Latency Or Satellite Shortcomings?

[Cblucas3]

There is all this talk of distance affecting latency which doesn't seem to wash. If the signal has to travel 88,000 miles latency shouldn't be an issue when the speed of light is considered. Traveling at 186,000 miles per second translates to 1,116,0000 miles per HOUR . In less than 1 second a packet of data will travel to the gateway and back 2 twice with time to spare.
So why am I having such poor latency? Can it be the Hughsnet hardware? I know the satellite can only handle a certain amount of client connections, requests and transmissions. If to many client requests are active they're then refused and the client modem has to resend the packet resulting in latency. Either that or the satellite holds those requests in a buffer which causes increased latency.
My question arose from the fact that my latency great improves at night. Usually 3 am to about 6 am. I assume that there is much less traffic at that time so the satellite immediately processes the packet instead of a refusal or buffering action.
If this is not the case than please tell me what reason there is for horrible latency other than distance.

[Cblucas3]

I dealt with Tier 4 I believe it was titled. Maybe Tier 2. Also Executive Care. None asked for a screenshot to be emailed.
The only reason you folks are asking for it is because you believe I'm lying. Otherwise I could type the results instead of dragging the desktop to the other side of the house. It's wireless and wired capable of course.

[Cblucas3]

I'm sorry. I can switch to desktop site on my mobile device in Chrome so as to post the screenshot.

[MarkJFine]

You would have to do it from a desktop because I'm pretty sure your phone doesn't have a command/terminal window.

Secondly, I'm assuming you have a Windows desktop.

Thirdly, if it's a Mac, the command is 'traceroute' instead of 'tracert'.

Lastly, would prefer a screenshot, but not because of potential typing errors. The text spacing in the window will make it hard to read.

[Cblucas3]

I'm going to request this thread to end. I don't know what you mean by text spacing and being hard to read. What we are doing here is text.
Also my desktop has a wireless card and is a considerable distance from the router. I do not have a a Ethernet cable that far. So it is far to much trouble to move my desktop just to show that your implication of me typing in false information is indeed, false.
In fact to shorten this process of troubleshooting my issue I'm going straight to Executive Care.

[GabeU]

---

@Cblucas3 wrote:
I'm going to request this thread to end. I don't know what you mean by text spacing and being hard to read. What we are doing here is text.

---

Pasting copied traceroute output from the Command prompt doesn't come across well. It loses its layout, making it difficult to read.  This is why Mark recommended a picture.  

If you don't have an ethernet cable do it via WiFi, but be aware that, if your WiFi connection is weak, it can cause the results to be highly inaccurate.

And no one is saying you're lying.  We're saying your belief is very likely mistaken.  BIG difference.

You're making this more difficult than it needs to be.

[Cblucas3]

Why do my long distance calls and other communication type satellites not suffer from high latency rates?

http://satellites.spacesim.org/english/function/communic/index.html

[maratsade]

I'm sure @MarkJFine can provide a suitable explanation. But you should take your posting to the General Discussion section, because this section is for Tech Support, and you're not requesting any tech support. 

Maybe the mods can move the conversation to General Discussion. 

[maratsade]

Cheers, @Liz !

[MarkJFine]

I provided a truthful explanation of why there is a base latency and provided a means to determine where the problem is.

The OP decided not to comply and gave a fairly paranoid and accusatory reason why.

So respectfully, I'm deciding from entertaining this circular conversation any longer before someone gets angry.

[maratsade]

Sounds good to me. 

---

@MarkJFine wrote:

I provided a truthful explanation of why there is a base latency and provided a means to determine where the problem is.

The OP decided not to comply and gave a fairly paranoid and accusatory reason why.

So respectfully, I'm deciding from entertaining this circular conversation any longer before someone gets angry.

---

[GabeU]

@Cblucas3 

Nearly any communication that doesn't experience a delay is over land based cable systems, not satellite.  Though I can't say with 100% certainty, I'm fairly certain that nearly all continental long distance calls use ground based infrastructure, never touching a satellite, and most of those that go overseas do the same.  

Any communications over geostationary satellites will always experience some delay, and some more than others, as they have to bounce off more than one satellite.  There are methods in place that try to disguise it or mitigate it, but it's always there.

[maratsade]

I think it's likely the OP is married to his erroneous ideas, and no amount of logical, coherent explanation is going to change his paranoid ideation.   Thanks for the explanation, though, @GabeU ; it helps me learn a bit. 🙂

---

@GabeU wrote:

Nearly any communication that doesn't experience a delay is over land based cable systems, not satellite.  Though I can't say with 100% certainty, I'm fairly certain that nearly all continental long distance calls use ground based infrastructure, never touching a satellite, and most of those that go overseas do the same.  

Any communications over geostationary satellites will always experience some delay, and some more than others, as they have to bounce off more than one satellite.  There are methods in place that try to disguise it or mitigate it, but it's always there.

---

[MarkJFine]

Plus he hasn't figured out that the furthest a domestic telephone call can go is only about 3,000 miles on a trunked wire and is trying to compare that to 88,000 miles in space.

Now I'm really done with his ridiculous trolling.

[maratsade]

Yes, and this is because of his paranoid ideation (and added lack of knowledge of the technology).  He can't accept explanations that clash with his worldview.

---

@MarkJFine wrote:

Plus he hasn't figured out that the furthest a domestic telephone call can go is only about 3,000 miles on a trunked wire and is trying to compare that to 88,000 miles in space.

Now I'm really done with his ridiculous trolling.

---

[Cblucas3]

Read my post again. I'm talking about satellite communication. Read the link. Even if a wired call went started with POTS and then sent internationally via satellite there is no noticable latency.

I'm just trying to cover my bases. How about giving me the benefit of the doubt and give me instructions on how to fix my problem instead of belittling me, implying that I'm misconstruing the facts and slandering me by saying I'm paranoid. I have not done this to you folks.
I'm sure this behavior is outside of Community Guidelines.

[GabeU]

---

@Cblucas3 wrote:
Read my post again. I'm talking about satellite communication. Read the link. Even if a wired call went started with POTS and then sent internationally via satellite there is no noticable latency. 

---

The call is either landline or via a low earth orbit satellite.  

[Cblucas3]

I appreciate the your post. It further shows that distance is not an issue with latency. Not at these insignificant amounts relative to the speed of light.
You stated that it is roughly 186,282 mi/s. I must say you are right on with it being exactly 186282.397051 mi/s.
Would you have any thoughts on my latency problem. I think that maybe I didn't emphasize that my latency is out of range for what is expected with satellite service. I cannot even get on Facebook 75% of the time on average. It will tell me there is no connection. After several attempts with the Retry link it will finally connect. However most of the time I just resort to my mobile data
It's especially disconcerting when a significant amount of time is spent on a form or typing a large amount of characters in a forum such as this and to lose it all because of a time out and Form Resubmission command. I've learned to to copy said text so I can do a paste if I'm on Hughsnet.

[MarkJFine]

---

@Cblucas3 wrote:
You stated that it is roughly 186,282 mi/s. I must say you are right on with it being exactly 186282.397051 mi/s.

---

I'm a radio engineer by trade. These are basics.

---

@Cblucas3 wrote:
Would you have any thoughts on my latency problem.

---

As I mentioned in the same post and previously, I can't determine where the latency problem exists without seeing a traceroute to whatever site you're trying to get to. It could be inside the HughesNet gateway, it could be at the gateway's provider (more than likely), it could be anywhere in the route between the provider and the site you're trying to get to.

Nobody can do this for you, and it's as simple as opening up a command window in Windows and typing something like:
  tracert microsoft.com

[GabeU]

---

@Cblucas3 wrote:
There is all this talk of distance affecting latency which doesn't seem to wash. If the signal has to travel 88,000 miles latency shouldn't be an issue when the speed of light is considered.  

---

It's actually higher than that, because you aren't on an island on the equator, directly "under" the satellite.  It's more like the mid 90s or so.  The latency due soley to distance will be at least somewhere around 500ms, and the further your location and your gateway's location from the satellite, the higher it will be.   Add the infrastructure the signal has to travel through and that adds another 100ms or so.  

As others have stated, testmy's latency calculations of very often off by quite a bit, and consistently.  As also stated, the best latency calculations you can get are by running traceroutes.  

The ES19 satellite has a capacity of around 200 - 225Gbps.  HughesNet has approximately 1.4 million customers.  How many of those customers are connected to the ES19 sat is anyone's guess, but it's likely no more than half, as there are still numerous people connected to the ES17 and older satelites, though the older ones are dwindling.