xplornet contact or any experience with their satellite service?

Thu Apr 23 20:57:15 UTC 2020

On Tue, 2020-04-21 at 18:54 +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:
> It’s not really oversold bandwidth. It’s just that the turnaround
> time for a bolus of data is too long for two-way video conferencing
> to be smooth or reliable. It’s like video conferencing using post
> cards :)

Except that videoconferencing is just the victim of the problem, and
the problem is bursty bandwidth not latency.  In fact, the back-and-
forth of conversation is actually surprisingly decent for satellite. 
Not as much "talking over" as I would have suspected.

But put the victim application aside, the real data is in the iperf3
results I posted, demonstrating how bursty the throughput is.  The
problem with that of course is that the "lowest" bandwidth "valleys"
becomes the "constant bandwidth" that the codec uses rather than the
average -- which of course cannot be used for real-time VC.

Cheers,
b.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200423/75e1866f/attachment.sig>