Greetings Google Researchers.    This is another of my "just curious"
questions.  Keeping up with the latest news is something I enjoy.  
So, I watch a lot of CNN.  When correspondents in, say, Washington,
DC, are talking with guests in, for example, Los Angeles, the
conversation proceeds at a normal pace as if though they were face to
face.   On the other hand, when the correspondent in Washington DC is
talking with someone in, for example, Iraq, there is a significant
delay apparent.   A couple of seconds.   Now, since all of this is
done via satellite transmissions, why is there a difference between
relatively close-by transmissions and ones half way around the world? 
  I thought of multiple-hops, but even so, it seems strange that the
difference is so significant.

Dear Seattle,

A few thoughts:

The journey to a geostationary satellite and back to earth takes
around a quarter of a second.  So when you are watching a conversation
held via such a link, the studio sound - which you are hearing
effectively live - arrives at the far end a quarter of a second later.
 But you also hear the replies via the same route and with the same
delay.  So the effective delay in the conversation is twice this, or
around half a second.  I imagine you know all this.

Yes, there could be multiple hops, though I'd be surprised if there
were at all often more than two.  But half a second (or one second,
for two hops) could well seem a lot longer: such a delay can be very
intrusive to a conversation, and may give the impression of being very
long.

So what other explanations could there be for the difference?

 o Some broadcasters are more competent at holding conversations over
delayed links than others: there are ways of holding such a
conversation effectively and ways of making a mess of it.  I see and
hear examples of both!

 o The simplest explanation is just that the conversation between
Washington and Los Angeles may not, in fact, be via satellite at all. 
There are cable and microwave circuits across continents and indeed
around the world.  The effectiveness of broadcast conversations held
over such circuits - especially if the interviewee is not a
professional and used to delays - may well be a good reason for using
these earth-bound routes.  Indeed, the major reason for using
satellite at all may very well be the difficulty of arranging a cable
connection at the remote end.  This is likely to be the case in a
remote or politically unfriendly location, but just as much so at an
out-of-studio location in the home country from where an urgent news
report or interview is desired.  Between studios, earth-bound routes
are a better option.

I hope this helps.

Carnegie