07-09 05:56, Mike Lyon wrote:

For the IoT/M2M stuff that doesn’t require huge amounts of data,
there is  a Silicon Valley startup that is deploying cube sats for
just that.

Swarm Technologies

https://www.swarm.space/

-Mike

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Jul/20 18:00, Christopher Munz-Michielin wrote:
 
> I'd assume it's a question of available bandwidth and availability of
> decoders.  From my observations most HD satellite feeds seem to sit
> between 3 and 5 mbps, a typical Ku band transponder might have a
> bandwidth of around 20-25mbps.  This means you can cram 5-8 HD feeds
> onto a single transponder.  With 4K streams the bandwidth requirements
> double, meaning you can cram a lot less in the same amount of
> transponder space and satellite bandwidth is expensive!
>
> The other issue is on the decoder side.  Right now, the vast majority
> of satellite subscribers receive programming though dedicated decoders
> (set top boxes).  Most of these decoders only have hardware to decode
> MPEG2 and H.264 video, while 4K stuff is almost exclusively H.265.  
> That means it's not a simple matter of turning on 4K, you'd have to
> arrange to send new decoders to all your subscribers wanting to
> receive 4K.
>
> As time moves along, I'm sure we'll start to see more satellite feeds
> available in 4K but like the transition to HD video, it'll be a slow
> process.

The above are all the reasons I've been positing as well.

It's just that with more and more stuff being loaded on to IP (not to
mention, good ol' IPTV), does it make sense for broadcasters to upgrade
satellite infrastructure and decoders to support 1080p, 4K, 8K, 16K,
e.t.c., when all you need is an app and an Internet connection for the
very same (if not better) quality?

Not to mention, considerations for eyeball time in the fight between the
linear TV and VoD?

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Jul/20 17:51, Joel M Snyder wrote:

> Oh man I wish that were wholly true... Satellite/VSAT has another very
> very important attribute: it's not subject to the whims of the local
> government or regulators.  So when there's an election or some unrest or
> coup or the prime minister has very bad flatulence, and some person says
> "turn off the Internet," your non-terrestrial connection is there so
> that you can continue to do business.

Very true, except there are still a few countries that require a single
operator to have all "gateway" access out of the country, even via
satellite. So yes, install, for sure. But if someone does the rounds and
catches an "unlicensed" installation, that could be interesting.


> (Plus, there are also still many places outside of capital cities in the
> world where the Internet is truly awful and if you want bits, you have
> to bring your own)

I did mention that use-case, already, in a previous post.

Simple applications such as ATM's in remote locations is still quite
typical.

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Christopher Munz-Michielin]

On 09/07/2020 08:00, Mark Tinka wrote:
So is there a reason why we are not seeing widespread 1080p TV via
satellite? They seem to exist where a broadcaster also supports an IPTV
platform.

Mark.
I'd assume it's a question of available bandwidth and availability of 
decoders.  From my observations most HD satellite feeds seem to sit 
between 3 and 5 mbps, a typical Ku band transponder might have a 
bandwidth of around 20-25mbps.  This means you can cram 5-8 HD feeds 
onto a single transponder.  With 4K streams the bandwidth requirements 
double, meaning you can cram a lot less in the same amount of 
transponder space and satellite bandwidth is expensive!


The other issue is on the decoder side.  Right now, the vast majority of 
satellite subscribers receive programming though dedicated decoders (set 
top boxes).  Most of these decoders only have hardware to decode MPEG2 
and H.264 video, while 4K stuff is almost exclusively H.265.   That 
means it's not a simple matter of turning on 4K, you'd have to arrange 
to send new decoders to all your subscribers wanting to receive 4K.


As time moves along, I'm sure we'll start to see more satellite feeds 
available in 4K but like the transition to HD video, it'll be a slow 
process.


Chris

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Joel M Snyder]

On Jul 8, 2020, at 3:05 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:

>Satellite earth stations are not irrelevant, however. They still do get
>used to provide satellite-based TV services, and can also be used for
>media houses who need to hook up to their network to broadcast video
>when reporting in the region (even though uploading a raw file back
>home over the Internet is where the tech. has now gone).

Oh man I wish that were wholly true... Satellite/VSAT has another very
very important attribute: it's not subject to the whims of the local
government or regulators.  So when there's an election or some unrest or
coup or the prime minister has very bad flatulence, and some person says
"turn off the Internet," your non-terrestrial connection is there so
that you can continue to do business.

Right now I'm in the middle of a project installing more than 300 VSATs,
replacing an incumbent provider, and the rationale for all that money
and all that equipment and all that work is "the bits must flow."

(Plus, there are also still many places outside of capital cities in the
world where the Internet is truly awful and if you want bits, you have
to bring your own)

jms

-- 
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One   Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Jul/20 16:51, Christopher Munz-Michielin wrote:
>
> There are a few 4K test streams.  NASA TV is one:
>
> https://www.lyngsat.com/tvchannels/us/NASA-TV-UHD.html
>
> I just piped it into ffmpeg and the NASA TV feed runs 10-15mbps, H.265
> encoding at a resolution of 3840x2160.  So definitely possible to push
> greater then 1080 video.

So is there a reason why we are not seeing widespread 1080p TV via
satellite? They seem to exist where a broadcaster also supports an IPTV
platform.

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Christopher Munz-Michielin]

On 09/07/2020 05:34, Mark Tinka wrote:

Does anyone know of (m)any satellite TV services delivering 1080p or
greater? The most I've seen on our side of the rock is 1080i.

If there is an inherent commercial restriction in how many pixels we can
grab over satellite at scale, it might be tricky for some markets that
demand 1080p, 4K, or greater, for linear TV.

Mark.


There are a few 4K test streams.  NASA TV is one:

https://www.lyngsat.com/tvchannels/us/NASA-TV-UHD.html

I just piped it into ffmpeg and the NASA TV feed runs 10-15mbps, H.265 
encoding at a resolution of 3840x2160.  So definitely possible to push 
greater then 1080 video.


Chris

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Jul/20 04:47, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:

>  
> I don't think traditional satellites have much future as backbone.
> Only as broadcasting media.

Does anyone know of (m)any satellite TV services delivering 1080p or
greater? The most I've seen on our side of the rock is 1080i.

If there is an inherent commercial restriction in how many pixels we can
grab over satellite at scale, it might be tricky for some markets that
demand 1080p, 4K, or greater, for linear TV.

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mike Lyon]

For the IoT/M2M stuff that doesn’t require huge amounts of data, there is  a 
Silicon Valley startup that is deploying cube sats for just that.

Swarm Technologies

https://www.swarm.space/

-Mike

> On Jul 8, 2020, at 19:49, Denys Fedoryshchenko  
> wrote:
> 
> On 2020-07-08 10:05, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>> On 7/Jul/20 21:58, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>> Watching the growth of terrestrial fiber (and PTP microwave) networks
>>> going inland from the west and east African coasts has been
>>> interesting. There's a big old C-band earth station on the hill above
>>> Freetown, Sierra Leone that was previously the capital's only link to
>>> the outside world. Obsoleted for some years now thanks to the
>>> submarine cable and landing station. I imagine they might keep things
>>> live as a backup path with a small C-band transponder MHz commit and
>>> SCPC modems linked to an earth station somewhere in Europe, but not
>>> with very much capacity or monthly cost.
>>> The landing station in Mogadishu had a similar effect.
>> The early years of submarine fibre in Africa always had satellite as a
>> backup. In fact, many satellite companies that served Africa with
>> Internet prior to submarine fibre were banking on subsea and terrestrial
>> failures to remain relevant. It worked between 2009 - 2013, when
>> terrestrial builds and operation had plenty of teething problems. Those
>> companies have since either disappeared or moved their services over to
>> fibre as well.
>> In that time, it has simply become impossible to have any backup
>> capacity on satellite anymore. There is too much active fibre bandwidth
>> being carried around and out of/into Africa for any satellite system to
>> make sense. Rather, diversifying terrestrial and submarine capacity is
>> the answer, and that is growing quite well.
>> Plenty of new cable systems that are launching this year, next year and
>> the next 3 years. At the moment, one would say there is sufficient
>> submarine capacity to keep the continent going in case of a major subsea
>> cut (like we saw in January when both the WACS and SAT-3 cables got cut
>> at the same time, and were out for over a month).
>> Satellite earth stations are not irrelevant, however. They still do get
>> used to provide satellite-based TV services, and can also be used for
>> media houses who need to hook up to their network to broadcast video
>> when reporting in the region (even though uploading a raw file back home
>> over the Internet is where the tech. has now gone).
>> Mark.
> 
> I don't think traditional satellites have much future as backbone. Only as 
> broadcasting media.
> Most are still acting as dumb RF converters, but we can't expect much more 
> from them.
> On geostationary orbit, it is not only expensive to bring each additional kg, 
> but also they
> need to keep it simple as possible, as it is all above van allen belt, and it 
> needs to run there
> without any maintenance for 7+ years.
> So if SpaceX managed to squeeze in their satellites at least basic processing 
> (and seems they did),
> it will improve satellite capabilities (and competitiveness) greatly.
> The only thing i hope, if they had space for some M2M IoT stuff, similar to 
> ORBCOMM.
> 

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

On 2020-07-08 10:05, Mark Tinka wrote:

On 7/Jul/20 21:58, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Watching the growth of terrestrial fiber (and PTP microwave) networks
going inland from the west and east African coasts has been
interesting. There's a big old C-band earth station on the hill above
Freetown, Sierra Leone that was previously the capital's only link to
the outside world. Obsoleted for some years now thanks to the
submarine cable and landing station. I imagine they might keep things
live as a backup path with a small C-band transponder MHz commit and
SCPC modems linked to an earth station somewhere in Europe, but not
with very much capacity or monthly cost.

The landing station in Mogadishu had a similar effect.


The early years of submarine fibre in Africa always had satellite as a
backup. In fact, many satellite companies that served Africa with
Internet prior to submarine fibre were banking on subsea and 
terrestrial

failures to remain relevant. It worked between 2009 - 2013, when
terrestrial builds and operation had plenty of teething problems. Those
companies have since either disappeared or moved their services over to
fibre as well.

In that time, it has simply become impossible to have any backup
capacity on satellite anymore. There is too much active fibre bandwidth
being carried around and out of/into Africa for any satellite system to
make sense. Rather, diversifying terrestrial and submarine capacity is
the answer, and that is growing quite well.

Plenty of new cable systems that are launching this year, next year and
the next 3 years. At the moment, one would say there is sufficient
submarine capacity to keep the continent going in case of a major 
subsea

cut (like we saw in January when both the WACS and SAT-3 cables got cut
at the same time, and were out for over a month).

Satellite earth stations are not irrelevant, however. They still do get
used to provide satellite-based TV services, and can also be used for
media houses who need to hook up to their network to broadcast video
when reporting in the region (even though uploading a raw file back 
home

over the Internet is where the tech. has now gone).

Mark.


I don't think traditional satellites have much future as backbone. Only 
as broadcasting media.
Most are still acting as dumb RF converters, but we can't expect much 
more from them.
On geostationary orbit, it is not only expensive to bring each 
additional kg, but also they
need to keep it simple as possible, as it is all above van allen belt, 
and it needs to run there

without any maintenance for 7+ years.
So if SpaceX managed to squeeze in their satellites at least basic 
processing (and seems they did),

it will improve satellite capabilities (and competitiveness) greatly.
The only thing i hope, if they had space for some M2M IoT stuff, similar 
to ORBCOMM.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/Jul/20 15:21, Paul Nash wrote:
> When we started TICSA (Internet Africa/Verizon/whatever), we went with a 9600 
> bps satellite link to New Jersey specifically because the SAT-2 fibre had 
> just been installed and traffic was being moved off satellite.  The satellite 
> folk were getting *very* nervous, and gave us a heavily discounted service 
> provided we had a 5-year contract that specified that they service *had* to 
> run over satellite.  Job insurance.
>
> As our requirements grew, we added fibre connections.  Eventually the telco 
> canceled the satellite connection as they were starting to focus on VSAT.

There's no denying... they well-and-truly made their money :-).

If I think back to what we paid for 192Kbps up, 320Kbps down, it may
make all the grown folk on this list cry in :-).

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Paul Nash]

When we started TICSA (Internet Africa/Verizon/whatever), we went with a 9600 
bps satellite link to New Jersey specifically because the SAT-2 fibre had just 
been installed and traffic was being moved off satellite.  The satellite folk 
were getting *very* nervous, and gave us a heavily discounted service provided 
we had a 5-year contract that specified that they service *had* to run over 
satellite.  Job insurance.

As our requirements grew, we added fibre connections.  Eventually the telco 
canceled the satellite connection as they were starting to focus on VSAT.

paul

> On Jul 8, 2020, at 3:05 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/Jul/20 21:58, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>> Watching the growth of terrestrial fiber (and PTP microwave) networks
>> going inland from the west and east African coasts has been
>> interesting. There's a big old C-band earth station on the hill above
>> Freetown, Sierra Leone that was previously the capital's only link to
>> the outside world. Obsoleted for some years now thanks to the
>> submarine cable and landing station. I imagine they might keep things
>> live as a backup path with a small C-band transponder MHz commit and
>> SCPC modems linked to an earth station somewhere in Europe, but not
>> with very much capacity or monthly cost.
>> 
>> The landing station in Mogadishu had a similar effect.
> 
> The early years of submarine fibre in Africa always had satellite as a
> backup. In fact, many satellite companies that served Africa with
> Internet prior to submarine fibre were banking on subsea and terrestrial
> failures to remain relevant. It worked between 2009 - 2013, when
> terrestrial builds and operation had plenty of teething problems. Those
> companies have since either disappeared or moved their services over to
> fibre as well.
> 
> In that time, it has simply become impossible to have any backup
> capacity on satellite anymore. There is too much active fibre bandwidth
> being carried around and out of/into Africa for any satellite system to
> make sense. Rather, diversifying terrestrial and submarine capacity is
> the answer, and that is growing quite well.
> 
> Plenty of new cable systems that are launching this year, next year and
> the next 3 years. At the moment, one would say there is sufficient
> submarine capacity to keep the continent going in case of a major subsea
> cut (like we saw in January when both the WACS and SAT-3 cables got cut
> at the same time, and were out for over a month).
> 
> Satellite earth stations are not irrelevant, however. They still do get
> used to provide satellite-based TV services, and can also be used for
> media houses who need to hook up to their network to broadcast video
> when reporting in the region (even though uploading a raw file back home
> over the Internet is where the tech. has now gone).
> 
> Mark.
> 

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 7/Jul/20 21:58, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> Watching the growth of terrestrial fiber (and PTP microwave) networks
> going inland from the west and east African coasts has been
> interesting. There's a big old C-band earth station on the hill above
> Freetown, Sierra Leone that was previously the capital's only link to
> the outside world. Obsoleted for some years now thanks to the
> submarine cable and landing station. I imagine they might keep things
> live as a backup path with a small C-band transponder MHz commit and
> SCPC modems linked to an earth station somewhere in Europe, but not
> with very much capacity or monthly cost.
>
> The landing station in Mogadishu had a similar effect.

The early years of submarine fibre in Africa always had satellite as a
backup. In fact, many satellite companies that served Africa with
Internet prior to submarine fibre were banking on subsea and terrestrial
failures to remain relevant. It worked between 2009 - 2013, when
terrestrial builds and operation had plenty of teething problems. Those
companies have since either disappeared or moved their services over to
fibre as well.

In that time, it has simply become impossible to have any backup
capacity on satellite anymore. There is too much active fibre bandwidth
being carried around and out of/into Africa for any satellite system to
make sense. Rather, diversifying terrestrial and submarine capacity is
the answer, and that is growing quite well.

Plenty of new cable systems that are launching this year, next year and
the next 3 years. At the moment, one would say there is sufficient
submarine capacity to keep the continent going in case of a major subsea
cut (like we saw in January when both the WACS and SAT-3 cables got cut
at the same time, and were out for over a month).

Satellite earth stations are not irrelevant, however. They still do get
used to provide satellite-based TV services, and can also be used for
media houses who need to hook up to their network to broadcast video
when reporting in the region (even though uploading a raw file back home
over the Internet is where the tech. has now gone).

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Eric Kuhnke]

Watching the growth of terrestrial fiber (and PTP microwave) networks going
inland from the west and east African coasts has been interesting. There's
a big old C-band earth station on the hill above Freetown, Sierra Leone
that was previously the capital's only link to the outside world. Obsoleted
for some years now thanks to the submarine cable and landing station. I
imagine they might keep things live as a backup path with a small C-band
transponder MHz commit and SCPC modems linked to an earth station somewhere
in Europe, but not with very much capacity or monthly cost.

The landing station in Mogadishu had a similar effect.



On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:45 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/Jul/20 10:07, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> > The most noteworthy thing I'm seeing in C band these days, is many
> > customers formerly 100% reliant upon it shifting their traffic to
> > newly built submarine fiber routes.
>
> Before most of Africa had submarine fibre, a lot of our traffic was
> carried on C-Band.
>
> In the decade preceding the arrival of submarine fibre, we reduced costs
> by moving to Inclined Orbit satellites, which were mainly operated on
> Ku-Band. So outages due to rain were a normal and accepted part of doing
> business. ISP's that maintained C-Band satellites survived rain fade,
> but had much higher operating costs.
>
> Nowadays, satellite services are generally used in remote locations, and
> for specific applications. Submarine fibre is the norm.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: 60ms cross continent

[j k]

Any idea what network protocol(s) used with Starlink?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 5:08 AM Saku Ytti  wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 06:35, Harry McGregor 
> wrote:
>
> > Once the laser based inter-sat links are running (Starlink 2.0?), it
> should be lower latency vs Fiber.
>
> I understood it's not clear if this will ever happen. In local
> constellation it might, but supposedly technology does not currently
> actually exist to do it between constellations. I don't understand the
> topic at all, but I got impression that the precision of timing and
> accuracy of aiming needed is actually a very hard problem.
>
> But agreed, should sat2sat communication become possible, there are
> many legs where starlink latency will improve upon terrestrial.
>
> --
>   ++ytti
>

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Saku Ytti]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 06:35, Harry McGregor  wrote:

> Once the laser based inter-sat links are running (Starlink 2.0?), it should 
> be lower latency vs Fiber.

I understood it's not clear if this will ever happen. In local
constellation it might, but supposedly technology does not currently
actually exist to do it between constellations. I don't understand the
topic at all, but I got impression that the precision of timing and
accuracy of aiming needed is actually a very hard problem.

But agreed, should sat2sat communication become possible, there are
many legs where starlink latency will improve upon terrestrial.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 7/Jul/20 10:07, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> The most noteworthy thing I'm seeing in C band these days, is many
> customers formerly 100% reliant upon it shifting their traffic to
> newly built submarine fiber routes.

Before most of Africa had submarine fibre, a lot of our traffic was
carried on C-Band.

In the decade preceding the arrival of submarine fibre, we reduced costs
by moving to Inclined Orbit satellites, which were mainly operated on
Ku-Band. So outages due to rain were a normal and accepted part of doing
business. ISP's that maintained C-Band satellites survived rain fade,
but had much higher operating costs.

Nowadays, satellite services are generally used in remote locations, and
for specific applications. Submarine fibre is the norm.

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Mark Tinka]

On 7/Jul/20 08:51, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:

>  
> And as Ku is often covering specific regions, often it means rainy
> days for most transponder customers.
> This is why in zones closer to equator, with their long-term monsoon,
> C-Band was only option,
> no idea about now.

In much of Africa, the largest satellite TV provider has been running on
Ku-Band into homes for several years now.

I'm not sure if they still support C-Band services for specialized
requirements. But all consumers have been on Ku-Band for a while now.

Heavy rain does cause outages, but overcasts do not.

If you are lucky to have an FTTH service and you are hit with rain, you
can turn to their app and stream the same live channels while the rain
falls.

Mark.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Eric Kuhnke]

The most noteworthy thing I'm seeing in C band these days, is many
customers formerly 100% reliant upon it shifting their traffic to newly
built submarine fiber routes.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 11:51 PM Denys Fedoryshchenko <
nuclear...@nuclearcat.com> wrote:

> On 2020-07-07 08:32, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> > "no clouds" is overstating the effect somewhat. I've operated a number
> > of mission critical Ku band based systems that met four nines of
> > overall link uptime. The operational effect of a cloud that isn't an
> > active downpour of rain is negligible. Continual overcast of clouds is
> > not much of a problem at all, it's active rain rate in mm/hour and its
> > statistical likelihood, climate parameters of the location.
> >
> > Yes, during rain fade events, current generation VSAT modems will drop
> > all the way down to BPSK 1/2 code rate to maintain a link, with
> > corresponding effect on real world throughput in kbps each direction,
> > but entirely dropping a link is rare.
> >
> BPSK 1/2 is quite extreme. In my case it was 32APSK 8/9 at 36Mhz
> transponder
> (yes it was quite large antenna), ~140Mbit, so switching to 1/2 BPSK
> will make it
> ~16Mbit/s, which is pretty useless for telco purposes.
> For corporate, end-users, with QoS - it can be ok, but still depends on
> climatic zone.
> Remember, it is not downlink only issue, but uplink too. And depends on
> antenna elevation angle
> as well.
> Even for end-user it is not fun to have 1/10 of capacity, most likely
> means unable to do
> video conferencing anymore, for few days, just because it is few rainy
> days.
> And as Ku is often covering specific regions, often it means rainy days
> for most transponder customers.
> This is why in zones closer to equator, with their long-term monsoon,
> C-Band was only option,
> no idea about now.
>

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

On 2020-07-07 08:32, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

"no clouds" is overstating the effect somewhat. I've operated a number
of mission critical Ku band based systems that met four nines of
overall link uptime. The operational effect of a cloud that isn't an
active downpour of rain is negligible. Continual overcast of clouds is
not much of a problem at all, it's active rain rate in mm/hour and its
statistical likelihood, climate parameters of the location.

Yes, during rain fade events, current generation VSAT modems will drop
all the way down to BPSK 1/2 code rate to maintain a link, with
corresponding effect on real world throughput in kbps each direction,
but entirely dropping a link is rare.

BPSK 1/2 is quite extreme. In my case it was 32APSK 8/9 at 36Mhz 
transponder
(yes it was quite large antenna), ~140Mbit, so switching to 1/2 BPSK 
will make it

~16Mbit/s, which is pretty useless for telco purposes.
For corporate, end-users, with QoS - it can be ok, but still depends on 
climatic zone.
Remember, it is not downlink only issue, but uplink too. And depends on 
antenna elevation angle

as well.
Even for end-user it is not fun to have 1/10 of capacity, most likely 
means unable to do
video conferencing anymore, for few days, just because it is few rainy 
days.
And as Ku is often covering specific regions, often it means rainy days 
for most transponder customers.
This is why in zones closer to equator, with their long-term monsoon, 
C-Band was only option,

no idea about now.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Eric Kuhnke]

"no clouds" is overstating the effect somewhat. I've operated a number of
mission critical Ku band based systems that met four nines of overall link
uptime. The operational effect of a cloud that isn't an active downpour of
rain is negligible. Continual overcast of clouds is not much of a problem
at all, it's active rain rate in mm/hour and its statistical likelihood,
climate parameters of the location.

Yes, during rain fade events, current generation VSAT modems will drop all
the way down to BPSK 1/2 code rate to maintain a link, with corresponding
effect on real world throughput in kbps each direction, but entirely
dropping a link is rare.



On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:40 PM Denys Fedoryshchenko <
nuclear...@nuclearcat.com> wrote:

> On 2020-07-07 06:48, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> > This is why adaptive coding and modulation systems exist. Also dynamic
> > channel size changes and advanced computationally intensive FECs.
> >
> > You don't think people working on microwave band projects above 10GHz
> > with dollar figures in the hundreds of millions are unaware of basic
> > rain fade and link budget methodology, do you?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 8:44 PM Denys Fedoryshchenko
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-07-07 05:04, joe mcguckin wrote:
> >>> Theoretically, Starlink should be faster cross country than
> >> terrestrial
> >>> fiber.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Joe McGuckin
> >>> ViaNet Communications
> >>>
> >>> j...@via.net
> >>> 650-207-0372 cell
> >>> 650-213-1302 office
> >>> 650-969-2124 fax
> >>
> >> When there is no clouds.
>
> In my experience, all that ACM has achieved is that when link becomes
> "slow" and if it rains outside, it means that it will be down completely
> after few seconds.
> Previously with CCM or DVB-S without 2, it simply disappear without
> warning.
> And yes, I have and cheap and expensive Microwaves >10Ghz too.
> ACM/VCM really helps if you want to live on the edge, milking each db,
> (edge of link budget, e.g. small antenna size, interference), and this
> is actually very important to increase profitability, especially in case
> of multipoint VSAT, but it is near useless against rain fade.
>

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

On 2020-07-07 06:48, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

This is why adaptive coding and modulation systems exist. Also dynamic
channel size changes and advanced computationally intensive FECs.

You don't think people working on microwave band projects above 10GHz
with dollar figures in the hundreds of millions are unaware of basic
rain fade and link budget methodology, do you?

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 8:44 PM Denys Fedoryshchenko
 wrote:


On 2020-07-07 05:04, joe mcguckin wrote:

Theoretically, Starlink should be faster cross country than

terrestrial

fiber.


Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications

j...@via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax


When there is no clouds.


In my experience, all that ACM has achieved is that when link becomes 
"slow" and if it rains outside, it means that it will be down completely 
after few seconds.
Previously with CCM or DVB-S without 2, it simply disappear without 
warning.

And yes, I have and cheap and expensive Microwaves >10Ghz too.
ACM/VCM really helps if you want to live on the edge, milking each db, 
(edge of link budget, e.g. small antenna size, interference), and this 
is actually very important to increase profitability, especially in case 
of multipoint VSAT, but it is near useless against rain fade.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Eric Kuhnke]

This is why adaptive coding and modulation systems exist. Also dynamic
channel size changes and advanced computationally intensive FECs.

You don't think people working on microwave band projects above 10GHz with
dollar figures in the hundreds of millions are unaware of basic rain fade
and link budget methodology, do you?

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 8:44 PM Denys Fedoryshchenko 
wrote:

> On 2020-07-07 05:04, joe mcguckin wrote:
> > Theoretically, Starlink should be faster cross country than terrestrial
> > fiber.
> >
> >
> > Joe McGuckin
> > ViaNet Communications
> >
> > j...@via.net
> > 650-207-0372 cell
> > 650-213-1302 office
> > 650-969-2124 fax
>
> When there is no clouds.
>

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

On 2020-07-07 05:04, joe mcguckin wrote:
Theoretically, Starlink should be faster cross country than terrestrial 
fiber.



Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications

j...@via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax


When there is no clouds.

Re: 60ms cross continent

[Harry McGregor]

Hi,

Startlink 1.0, probably will not have lower latency vs Fiber (either 
cross country or across oceans)


Once the laser based inter-sat links are running (Starlink 2.0?), it 
should be lower latency vs Fiber.


With ground stations only: https://youtu.be/m05abdGSOxY

With laser links: https://youtu.be/QEIUdMiColU

-Harry


On 7/6/20 8:00 PM, james jones wrote:

"In Theroy" -- ROFL

Don't get me wrong it would be awesome if that turns out to be the case.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:05 PM joe mcguckin > wrote:


Theoretically, Starlink should be faster cross country than
terrestrial fiber.


Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications

j...@via.net 
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax

Re: 60ms cross continent

[james jones]

"In Theroy" -- ROFL

Don't get me wrong it would be awesome if that turns out to be the case.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:05 PM joe mcguckin  wrote:

> Theoretically, Starlink should be faster cross country than terrestrial
> fiber.
>
>
> Joe McGuckin
> ViaNet Communications
>
> j...@via.net
> 650-207-0372 cell
> 650-213-1302 office
> 650-969-2124 fax
>
>
>
>

Re: 60ms cross continent

[joe mcguckin]

Theoretically, Starlink should be faster cross country than terrestrial fiber.


Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications

j...@via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax