60 nanoseconds ~= 60*30cm ~= 18 meters.
I kind of doubt that lousy connection would make the timing signal arrive 18 meters late. That requires the signal being re-sent and arriving only on second, third, and so on attempt.
Maybe that could happen between consumer grade routers which have such complex algorithms as to have for all intent and purposes non-deterministic timing, but if they were using that to send time in this lab we don't need to find lousy connections to discard the results. Scratch that, i don't think this can happen with consumer grade router, that it would resend same packet at brighter and brighter light level until it gets through, or the like (then forget about the brightness and do it every time). The computers re-send stuff when it is TCP protocol, and when it is UDP they don't, and who in their mind would use TCP for time anyway.
60 nanoseconds ~= 60*30cm ~= 18 meters.
I kind of doubt that lousy connection would make the timing signal arrive 18 meters late. That requires the signal being re-sent and arriving only on second, third, and so on attempt.
That's 18 meters for light in a vacuum. GPS receivers and lousy connections are not made out of vacuums. Translating into meters doesn't help us all that much when we are considering hardware faults like this.
A mundane cause for a surprising result. Consider this unconfirmed for now, however unsurprising it sounds.
Source: Science/AAAS