I'm of mixed feelings about this. Yes, it's great for the people of Saint Helena. But it would be nice if we could have a few remote places on Earth stay remote.
AT&T is lobbying the federal government for permission to put cell towers in Death Valley. Death Valley is fine without them. It doesn't need more tourist conveniences. It has"Death" in its name for a reason.
On the other hand, if this is something the people of Saint Helena voted for and approved, then it's up to them. I just hope it wasn't pushed on them by a bureaucrat.
SpaceX and Amazon will provide global low latency internet pretty much everywhere. But don’t worry, each customer will vote with their wallet by buying it (or not)
It was remarkable how at peace I felt when I took a liveaboard to Darwin and Wolf islands in Galapagos. Yes, there was an emergency satellite phone as total backup, but it was great knowing that there was generally no way to contact me. Didn’t feel nearly as strange as I thought it would.
Doesn’t it by its nature _have_ to be an international airport? It’s about the same size as the city of San Francisco. It’s not going to be regional so people can fly from seven miles east back to seven miles west.
Flights to/from overseas territories with separate immigration laws are typically considered "international" anyway, so even in that case they would still effectively have an international airport.
since when is universally agreed upon:
1: ever/any single instance above nuclear household, a thing
2: demonstrate why it even makes sense to ask that?
3: what in the f/h is happening here. am i on reddit? i literally screenshot this and a later discussion for off hn topic on "what is happening at HN"
4: hostile HN takeover via brain vomit commenting?
Sometimes you have to drive through Death Valley to get to other places and cell reception is kind of important in a place like that. Imagine having a baby in your car, it breaks down with no cell reception and it's 130F temperatures outside
Yeah that’s one way to deal with it. Another is if there is cell reception then it’s not such a big deal because you can call someone if it happens. Definitely two possible solutions.
It's a tough question. Nobody "should" die. But maybe improving cellular coverage in Death Valley would actually increase fatalities. Because it'd feel safer.
Or at least, it'd probably increase rescue costs. And there are arguably better uses for resources than trying to make Death Valley a safe vacation venue.
They are very likely to and can hardly claim to have been uninformed of the risk. It isn't called 'Life Valley'.
edit - doesn't mean putting up some radio cover is a bad idea, however I suspect it is not some panacea against badly planned road adventures. If you are capable of venturing forth into Death Valley without much preparation, you are more than capable of managing to forget a phone.
If you know there is no cell reception and you do it anyways you might have a point but I thought we were just talking about reasons why cell service could be a good thing. Wanting cell reception doesn’t really make someone dumb.
If you plan to go somewhere that leaving the main highway, and mechanical failure of your vehicle means there is a high likelihood of death, you should be going in groups of more than one vehicle and taking an Iridium satellite phone with you.
Expecting cellular coverage in places that are literally "the middle of fucking nowhere" is not reasonable. Remote parts of the western US states are too sparsely populated for this to make economic sense for cellular carriers.
People spend a thousand bucks on all sorts of frivolous stuff. For way less than that you can buy a gently used Iridium 9555 on eBay and a few new batteries for it, and a 20W folding solar panel.
Who said anything about leaving the main highway? Is AT&T trying to provide signal where they know nobody will ever go? That sounds odd. I assumed we were talking about places humans go
All of the death valley fatalities I'm aware of are from people who left the main highway. I've driven through there. As long as you stick to the main, paved roads, there is sufficient car traffic that it is highly unlikely you're going to die from a car breakdown.
You don't have to go to Saint Helena for radio silience; you can find this in the Owyhee Desert of southern Idaho/northern Nevada/eastern Idaho. There are thousands of square miles out there with no service. It's glorious.
You still have to go up, over, down, across wire, back up, over and down again
you're going to be paying a 25 to 50 ms latency on everything and that depends on having the dish tracking stuff working perfectly. (it is vastly better than the GEO stuff i've had to use in the past. but a replacement for fibre in general use. nope.)
oh and weather is still going to poop on your signal
Also marketing videos are always going to show best theoretical case. They are not going to show a cloudy day in a high contention network in a region not favoured by the orbit gods.
Given that the speed of light is around a third less in currently installed fiber than it is in a vacuum, LEO could be in theory comparable. Also, beamforming phased arrays could presumably replace dish tracking given the distance is not that far and having the signal have to go down to earth midroute would also seem to be an unneccesary requirement. I agree that weather will more than likely poop on your signal though.
Unless they are hosting the servers in orbit your destination will be on earth somewhere. You will come back down go to it then return through a similar path to the client.
the speed of light in a mostly vacuum could (provided their meshing algorithms are up to it) make latency comparable but MEO sats already have a 125ms rtt time halving that distance isn't going to get rid of that penalty.
Given a choice between terrestrial singlemode fiber, and LEO, the satellite system (Starlink, Oneweb, Kuiper, whatever) should always be the second choice. Shannon limit and RF engineering considerations mean that the total capacity of spot beams passing over a given area will be a lot less than fiber.
Looking at the population of St. Helena I would be very surprised if the entire nation-state/island uses more than a single 100GbE wavelength back to the cable landing stations in the US/Europe.
From a landing station in St. Helana, access can be distributed by some combination of GPON fiber, terrestrial fixed PTP and PTMP wireless, maybe re-use of existing copper with vdsl2, g.fast, DOCSIS3/DOCSIS3.1, etc.
This looks like an incredibly forward thinking move. Connecting South America to Africa will provide the opportunity for a wast array of new inter-continental online businesses, focused on countries that today aren't seen as "online hubs".
> Traditional subsea cables are powered from the shore end and rely on a dedicated set of pump lasers to amplify the optical signal for each fiber pair as data traverses the length of the cable. Now, SDM technology allows pump lasers and associated optical components to be shared among multiple fiber pairs, while still working within the unique power constraints of the ocean floor.
I don't profess to understand laser pumping, but it sounds like they found a way for multiple fiber pairs to share expensive and/or power-hungry active components. So it is stringing another fiber, but in layman's terms maybe kind of like network bonding by figuring out a trick to plug two ethernet cables into one port.
Based on recent experience in West Africa, it is rapidly looking like the internet traffic exchange and interconnection points for ISPs/mobile phone carriers/telecoms in that region is coalescing into two cities:
Lagos, Nigeria
Accra, Ghana
Both have the advantage of being on the ocean (where cable landing stations are built), major population centres, major business centres, and IT/networking/telecom education and training programs are run in the English language.
If you are a mid sized ISP in Accra it is still quite costly to buy transport circuits going "both directions" - to get a 10 or 100GbE circuit from Accra to Cape Town, to peer with ISPs and content sources there, and also to buy a 10 or 100GbE circuit from Accra to western europe (Paris, London) to meet major IXes there.
From what I've seen looking at BGP topology for a lot of these ISPs, Accra is sort of a suburb of London.
I would immigrate to an island in the middle of nowhere in a heartbeat. But only if it had a reliable internet connection.
Sad state of affairs really, because the costs are probably insurmountable for the islands inhabitants. I believe they are glad if they manage to maintain an airport.
Satellite based net access isn't my favorite, but probably the more realistic option.
> * If you read the article, the Equiano cable is actually only connecting South Africa, Nigeria and Portugal, aside from Saint Helena.*
At the moment. There are nine branching units built into the design, and only two are being used: Lagos and St. Helena. This leaves Google with flexibility for the future. Some possible options:
There are still a LOT of islands on earth that don't have submarine fiber connectivity.
Disclaimer: I work in two-way satellite telecom.
Until the advent of o3b, these were pretty much entirely dependent on various methods of connecting to the outside world via commercial geostationary transponder kHz leases, in the C and Ku bands. Works fine, but minimum 492ms latency return trip, and very expensive in monthly recurring cost per Mbps.
o3b has helped a great deal, in terms of monthly $/Mbps and latency. Further medium earth orbit and low earth orbit things (starlink, oneweb, amazon's kuiper) will help even more.
Due to the high cost of submarine cable construction, unless places happen to be roughly along the route that the cable would be taking anyways (as St. Helena is), there will remain a lot of places where 100% of the WAN link to the outside world will be some combination of LEO/MEO/GEO satellite access.
"Modern" satellite modems that are capable of advanced computation for low density parity codes and advanced FEC methods, plus adaptive coding and modulation to deal with Ku and Ka band rain fade, those certainly help a lot. It still costs a ridiculous amount to build and launch a 3000 to 6500 kilogram sized satellite into geostationary orbit. I am cautiously optimistic that SpaceX's lower launch costs due to reusable rockets will help with this.
Full deployment of the LEO starlink constellation economically seems to be predicated upon the use of a cargo-carrying reusable version of the Starship, which would be able to place many hundreds of satellites in one launch.
Forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but who is financing this? Google?
DfID have ruled out funding, and it’s unlikely St H will get any further EU regional funding.
So - either they’re going to be taking an almighty loan, or rely on the kindness of corporations.
I can’t see St H becoming a tech hub. It’s a lovely place, sure, but they’d need immigration of people with technical skills for that - I can count on one hand the number of saints with computer literacy, and they don’t want/can’t support any kind of immigrant population. Apart from anything else, all houses are occupied, and there’s precious little land upon which to build in Jamestown, and the saints do not want high rises and all the rest. No, I don’t speak for them, but I have spoken with them, and it’s pretty clear which way the wind blows.
I hope they do get a better connection to the world, but I fear practicality will get in the way. If they do plough ahead and assume the debt (I am assuming that there will be a debt to google), then the rumblings in Whitehall of making crown dependencies responsible for their own budgets might get louder. Their airport (which is perfectly fine, by the by, stunning approach) continues to attract flack as an ill conceived and expensive boondoggle.
You're right that there's no native tech talent in a tiny population like that, but who says they don't want any kind of immigrant population? Presumably it doesn't take thousands of people to keep an Earth station running after it's built. I mean, look at less-populated Ascension Island with its BBC relay station.
Oh, indeed - it will take but a handful of people to manage, as the C&W dish currently does.
But therein lies the problem. It’s unclear what the economic uplift would be, and how it would pay for itself. If it’s simply a convenient waystation for the cable, great, but it doesn’t seem to be, so to me, the reasoning is unclear.
You might be surprised how much is being paid in transponder kHz lease monthly recurring costs, and earth station services on the other end, to provide internet and WAN phone services for the entire population of St Helena. Using submarine fiber might have an ROI under 15 years, if the additional cost to bring the cable to the island (vs bypass it entirely with same cable) is slightly government subsidized.
My name is Leah Brown, I'm a happy woman today? I told myself that any loan lender that could change my life and that of my family after having been scammed separately by these online loan lenders, I will refer to anyone who is looking for loan for them. It gave me and my family happiness, although at first I had a hard time trusting him because of my experiences with past loan lenders, I needed a loan of $300,000.00 to start my life everywhere as single mother with 2 children, I met this honest and God fearing online loan lender Gain Credit Loan who helped me with a $300,000.00 loan, working with a loan company Good reputation. If you are in need of a loan and you are 100% sure of paying the loan please contact (gaincreditloan1@gmail.com)
73 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] threadAT&T is lobbying the federal government for permission to put cell towers in Death Valley. Death Valley is fine without them. It doesn't need more tourist conveniences. It has"Death" in its name for a reason.
On the other hand, if this is something the people of Saint Helena voted for and approved, then it's up to them. I just hope it wasn't pushed on them by a bureaucrat.
Or at least, it'd probably increase rescue costs. And there are arguably better uses for resources than trying to make Death Valley a safe vacation venue.
There's a line.
You step over the line, you're responsible for yourself.
Driving to inhospitable and/or remote wilderness areas without preparation is over that line.
Plus, a sat beacon is $120. So people don't really have an excuse.
edit - doesn't mean putting up some radio cover is a bad idea, however I suspect it is not some panacea against badly planned road adventures. If you are capable of venturing forth into Death Valley without much preparation, you are more than capable of managing to forget a phone.
Expecting cellular coverage in places that are literally "the middle of fucking nowhere" is not reasonable. Remote parts of the western US states are too sparsely populated for this to make economic sense for cellular carriers.
People spend a thousand bucks on all sorts of frivolous stuff. For way less than that you can buy a gently used Iridium 9555 on eBay and a few new batteries for it, and a 20W folding solar panel.
My trip there in 2015: https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721576543876...
It's going to be "fun" for anyone who depends on something in orbit
You still have to go up, over, down, across wire, back up, over and down again
you're going to be paying a 25 to 50 ms latency on everything and that depends on having the dish tracking stuff working perfectly. (it is vastly better than the GEO stuff i've had to use in the past. but a replacement for fibre in general use. nope.)
oh and weather is still going to poop on your signal
"Why SpaceX is Making Starlink"
https://youtu.be/giQ8xEWjnBs
TL;DR -- satellites can be faster than cables in certain cases
Also marketing videos are always going to show best theoretical case. They are not going to show a cloudy day in a high contention network in a region not favoured by the orbit gods.
the speed of light in a mostly vacuum could (provided their meshing algorithms are up to it) make latency comparable but MEO sats already have a 125ms rtt time halving that distance isn't going to get rid of that penalty.
Sorry, was being an idiot. Latency does of course tend to mean a round trip, not just here to there.
Looking at the population of St. Helena I would be very surprised if the entire nation-state/island uses more than a single 100GbE wavelength back to the cable landing stations in the US/Europe.
From a landing station in St. Helana, access can be distributed by some combination of GPON fiber, terrestrial fixed PTP and PTMP wireless, maybe re-use of existing copper with vdsl2, g.fast, DOCSIS3/DOCSIS3.1, etc.
LOL, you mean "stringing another wire/fiber". I think we used to call this "bonding".
> Traditional subsea cables are powered from the shore end and rely on a dedicated set of pump lasers to amplify the optical signal for each fiber pair as data traverses the length of the cable. Now, SDM technology allows pump lasers and associated optical components to be shared among multiple fiber pairs, while still working within the unique power constraints of the ocean floor.
I don't profess to understand laser pumping, but it sounds like they found a way for multiple fiber pairs to share expensive and/or power-hungry active components. So it is stringing another fiber, but in layman's terms maybe kind of like network bonding by figuring out a trick to plug two ethernet cables into one port.
http://modegap.eu/?publication=space-division-multiplexing&w... (PDF)
Its a way of making QAM16 less crosstalky (well thats my reasoning. )
The "SAEx" cable that's drawn into the map "failed to secure funding"...
Lagos, Nigeria
Accra, Ghana
Both have the advantage of being on the ocean (where cable landing stations are built), major population centres, major business centres, and IT/networking/telecom education and training programs are run in the English language.
If you are a mid sized ISP in Accra it is still quite costly to buy transport circuits going "both directions" - to get a 10 or 100GbE circuit from Accra to Cape Town, to peer with ISPs and content sources there, and also to buy a 10 or 100GbE circuit from Accra to western europe (Paris, London) to meet major IXes there.
From what I've seen looking at BGP topology for a lot of these ISPs, Accra is sort of a suburb of London.
Sad state of affairs really, because the costs are probably insurmountable for the islands inhabitants. I believe they are glad if they manage to maintain an airport.
Satellite based net access isn't my favorite, but probably the more realistic option.
Then I have news you'll appreciate. There's exactly such a place off the coast of Ireland. It's even actively recruiting for new residents.
https://people.com/travel/arranmore-tiny-island-ireland-look...
Huh. I'd expect vast bandwidth to be practically free if you're a tiny population living on the transoceanic cable.
I assume/guess the airport is subsidized by the British government.
At the moment. There are nine branching units built into the design, and only two are being used: Lagos and St. Helena. This leaves Google with flexibility for the future. Some possible options:
* https://www.af-ix.net/ixps-map
Disclaimer: I work in two-way satellite telecom.
Until the advent of o3b, these were pretty much entirely dependent on various methods of connecting to the outside world via commercial geostationary transponder kHz leases, in the C and Ku bands. Works fine, but minimum 492ms latency return trip, and very expensive in monthly recurring cost per Mbps.
o3b has helped a great deal, in terms of monthly $/Mbps and latency. Further medium earth orbit and low earth orbit things (starlink, oneweb, amazon's kuiper) will help even more.
Due to the high cost of submarine cable construction, unless places happen to be roughly along the route that the cable would be taking anyways (as St. Helena is), there will remain a lot of places where 100% of the WAN link to the outside world will be some combination of LEO/MEO/GEO satellite access.
"Modern" satellite modems that are capable of advanced computation for low density parity codes and advanced FEC methods, plus adaptive coding and modulation to deal with Ku and Ka band rain fade, those certainly help a lot. It still costs a ridiculous amount to build and launch a 3000 to 6500 kilogram sized satellite into geostationary orbit. I am cautiously optimistic that SpaceX's lower launch costs due to reusable rockets will help with this.
Full deployment of the LEO starlink constellation economically seems to be predicated upon the use of a cargo-carrying reusable version of the Starship, which would be able to place many hundreds of satellites in one launch.
DfID have ruled out funding, and it’s unlikely St H will get any further EU regional funding.
So - either they’re going to be taking an almighty loan, or rely on the kindness of corporations.
I can’t see St H becoming a tech hub. It’s a lovely place, sure, but they’d need immigration of people with technical skills for that - I can count on one hand the number of saints with computer literacy, and they don’t want/can’t support any kind of immigrant population. Apart from anything else, all houses are occupied, and there’s precious little land upon which to build in Jamestown, and the saints do not want high rises and all the rest. No, I don’t speak for them, but I have spoken with them, and it’s pretty clear which way the wind blows.
I hope they do get a better connection to the world, but I fear practicality will get in the way. If they do plough ahead and assume the debt (I am assuming that there will be a debt to google), then the rumblings in Whitehall of making crown dependencies responsible for their own budgets might get louder. Their airport (which is perfectly fine, by the by, stunning approach) continues to attract flack as an ill conceived and expensive boondoggle.
But therein lies the problem. It’s unclear what the economic uplift would be, and how it would pay for itself. If it’s simply a convenient waystation for the cable, great, but it doesn’t seem to be, so to me, the reasoning is unclear.