Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

doxx_in_the_box t1_j37uig7 wrote

Reply to comment by jqubed in Qualcomm partners with Iridium to bring satellite messaging to Android phones by thebelsnickle1991

Apple uses globalstar.

The confusing part is Iridium states it’ll be faster because “it does not require a ground station”, but everything I’ve heard about Iridium is the opposite that it takes like 10x longer to get a response, because they relay the message between satellites instead of just beaming it directly back to the ground (how globalstar does it)

They say going between satellites will make service faster but this makes zero sense since the emergency service is ON THE GROUND, eventually the signal needs to reach earth and back again.

12

wgc123 t1_j38bc4y wrote

No, the confusing part is that when Apple released this feature, there were so many people saying it already existed on Android.

8

doxx_in_the_box t1_j38e54p wrote

Probably because Elon said he would use existing T-Mobile bands, and phrased it as if it’s already working

−5

xShooK t1_j38r3os wrote

What does Elon have to do with Android?

1

doxx_in_the_box t1_j38tado wrote

As in Android devices on T-Mobile network? Don’t ask me why people were making the false claims.

1

dnick t1_j38c90i wrote

I would assume that the time it takes to broadcast between satellites is negligible in the overall process (milliseconds?). If you could somehow save a second or two in overall connection time (on ground relays, finding a site that could route it more seemlessly, whatever), it wouldn't matter if you had to beam it back and forth between satellites 100 times to get it there, it could still be faster.

​

you could be right that the overall service might be way worse, but doubtful that 'beaming between satellites' vs direct ground retransmission would make any difference except in slight audio quality vs 'speed of emergency services being services being dispatched'.

3

doxx_in_the_box t1_j38drfl wrote

I agree - but I’ve always heard Iridium is slower because of the processing time or whatever occurs when linking satellites. I could have misheard

But if you read Iridium’s statement they say: faster than globalstar because we don’t require ground stations. That part makes zero sense.

1

dnick t1_j38z7hm wrote

Hmm, maybe Iridium can only transmit straight back down, and it has to go through terrestrial switching stations to get to a central processing location, that then goes back out and activates EMS, rather than one or two steps through line-of-site satellites and directly to a central location?

Not sure, but if their claim is that ground stations are a bottleneck, getting more information on that seems like the question rather than just saying 'hmm, I don't know about that...'.

1

doxx_in_the_box t1_j392fr9 wrote

> if ground stations are the bottleneck

You’re half way right and I think this is why Iridium is claiming speed - they’re reusing marketing material without specifying which conditions hold true.

Ground stations are the bottleneck in two situations:

  • example: customer is in Australia tracking a product on other side of planet. It needs to somehow get the data back to Australia.
  • example: a user wants to send an emergency message to another user, like using Garmin SOS device.

But with emergency SOS the ground station nearest you will be the one handling your request, so beaming across multiple satellites is pointless.

Also iridium has less total number of ground stations, so less coverage on earth, they just make up for it with better satellite-to-satellite coverage

1

ahecht t1_j38s1pz wrote

You're confusing speed with latency.

2

doxx_in_the_box t1_j38t2z6 wrote

Latency = speed if you’re talking about how quickly a message is delivered, aka how quickly it reaches emergency services on the ground

0

ahecht t1_j38uu4m wrote

The difference in latency caused by the time it takes light to travel to a satellite 500 miles up vs 900 miles up is fractions of a second, and meaningless compared to human reaction time when talking about an emergency response.

1

doxx_in_the_box t1_j395put wrote

And speed isn’t always defined by distance. It’s just the time it takes to get from A to B, units can be anything I.e 100MB/S (gasp!)

The time it takes a message to be received, according to Iridium, up to 10 seconds. 6 messages per minute for the pedantic

1

tshungus t1_j37x59a wrote

Oh, I see now. My mistake for not immediately recognizing the brilliance of your statement. Of course, it makes complete sense that Apple, a company known for its innovative and forward-thinking technology, would choose a satellite communication system that is slower, less reliable, and provides worse global coverage. I mean, who wouldn't want a service that takes 10 times longer to get a response and can't even communicate directly with the ground? It's a no-brainer. Apple's decision to use Iridium, a company that actually provides fast, reliable, and global coverage, must have been a complete accident. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

−18

doxx_in_the_box t1_j382rcr wrote

Apple doesn’t like having to bend over backwards making it more difficult to offer a unique solution. Globalstar was perfect because they were able to make it whatever they wanted, and have 85% of the network bandwidth for future development.

All I’m saying is what I’ve heard about Iridum, that it’s slower getting a message to ground, where SOS matters.

4