Internet Delivery.

Want to know how to receive English Channels via the Internet in North Cyprus? Need to repair or buy a laptop?

Moderators: Soner, Dragon, PoshinDevon

Post Reply
tingtang
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017 11:10 am

Internet Delivery.

  • Quote
  •   Message 1 of 6 in Discussion

Post by tingtang »

I think that we all accept the Internet Providers explanation for poor performance is due to the feed which we get from Turkey.

As a non-techie I would ask is it not possible for our IP's to rent space on a Satellite?
If so then maybe costs would be prohibitive but if all of the IP's were to jointly fund the project it maybe viable, after all they all presently pay separately to the same Turkish suppliers.

C'mon -shoot me down.

tt.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

User avatar
kbasat
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun 20 May 2012 8:32 pm

Re: Internet Delivery.

  • Quote
  •   Message 2 of 6 in Discussion

Post by kbasat »

This is how we had started 15 years ago, get a 2 way satellite system, split the connection among 100s of customers and make profit along the way.

Satellite connection is way too expensive, has very high latency, not good for TV, skype or any other voice/video application.

As soon as we could, we switch to terrestrial connection in order to survive...

K.
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°) Haters will see you walk on water and say it’s because you can’t swim. ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
-----
https://www.facebook.com/taskentdogaparki/

tingtang
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017 11:10 am

Re: Internet Delivery.

  • Quote
  •   Message 3 of 6 in Discussion

Post by tingtang »

Thanks for the explanation Kibsat.

What is hard to understand as a layman is that, take Sky TV for instance, they must have hundreds of thousands of subscribers yet deliver perfect picture quality for 100%of the time.

I was actually prompted to raise this question as my son has just concluded a contract with an American organisation in a very small island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whilst he was there we had 100% e-mail contact with no problems, although I admit we didn't try a video link.

It occured to me that due to the remoteness of that country undersea cable would not be possible and it must have been a satellite link. Being very much a third world nation with a low population of Polynesians there would not be a high take up of subscribers so why not here?

Technology is continually moving on so it may be possible one day.

tt.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

User avatar
kbasat
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun 20 May 2012 8:32 pm

Re: Internet Delivery.

  • Quote
  •   Message 4 of 6 in Discussion

Post by kbasat »

You are mixing up quite a few different technologies, which leads to your confustion.

Sky is a DVB-S system (stands for digital video broadcast - satellite) which is essentially a one way system. Satellite essentially have a transponder looking down at a region on earth and unlimited number of satellite antennas can be adjusted to that particular dish and receive that TV transmission. In that setup, everyone is forced to watch the same TV channel at the same time. More transponders are needed to have more channels on a platform, but in the end, you are forced to watch what any one of the channels have on broadcast at any given time. It is a fixed cost to set up lets say a 200 channel system and then you can have unlimited no of customers for the same 'head-end' cost.

With an Internet connection the transmission needs to be 2 way. You first need to request the data, and it travels from your 2 way dish to the satellite to their head end 'somewhere in europe' and then they send the result back from their head end to satellite to your dish just so that a website shows up. In this setup, the data travels 36.000kms up to satellite and back. This comes with a heavy cost of 'latency' which no matter how you improve technology, you cannot make signals go faster than the light, so there will always be a delay. If your system has high capacity, the data will flow quite fast once your request reaches the other end, but in the case of 2 way communication for example, your voice will take at least a second to reach the other side no matter how fast the connection is because of latency.

In an 2 way satellite system, also the head-end cost is not fixed, you need more capacity for more customers all the time because they are all requesting different stuff at a given time.

All of these combined makes 2 way satellite system both very very expensive and not as good at the same time for everyday use.

Today, 2-way satellite systems are used in places where there is no other fasible option, such as you are in the middle of the desert, or on a pacific island or where end-to-end security is required such as at Military compounds etc.

K.
( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°) Haters will see you walk on water and say it’s because you can’t swim. ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
-----
https://www.facebook.com/taskentdogaparki/

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Internet Delivery.

  • Quote
  •   Message 5 of 6 in Discussion

Post by erol »

tingtang wrote:What is hard to understand as a layman is that, take Sky TV for instance, they must have hundreds of thousands of subscribers yet deliver perfect picture quality for 100%of the time.
Broadcasting the same 'stuff' or 'set of stuff' to hundreds of thousands or recipients is a very different thing than providing a two way link of individual stuff between hundreds of thousands of recipients. Broadcast is like a man on a hill with a megaphone speaking to thousands of people on the hill. Internet is like thousands of people around the hill all trying to have one to one communications with other people all over the hill all at the same time. Very different things. Satellite works well for broadcasting. For multi point to point communication it is less than ideal. That is not to say it can not be done. You can get satellite based internet from companies like http://www.tooway.com/ for example (have a look at their faq if you are interested). When I first moved here and there was only phone line dial up internet I used a two way satellite based system. However satellite based systems have their limitations.
tingtang wrote:Whilst he was there we had 100% e-mail contact with no problems, although I admit we didn't try a video link.
E mail is not 'seconds sensative'. Live voice and video is sensitive to delays of seconds and even fractions of a second. In terms of volume of data, if an email takes say 5 minutes for the recipient to read, to transmit that same 'data' as voice would take around 100 times more data than the text alone takes. To do it as voice and video 1000 times or more data.
tingtang wrote:Technology is continually moving on so it may be possible one day.
Technology does move on but satellite has some fundamental physical limits, especially in terms of 'delay' (latency). From the tooway site faq on delay
Geostationary satellites are located in orbit approximately 36,000 kilometers above the equator. A roundtrip time to a satellite for data needs about 250 msec, the 2-way protocol latency is about 600 msec including SurfBeam 2 system latency. To mitigate latency, which would impact on TCP throughput and web browsing speeds, a Performance Enhancing Proxy (PEP) and Web acceleration are integrated into the SurfBeam 2 modem.
600 msec = .6 of second. Does not sound like much but in internet terms it is a lot. The 'performance enhancing and web acceleration technologies' are exactly the kind of things that would and do mess up streaming live video.

You can not have a single satellite that stays over the same area of the globe other than to have it 36,000 km away from the surface of the earth. Even at the 'speed of light' this distance (there and back) introduces delay. In the future someone may come up with a network of lower earth orbiting satellites that do not stay above the same spot on the earth but have enough of them to cover the entire globe, so as the earth rotates you would get passed from one satellite to another. This could lower the delay times as the satellites would be closer to the earth than the 36,000 km need for 'geo stationary' orbit but such systems are not going to appear any time soon (next 5-10 years min I would guess). The other issue is one of 'volume' of data that a single satellite can handle (in a two way system). There have been and continue to be improvements in technology in this regard but again there is a fundamental difference between 'wireless' systems and 'wired' systems. When you reach a capacity limit on a wired system there is always the option of putting more wire. With wireless however you can not put in more 'air' (actually radio spectrum) you can only seek to try and use what is there more efficiently.

tingtang
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun 01 Jan 2017 11:10 am

Re: Internet Delivery.

  • Quote
  •   Message 6 of 6 in Discussion

Post by tingtang »

Well, for sure, that has been educational and not just for myself I am sure.

I must say that I am impressed with such detailed and speedy responses and from those in the trade too. You two guys do Multimax great credit.

So we [you] are stuck with what we have with no available alternatives. Have Turkcell, or whoever, made any promises or statement of intent regarding upgrading their systems, or indeed do they have any incentive to do so bearing in mind the absence of any competition?

tt.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

Post Reply

Return to “INTERNET & COMPUTERS- Kibkom North Cyprus Forum”