Slashdot Mirror

It would appear they are using the call routing/forwarding feature of Global Crossing's VoIP service, the phone number is their Harrisburg OH point of access. The clever bit is getting the phone number 614-LULZSEC, since 614-585-xxxx is a Global Crossing block.

Your post made me smile and laugh...mostly at myself...thanks!

About:

Add to the fact that soon Japan will have 1TB up and 1 TB down" Sounds like you have japanenvy. 1TB? Do you mean per second? --

I guess they will have to finish installing their 1 Gbps / 1 Gbps (no wonder they can charge less than $55 per month for this level of bandwidth; industry expert ... $1 per 2 GB, thus .50 cents per GB is too MUCH offering before they get up to 1 TB / 1 TB, considering the power of lasers to multiplex light and expand bandwidth on the same strand of fiber, instead of 1 TB, it would be X 1,024, so just a little bit higher than 1 TB, unless someone figures out a way to apply Moore's law to lasers, fiber and light, than perhaps more.... Great post! I too can read it faster than they can say it. As for:

What harddrive's capable of delivering that much to one person, let alone um... more than one person? For backbone speed maybe, but into peoples homes, that's just silly. Who's saying they're going to offer 1TB lines? I'm quite interested in what they're saying they're offering it for.

None that I am aware of and as internet TV takes off and HD TV's increase their resolution as is already predicted. (Check out Vision Research's Phantom HD, 2048 x 1080 @ 1,000 frames-per second HD Camera; who wouldn't want to watch a film at 1000 frames per second if they were given the option, considering we are use to 24 fps today. While 1000 FPS might be further out there, rates higher than 30 fps are coming soon, even 60 fps would give a better resolution than 24 or 30...and if like me you have a HD 1020p TV you would see a better image the higher the resolution.

One research firm suggested that video consumption would expand by 650% by 2011 to 7800 terabytes/day. Video uploads will grow from 500K / day to 4,800K per day in 2011...a very significant and huge increase in bandwidth.

Will the random (how random was it...what do they know that they have not bothered to tell the consumer) 250 GB ISP bandwidth cap be limiting at that point? My guess is yes considering that our current internet offerings would have problems streaming two signals while recording a third today at only 24 fps or 30 fps....

It will be interesting to see how various hardware companies attempt to overcome the many constraints (bottlenecks) between our hi speed modems and our CRT screens.... A lot of nasty little bottlenecks in between those two points, including to/from the hard drives.

...nasty little bottlenecks, not all alike...

I plan to start experimenting with a fiber LAN in my home for one part, granted I have not priced out fiber cable and fiber NICs yet....so that might be yet another issue.

What about latency and reliability? I'm happy with 3.6 Mbit/s, or even lower, if I get a reliable connection with low latency. Rock solid 512 kbit/s with 20 ms latency would be preferable to anything available in the mobile market right now.

I will be happy when I get 100 MB / 100 MB bi-directional access to the internet for around $50 per month. Heck the Japanese have had this level since 2003 and now in 2008 they are migrating up to 1GB / 1Gb for less than $55.00 per month. How far behind do we have to fall anyway?

As for

Who cares about bandwidth?

I do!

I still want the same speed upstream as I am getting downstream. Enough excuses already time to honor your promises to the United States government and U.S. consumers. (Note: While some of the telcos that promised no longer exist, I would suggest that the homes and area that they serviced does still exist. The business that acquired their area, should also acquire responsibility to build out that area per the promises that the telco that was bought made. I would suggest that they bought both the assets and the liabilities. I believe this liability, a public trust if you will, should be passed on as it is attached to our tax dollars, fees-still-being-charged every month and government funding and therefore should not be ignored because the business was purchased and/or acquired....my .02 cents)

As of 2008, no US customers have the 45 Mbps bidirectional service to our homes and you guys promised to have 86 million customers receiving 45 Mbps by 2006. And certainly not for the expected cost of .50 cents per 1 Mbps of bi-directional bandwidth.

And do NOT state that you are providing high speed access to consumers based on the FCC definition of high speed internet, 200Kbps - try to run videos at that speed, high speed my behind....

Also about bandwidth, I want to be able to consume the total amount of bandwidth that I am (and have been) actually paying for. It's not my fault that the telcos and internet providers have taken money from consumers and the U.S. government (estimated at over $200 billion since early 1990s in the form of tax breaks; increases service fees and outright government funding) and used it for buying up companies rather than building out their infrastructures. ( Funny how similar the telcos reaction to receiving money was to the current financial companies and banks that received the buy in / bail out money by the government recently).

I am concerned that the wireless providers will play the same sleight of hand with or without the FCC for wireless internet that they have been playing with hard wired access. Surprised they are not asking for tax breaks, money or a bail out as well!

Now for a question to those of you who say reduce the latency and than work on speed, because I honestly do NOT know the answer. Here is the question:

If you had 100MB / 100MB (bi-directional) at how high a latency (how slow could it get) until you were as slow as what the average American high speed internet user gets today? (Assume an average bandwidth of 8.8 Mbps downstream (I do not get that either, but it is the average listed in the articl

How much does bandwidth actually cost for a major ISP? ... Imagine if the cable companies capped how much TV you could watch per month.

Less than $5.00 per month their cost, for what we would pay $50 or more for per month for. IMO $50 per month for 100MB / 100MB or .5 per Gig is too much. If only never-to-be-throttled 100MB / 100MB would be offered to us...

Of course 100 MB / 100 MB is not yet available to us here in the USA. But it is coming, and when it does watch out...

In Japan they have had, thanks to forced government de-regulation, 100MB / 100MB since 2000 for around $25 per month.

I liked this quote from the above link:

"Obviously, without the competition, we would not have done all this at this pace," said Hideki Ohmichi, NTT's senior manager for public relations.

I heard another Japanese telecom executive state that it cost them less than $5.00 to provide services to customers on a PBS show. You will not hear American executives telling American consumers that it costs them less than $5.00 per month. The American telecom executives on the show / panel had pained expressions on their faces. I am sure they are counting on their customers remaining oblivious to how much we are getting hurt by charging more for less; throttling services based on type of services; putting caps on services; etc....

If it costs less than $5.00 per month for a fiber link, than why is anyone, anywhere else in the world paying more for less. And once you learn of these facts, it really does make you mad when shills for the US cable and DSL companies come out complaining the opposite is true. I am sick of the lies and many innocent people jumping on the band wagon only because they are in the dark and do not know any better, WAKE UP please for all of our sakes.

Eventually there will be a company in your area offering uncapped, fiber-last-mile connection to your home, apartment, community and you will be able to thank your ISP for years of abuse by churning.

The more they piss off customers, the less sympathy any of us should have for them. I know I do not feel sorry for any of them. And marketing campaigns to buy American and get screwed will not work on me and many others either.

Now in Japan they are upgrading from 100MB / 100MB to 1GB / 1GB because their infrastructure, Fiber, will allow them to make this change simply by changing out the router on each end. Or if you already have a fiber router, just changing out the firmware in it. The expected cost for 1GB / 1Gb is expected to be less than $55.00 per month. Forum posts discussing the new technology; UK Inquirer article. I wish we had this available in the USA.

USA consumers should have had this back in 2000, perhaps as early as 1998 in some larger cities, definitely by 2003. Here it is 2008 and we still can't get service anywhere near 100MB / 100MB. Pathetic and definitely NOT FORGIVABLE! How many of you reading this understand that the telcos promised higher speeds and collected money for those promises that they reneged on?

We, the USA High Speed Internet consumer, have been getting screwed for years. Our only chance will be if government steps in as they did in Japan and forces the hands of the major telcos, cable companies and related telecommunications companies. Normally I am NOT for government regulation however, as Japan has proved and the US telcos have shown by their lack of keeping promises they made, in thi

The article mentions NTT America and Global Crossing as two IPv6 providers, taking a look at their sites...

"Global Crossing is the leading provider of IPv6"
From http://www.globalcrossing.com/ipkc/ipkc_ipv6.aspx

"NTT America Operates World's Largest IPv6 Network"
http://www.nttamerica.com/about/newsroom/press_releases/release.php?ID=83

Both sites served from IPv4 only web servers, that's not exactly what I'd call "leading".

It's all very well having IPv6 transit capability, but where's the content? Useful as they are, ping and traceroute aren't very interesting.

Although it is really entertaining to read all of these conspiracy theories, they really have no basis in fact or common telecom practice. I have been in the telecom business for 15 years, and this is just one of many such deals that happen every few years. For example, check out Global Crossing's international crossings on their network map.

This deal has nothing to do with making Internet access cheaper for anyone. What it is about is the ability to capture significant revenue by owning the transmission pipe. It is often the case that a consortium of telecom companies go in together on the cost of a new telecom crossing. Based on how much they pay, they purchase a certain number of fiber pairs.

The whole idea is that by owning the physical facilities, you can put optics on the end that enable you to have almost unlimited bandwidth. You can open as many wavelengths (a.k.a windows) as you have the technology for, and sell those wavelengths, or portions of them, to other carriers for a much higher price than your base cost. Most of these wavelengths are sold based on an IRU agreement (Irrefutable Right of Use) to other carriers for a specific number of years.

In Google's case, I would say that their motivation would be to enable cost savings. If you own the fiber pairs, you don't have to pay way more to buy a wavelength IRU or a private line. This does not really appreciably increase the amount of bandwidth available to the world, because there is really an over-abundance of capacity as it is.

Another strategic reason to invest in the fiber would be to bypass the PTT (Post Telegraph and Telephone) monopoly in that country. That enables you to connect directly to a competitive carrier in the foreign country and reduce your cost per minute for terminating phone calls to the PSTN in that country. Without bypassing the PTT, you are stuck with the ITU negotiated settlement rates, which are much higher in cost. So Google could use some of the windows on this fiber to send voice traffic cheaper. If you are expecting billions of minutes, this makes sense as a cost savings.

This really has nothing to do with direct bandwidth available to Asian customers, but it could help reduce latency for ISPs in Asian countries if they interconnect with Google directly to pass packets destined to Google. That would cut out several router hops and would therefore speed transmission.

If Google wants to, they could also provide IP transport to ISPs who want to connect to US-based Net sites. If they really want to act like a carrier, that's a no-brainer. Most likely there will be a significant portion of the traffic that is headed in one way or the other (probably toward the US), so Google could at least sell the extra capacity going the other direction.

Yah, it's funny how their stock keeps trading at the rate of millions of shares a day (around $.02 - a true penny stock!) but if you look at their 8K or even their website it says:

"...Global Crossing does not contemplate participation of existing equity holders of the company in distributions to be made upon emergence from bankruptcy. "

So WTF are all these shares being bought/sold for?!? They are literally worthless!

Despite the fact that this has been covered in the "major media outlets" ad nauseum for the past five years, did you venture to type this in your browser?

http://www.globalcrossing.com/

Or, maybe:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=glo bal+crossing&btnG=Search+News

For the truly adventurous, there is the text from the house oversight and investigation committee, regarding the effects of the GC bankruptcy:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba78601 .000/hba78601_0.HTM

Ahhh, another company damaged by Ellen Hancock.

• IBM's PRGS ("Programming Systems") Laboratories, of which she was the overall manager
  
• Apple Computer Corp, as the right-hand of Gil Amelio
  
• Exodus Communications, where she was CEO
  
• Global Crossing, the poor sots that ended up with 108 million worthless shares of Exodus
  

• Cable and Wireless, another batch of poor sots that bought parts of Exodus
  

So, what other companies and organizations are on the watch-list?

• Aetna
  
• Colgate-Palmolive
  
• Marist College
  
• Santa Clara University
  

Disclaimer: Well, duh ... of course I am a disgruntled ex-employee of Ms. Hancock back when she was a IBMer. I just did not realize how bad she really was ... even if none of this was her fault, she has still been at the epicenter of many closed office buildings over the years.

GX routes a billion voice minutes / month using Sonus gear
this was posted last december.

Lest we forget that China built a fiber communication network in afghanistan. That, with the latest intelligence debacle, well
IMHO, if tapping any communication medium will assist in the thwarting of terrorist activity, well we need something.
Noone would have considered this applicable 3 years ago.
Usually, with that size of budget, there are definately some dark ops. No wonder we (as in the U.S.) are developing methods to
Xray people as they wander through airports.

Someone to ask about the plans and what the impact will be is Secretary of the Navy Gordon England.
Understandably, I am sure he would not delve into the detailed tie-in and the way the Govt. is using 9/11 to move projects like thas ahead.
Crossing's Creditors' Committee press releases show how critical it was for the Govt to bail them out. With clients like
K.B. toys to sell their pipe to, it is amazing that they are not rolling in cash.
Stratgetically, there is concern because"For a very low price, someone is going to acquire a set of undersea fiber routes that crisscross the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and connect over 20 nations and perhaps resell or lease the network at a handsome profit to another party that could have its very own undersea communications network and training ground. The bankruptcy court had set April 23 as the deadline to receive proposals to take over the now-bankrupt GX.

Lest we forget that China built a fiber communication network in afghanistan. That, with the latest intelligence debacle, well
IMHO, if tapping any communication medium will assist in the thwarting of terrorist activity, well we need something.
Noone would have considered this applicable 3 years ago.
Usually, with that size of budget, there are definately some dark ops. No wonder we (as in the U.S.) are developing methods to
Xray people as they wander through airports.

Someone to ask about the plans and what the impact will be is Secretary of the Navy Gordon England.
Understandably, I am sure he would not delve into the detailed tie-in and the way the Govt. is using 9/11 to move projects like thas ahead.
Crossing's Creditors' Committee press releases show how critical it was for the Govt to bail them out. With clients like
K.B. toys to sell their pipe to, it is amazing that they are not rolling in cash.
Stratgetically, there is concern because"For a very low price, someone is going to acquire a set of undersea fiber routes that crisscross the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and connect over 20 nations and perhaps resell or lease the network at a handsome profit to another party that could have its very own undersea communications network and training ground. The bankruptcy court had set April 23 as the deadline to receive proposals to take over the now-bankrupt GX.

Global Crossing
DNC head Terry McAuliffe turned a $100,000 stock investment into $18,000,000! Now you can too!
George Bush Sr. agreed to take shares in lieu of an $80,000 speaking fee. At it's high, the stock was worth more than $14,000,000! Invest NOW to get on the gravy train!

Lucent have a division called Lucent Optical which are (unsurprisingly) world leaders at this sort of thing.

A good article about what they do can be found here

Incidentally, a company called Global Crossing plan to implement a network based upon lasers.