The capacity of satellite networks is minuscule compared to that of undersea fibre optics.
replyOnly a little bit. Just clicking around, a new Hawaii cable is supposed to have 24 Fiber Pairs and 18Tbit per Fiber Pair at the end of this year. If you lose several tbits of bandwidth, you're going to have a hard time making it up with satellite.
replyFor small island countries and such, satellite capacity may be sufficient; and it is likely helpful for keeping international calling alive even if it's not sufficient for international data. But when you drop capacity by a factor of 1000, it's going to be super messy.
No. They're not setup to be a principal route between two nations and most satellite networks until very recently didn't even route messages through other satellites but instead retransmitted them to a ground station with access to hardline internet. Even Starlink mostly does this still because it's way cheaper and easier.
replyYou can see an unofficial tracker [0] of the Starlink downlink network and see how outside of some rural areas your data is only moving a few tens of miles away most of the time before it's sent down to a ground system. Their sats have 3 200 Gbps laser communicators for intra constellation routing which is pretty small for the task of replacing fiber optic links.
reply[0] https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1805q6rlePY4WZd8QMO...
Conceptually, it's the difference between your wifi versus running a single fiber to each room in your house. The difference in bandwidth is multiple orders of magnitude.
replyThis is never going to change because from a physical perspective free radio is a shared medium while each individual fiber (or wire) has its own private bandwidth.
I never understand why questions like this get downvoted around here.
replyThey don't, you just have to wait longer than an hour for an accurate rating
reply