Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
new digiweb tooway 20Mbps / 6Mbps
Options
Comments
-
-
Just a thought, OP -- many years ago when I was very dubious about my first satellite connection from Digiweb, they let me try it out from their offices in Dundalk before signing up. I have no idea if they still do the same thing. (Contrary to the previous poster's suspicions, I am not actually writing from that Dundalk office
). You could call them and check if they have somewhere you could bring your laptop down to try it out, with your VPN installed and ready to do a few real world representative tests. I always find a practical test is a more reliable guide than some randomer on the interweb. :rolleyes:
Well what a surprise they "let you check it out", I've asked Digiweb to prove their assertions a few times and they've been utterly silent on that.
Now to your other bizarre claims:
In your world Fibre is "unbearably slow" and FWA is useless so presumably satellite is the only solution.
Satellite does VPN and VOIP with no problems...the new satellites are brilliant and break the laws of physics with impunity.
This is obviously satellite pimping.
From this latitude the time taken for a "signal" to the eutelsat satellites is 297ms, from the latitude of Dublin to be precise,and then 297ms down from the satellite (any calculator will tell you that)
That's ~ 600ms for a signal just to arrive at the destination and you still assert it's fine for VPN and VOIP?
Then add rain fade onto that...I forgot in your world fade doesn't exist either0 -
-
PogMoThoin wrote: »I'm eagerly awaiting you posting proof of those said ping times from Ireland.
Uh, hullo? I posted two speed tests on the previous pages of this thread. If you look at just the first one you can see an average round trip time of 748 ms.
Yes, no doubt you calculated the effect of these differences? i.e. a 2.5 ms difference in the one-way trip time for latitude 53 compared to 45? And another millisecond or so for the fact that we are 15 degrees west of the KA-SAT. That would be a total 15 ms (4 x 3.5) round trip time difference *if* both the up and down were to our location. However, I'm sure you know that the Eutelsat teleports *are* in France (and Italy).PogMoThoin wrote: »FYI, 45' latitude runs through the south of France and we are not in the same meridian as the satellites, we are further West.
Ah c'mon, stop insulting my intelligence. If you insist: refractive index of air at STP = 1.000293. Scale height of atmosphere = 10km = 0.000279 times sat height. Factor by which light travel time changes = 0.000293 * 0.000279 = less than one part in ten million. Did you really want to bring up such an irrelevance?PogMoThoin wrote: »Radio waves only travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.
Unless they have very funny mist over there, rain fade does not change the speed of light.PogMoThoin wrote: »You live in the East, rain fade is a major issue the further West you head, I know because I install satellite systems, often in mountainous areas prone to heavy mist.
Any particular assertions? No idea what you're talking about here.Well what a surprise they "let you check it out", I've asked Digiweb to prove their assertions a few times and they've been utterly silent on that.Now to your other bizarre claims:
"Other"? Are you attaching some assertions from Digiweb (which you haven't listed) to me? I've claimed nothing other than what I've said on this thread.
I never said anything of the sort. I said I'd RDP'd over a fibre connection to the other side of the planet and it was unbearably slow. The point (which you seem to have missed) is that the overall speed doesn't only depend on your outgoing connection. I was relating to this to your highly anecdotal report about using RDP over satellite. How many times? Once? I've done it dozens of times and measured response times for different tasks. Some are bearable, some are not. Depends on what you are doing.In your world Fibre is "unbearably slow"
I didn't say FWA was useless. I said there were some cowboy operators out there who are useless at fixing problems. And there are *many* problems reported with fixed wireless -- have a trawl of a few relevant Irish forums, you will not be stuck for examples.and FWA is useless so presumably satellite is the only solution.
I said that VPN reduced the satellite connection speed by a factor of eight on average. You either have a funny idea of "no problem" or you didn't bother reading what I wrote. VoIP *does* work fine -- I use it every single day. How about you? Are you doing VoIP over satellite every day? Thought not. As for the laws of physics, you're the one with the four times slower speed of light.Satellite does VPN and VOIP with no problems...the new satellites are brilliant and break the laws of physics with impunity.
Perhaps, if I'd actually *said* any of the things you attribute to me.This is obviously satellite pimping.
Mate, there's not a lot I can do about the fact that you are seriously arithmetically challenged, and your calculator clearly ain't helping. Allow me to help you out with a little sanity check. Speed of light = 300,000 km/sec. 297 ms x 300,000 km/sec = 89,100 km. KA-SAT is less than 36,000 km above the equator. Now, if you're able to draw a triangle from KA-SAT to the equator to Ireland, and make the long side of it 89,100 kilometres long, there's probably some scientists who are interested in your forays into the fourth dimension.From this latitude the time taken for a "signal" to the eutelsat satellites is 297ms, from the latitude of Dublin to be precise,and then 297ms down from the satellite (any calculator will tell you that)
Check your arithmetic. It's wrong. I already linked you a reference showing 253 ms *up + down* to 45 lat. You're saying it more than doubles for 53 lat. (If you don't know how to use the equation I linked to change the latitude, I am happy to spell it out for you. Off-meridian calcs to allow for longitude need slightly more complicated spherical coordinates but I can show you how to do those as well). Sorry, don't have any more time to entertain your basic errors. Fer Chrissake, I *posted a screenshot* showing 748 ms round trip time which includes 2 up and 2 down. If there were no other overheads at all, that would be 374 ms one way trip to destination. Are you claiming I photoshopped the speed test?That's ~ 600ms for a signal just to arrive at the destination
Only in your strange world where 8 times slower VPN is "fine". VPN is far from "fine", but it's complete workable for browsing and modest file transfers and a number of other tasks. VoIP on the other hand *is* fine. There is a tolerable sub-half-second delay in voice getting from one end to the other (in the real world, you know, where the speed of light isn't four times slower). I mean, really, do you want me to attach my VSP bills? I suppose I could've photoshopped them like I did the speed tests? :rolleyes:...and you still assert it's fine for VPN and VOIP?
I said rain didn't slow down the speed of light. It doesn't. So what are you "adding"?Then add rain fade onto that...I forgot in your world fade doesn't exist either0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
So I call bull**** on everything you've said...Prove your wild assertions that satellite "works"
LMAO. So a system that thousands of people are using every day doesn't work because I won't let you break into my computer, and anything to the contrary is a "wild assertion"? I think we know who the troll is here.
Tell you what. I'll give you a couple of hours to post your signal time calculation, then I'll do it for you. 0 -
LMAO. So a system that thousands of people are using every day doesn't work because I won't let you break into my computer, and anything to the contrary is a "wild assertion"? I think we know who the troll is here.
Tell you what. I'll give you a couple of hours to post your signal time calculation, then I'll do it for you.
You told us you know about VPNs...but seemingly you haven't a clue if that's what you think, that I "want to break into your computer".
You are obviously a troll at this point making up nonsense and saying "IT WORKS IT WORKS" because I say so... Prove it0 -
You told us you know about VPNs...but seemingly you haven't a clue if that's what you think, that I "want to break into your computer".
You are obviously a troll at this point making up nonsense and saying "IT WORKS IT WORKS" because I say so... Prove it
LOL. This just keeps getting better. You want to remote desktop to my computer ... and you're trying to convince me it would be safe for me to let some interweb randomer do that? Catch a grip. And what's that got to do with VPN? You said, and I quote: "So to prove your bs let me VPN and then rdp to your computers". How were you planning to do that since I don't have a VPN server or appliance at my end? Seems like you're the one that hasn't a clue about VPNs.
Anyway this is all a distraction from a much more basic question. You were about to show the world how light takes 297 ms (or 500 on a bad day ) to travel about 35,000 km to a geostationary satellite. Still waiting for your awesome calculation. I'll post it for you at 11pm if, as expected, you don't come up with the goodies.
That gives me an hour to eat the Chinese takeaway I just ordered by VoIP over satellite. :pac:0 -
LOL. This just keeps getting better. You want to remote desktop to my computer ... and you're trying to convince me it would be safe for me to let some interweb randomer do that? Catch a grip. And what's that got to do with VPN? You said, and I quote: "So to prove your bs let me VPN and then rdp to your computers". How were you planning to do that since I don't have a VPN server or appliance at my end? Seems like you're the one that hasn't a clue about VPNs.
Anyway this is all a distraction from a much more basic question. You were about to show the world how light takes 297 ms (or 500 on a bad day ) to travel about 35,000 km to a geostationary satellite. Still waiting for your awesome calculation. I'll post it for you at 11pm if, as expected, you don't come up with the goodies.
No I don't want to see your stuff I want to test your assertion that VPN works over satellite, there's a VPN server built into your OS all you need to do is configure it and as an expert in VPNs (using them every day remember?) it should take you 2 minutes to configure and then if you knew anything about computers you'd know how to configure access etc.
So again prove that VPN and VOIP works...but you haven't a clue so I'd expect you to bluster and pretend I'm trying to hack you or some other nonsense
http://www.satellitetcp.com/chapters/SatTCP-chap13-satellitetcp.pdf <- as it says 250ms and then with rain fade(it never rains in Ireland right?)
Go here pick your satellite and do the rain fade calculations and look up the ITU rain fade calculations.
I even have to google for you0 -
-
-
-
-
-
2 posts up, now when will you prove VPNs works instead of talking rubbish...IT WORKS IT WORKS because I say so. It simply doesn't, never did when I last tried it and never will.
Where? Do you mean this:http://www.satellitetcp.com/chapters/SatTCP-chap13-satellitetcp.pdf <- as it says 250ms and then with rain fade(it never rains in Ireland right?)
Go here pick your satellite and do the rain fade calculations and look up the ITU rain fade calculations.
I even have to google for you
Go where? Is this some emperor's new clothes sort of nonsense? That link is a pdf. Where do I pick my satellite? The pdf does not contain the word "rain". As for "it says 250 ms" ... nope, even if I was to guess which metric you are talking about, it doesn't contain the string "250" either. What is *does* contain is this:
"With the speedof light just under 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum (300,000 km per sec.), it takes 0.120 seconds for a signal from the ground to reach a satellite directly overhead... It takes 0.240 seconds for a signal to bounce off a satellite and reach another user on the ground. TCP measures latency as the round-trip time required for a packet to reach the user and an acknowledgement to return to the sender. Since it takes 0.240 seconds in each direction, the round-trip time is 0.480 seconds."
Emphasis is mine. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 120 ms that it says it takes to reach the satellite is not very close to the 297 ms (or 500 on a bad day ) that you claimed. In fact it's not even within a factor of two. And the 240 ms that it says it takes to reach another user is not very close to the 600 ms minimum that you said it took.
Ok, let's take another quote:
"This is the opposite situation to real-time transfers running over UDP, with voice over IP as a particular example. With no feedback mechanisms, UDP itself has no adverse interactions with satellite conditions and works just as well over satellite as any other typeof link. However, a quarter-second one-way delay in voice transmission is noticeable to users, and depending on the circumstances, may or may not be considered acceptable."
That seems pretty identical to what I said -- VoIP works fine, has a sub-half-second delay, and is tolerable.
So, back to you -- any source for your 297 ms earth to satellite claim, or are you just trolling?0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement