Slashdot Mirror


Plastic Optical Fibre: Cheap and Bendy

Motivator_Bob writes: "The Sydney Morning Herald has an article on making optical fibres from plastic rather than the traditional glass."Advances in optical-fibre making at the Australian Photonics research centre could bring communications at the speed of light into Australian homes and businesses in the next few years. The advance - microstructured polymer optical fibres (MPOF) - allows the manufacture of optical fibres that are much smaller, cheaper, more rugged and easier to make than glass fibres..."

220 comments

  1. So when do I get fiber in my house? by UnidentifiedCoward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If it is so cheap how come I still do not have fiber in my house, never mind my neighborhood.

    1. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might notice that this article refers to this cheap and durable fiberoptic cable in the future tense...

    2. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you sunk my battleship.

    3. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Because it's not cheap to dig up all the roads, etc, to get the fiber to your house.

    4. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by SkewlD00d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the cable company wants to sell you kable modem service, the telcos dont want to give up $1000/mnt T-1 contracts, and your city wants ISPs and telcos to pay exorbitant franchise fees.

      --
      The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
    5. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what reason? Moving pr0n faster from one machine on your home network to another on said network?

      The pipe into your house is not so big as to gain any benefit... 10/100 si fine for you.

      *putz*

      --AC's rule!!!

    6. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by tamias · · Score: 1

      I'm not bragging so please don't take it that way, but my apartment in downtown Vancouver has fibre andI am quite happy with it. Costs me five dollars less a month than the cable connection that my sister has.

    7. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by shinobiX · · Score: 1

      yes it is, hire my company and I'll to it for about $0.25/KM.

    8. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by blixel · · Score: 1

      The pipe into your house is not so big as to gain any benefit... 10/100 si fine for you.

      I don't know about you, but my Cable modem isn't 10/100. It ranges anywhere from 0.1Mbps to 3Mbps down and only 0.4Mbps up (maximum cap) ...

    9. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by Fembot · · Score: 1

      because by far the biggest cost assosiated with fiber/cables etc is digging up the road, and until that become cheaper or an alternative is found it will remain rediculously expensive still

    10. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by vannevar · · Score: 1

      Expense is a major misperception as the previous reply to this post points out. It's a hangover from the hippie era and mostly perpetuated by hippies-turned-engineers. Maybe not in 1967, but today, it costs more to put in marble countertops than to install fiber optic Ethernet To The Home (ETTH). Trenching costs are trivial. Local control freaks are not. They are completely obessed with their Right To Drive Cars Three Blocks to the store, and anything that might temporarily re-route that drive is dubbed Evil Corporate Destruction of their vital neighborhood streets. It's asphalt, for crying out loud! Well, they're my streets, too, and I vote: DIG THE HELL OUT OF THEM. The digging won't last forever, but the benefits will. That's the one best thing you can do to help speed Fiber To Your Door. Get in front of your local political bubble-heads and INSIST that they let companies bring the fiber to you.

      If we have anything to do with it -- and we do -- companies like OnFiber will soon figure out that by working with Fortune 500 Residential Developers, they can branch out to new revenue generating opportunities and begin the migration to a rightly architected Residential Information Infrastructure (RII), starting in new housing developments. As deployments increase in number, costs drop even further and it's a vituous circle that will save the world and bring peace to Jerusalem. Well, at least it will make companies like Always-On very happy, whose addressable market it limited only by sufficient, reliable bandwidth.

      While it might seem like Gigabit ETTH is overkill, by the time you do the math for sending Everything over Ethernet for a family of four, the scenario changes quickly. You have to think in terms of sending different HDTV streams for each of three TV's in the home, while one of the kids is playing a fully immersive version of Diablo 6 with a peer-to-peer interface that looks like this. One Gbps may not be enough when you factor in all of the bandwidth load balancing and congestion considerations. What we have to get the -- how shall I put it delicately -- theiving f-ing MBA idiots on Sand Hill and Wall Street to understand is that overprovisioning bandwidth does NOT necessarily create an economic surplus. They certainly didn't seem to think SONET was economic surplus.

      There is no bandwidth surplus anymore than there were honest auditors at Worldcom. In fact, it's very likely the peers of those auditors who manufactured the Too Much Bandwidth propaganda in the first place. What there is, is SUFFICIENT bandwidth to begin growing at the edges ... AS PLANNED, Mr. Wall St. But then, we're only low-life engineers, what would we know about actually building such things?

      There you have it, the mystical Economic Recovery for Dummies. It's called the Ethernet First Mile. Remember, you read it first on /. .

    11. Re:So when do I get fiber in my house? by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 1

      I don't really want to argue w/ you, but should the streets be dug up every time there is a technology change? Look at how much the need(want) for bandwidth is growing. Should every time a new infinitly-massively-aggressive-large-obscure-playe r-male-dominated-fantasy-dungeon game result in the need for more BW? Arguement bad this one is a, true...

  2. Glass? by SkewlD00d · · Score: 2

    Who still uses glass? I think all the commericial stuff out there is already plastic. I mean who wants to splice fiber every 10ms because someone breathed on it wrong?

    news.recycle();

    --
    The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
    1. Re:Glass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do, I do! I bet that job would pay really well!

    2. Re:Glass? by magwa · · Score: 1, Informative

      actully it is very bendable and isnt as fragile as you might think.

      --
      --- Sig test. 1...2...3...
    3. Re:Glass? by SkewlD00d · · Score: 2

      Hehe... I bet you want to be paid hourly too. ;)

      --
      The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
    4. Re:Glass? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2
      10ms?

      Holy shit man, you must splice cable really fast! Want a job, for say 230ms or so?

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    5. Re:Glass? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      How about anybody who runs cables longer then a few meters? They all use glass. Most patch cables are still glass too. You can bend glass cables to a radius smaller than 4cm, so they're not that breakable.

    6. Re:Glass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow you are stupid... ALL of it is glass.. and I can bend it like a madman

      TRY to actually learn about something before you shoot your mouth off about it...

      as you are obviousally clueless, stupid and full of shit.

    7. Re:Glass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most patch cables are still glass too. You can bend glass cables to a radius smaller than 4cm, so they're not that breakable.

      You should see our racks. 4cm? I think most of the cables are in knots. They work fine. :-)

    8. Re:Glass? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Who still uses glass? I think all the commericial stuff out there is already plastic.

      Nope. Plastic is only used for cheapo short-run stuff, like the TOSLink cables used for digital links in home audio equipment. Anything that requires long runs, high bandwidth, or both is still glass. (And it doesn't break every "10 ms", it's more flexible and durable than you think. As long as you don't try to bend it 90 or step on it or anything, it's sturdy enough.)

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    9. Re:Glass? by Yarn · · Score: 2

      If I made a hangman's noose from single mode silica fibre your neck would break before the fibre did.

      I mentioned in another story how tough fibre is. Telecomms fibre takes quite a lot to damage it.

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    10. Re:Glass? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Until one of the guys on the lawn crew gets enthusiastic with the ditch-witch or gas powered post hole digger....

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    11. Re:Glass? by Gooba42 · · Score: 1

      Until my layoff this past April, I was working for a fiber component manufacturer and I can attest to the fact that they are indeed still using glass fiber. Those little bastards are sharp and they break/scratch at the slightest provocation.

      --
      I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
  3. Finally by CaptPungent · · Score: 0

    This is what I've been waiting for. We need these to replace the current fiber thats installed in the US, and run to EVERY HOME instead of traditional copper phone lines. Maybe then the cost of bandwidth would come down (I'm not sure about that, as I'm not a phone/network expert. Someone out there will probably shoot that comment down)

    --
    C Pungent
    1. Re:Finally by pbinmt · · Score: 1

      I think the cost of installation, amplifiers, CSU's etc. will still hamper the spread of broadband.

    2. Re:Finally by mwjlewis · · Score: 1
      You are correct for the most part, Although after it become's mainstream, the cost of the hardware will go down as well.

      For example- 3 years ago, i bought a external HP 1x-2x CD burner- 300.00 Now, I can get a 48X for 80.

      56k modem new 5 years ago - 75.00 now - 12.00

      It will take some time, but then again, it will also take some time to lay all that fiber.

      I belive that in 7-10 years, 60%-80% of the US will have fiber to the door.

      --
      www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
    3. Re:Finally by pbinmt · · Score: 1

      True enough for the consumer products but, how much of that is true for the commercial end OC-12's, fiber switches and so on? Of course, if there is no competition in the ISP market, none of this will mater.

    4. Re:Finally by mwjlewis · · Score: 1
      While you are correct with the cost for the commerical High end equipment not marginly going down compaired to consumer products. The ISP is going to be doing more business because it's client(s)/customer(s) base is going to be much larger because of the mainstream acceptance.

      The cost might not go down, but the client base will go up and their margins on profit might even be smaller, but more customers *should* = more money.

      Even the ghetto will have fiber to it's door, with the street dealers taking orders with 802.11(x) iPaq's for crack; and with the FED's downloading NetStumbler and tring to get in on the action.

      GOOD TIMES!!!!

      --
      www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
    5. Re:Finally by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 1

      To the door, I think your going to have a huge problem with the last mile. Telcos are not going to put out the money needed with the current economic situation. Your looking at, at least 15-25 before they need to competativly switch. If there is a significant need for a traditional telco by that point. I think cable might make the higher end of your estimate if there is a drop in PC prices, or a rise in internet apps, but the cost for them to do last mile is also very high.

  4. Dark Fibre? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So let me get this straight; all the dark fibre we have in the states is now obsolete and therefore useless? Great, thanks, just checking.

    "Don't bother lighting it up now, boys, just chop it up good when we start laying the new stuff."

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:Dark Fibre? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, all the dark fibre we have in the states may be lit up in the future because a cheaper new way of bridging the last mile has just been invented. There's no reason to replace already-installed fibre, it's not "obsolete".

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    2. Re:Dark Fibre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's multimode fiber of the "wrong" kind. Then it's obsolete.

    3. Re:Dark Fibre? by aonaran · · Score: 1

      You don't use multimode for long distances, it's really only for building/campus networks anything that requires a stretch longer than 500m for 10Mbps or 2km for 100Mbps requires single mode fibre.

      besides you can always use media converters.

    4. Re:Dark Fibre? by Mike1024 · · Score: 2

      Hey,

      So let me get this straight; all the dark fibre we have in the states is now obsolete and therefore useless? Great, thanks, just checking.

      "Don't bother lighting it up now, boys, just chop it up good when we start laying the new stuff."


      I don't think old fibre is obsolete, just there might be a new, cheaper fibre also availiable. Which will be useful, because there are many places that don't have fibre running to them, and running it is expensive. Like £200,000 per mile expensive.

      They may take our lives, but they will never take our FREEDOM!!!

      Given the current political situation, a more appropriate quote may be "They may take our freedom, but they will never take our LIVES!!!"

      Michael

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    5. Re:Dark Fibre? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      "Given the current political situation, a more appropriate quote may be "They may take our freedom, but they will never take our LIVES!!!""

      It's getting better. Anyone catch Law and Order last night? An ex US military soldier tied up and killed an arab man who he had been tracking for a while. His defense? He was defending the lives of Americans against a terrorist. The more they looked into it, the more the dead man appeared to be a terrorist (tons of money from foreign accounts, talking in code on a pre-paid untraceable cell phone, etc). The jury eventually found him guilty after a stunningly brilliant cross-examination by the prosecutor, and an equally impressive closing by the same. Basically, he posed the question, "how much of our humanity are we willing to give up for the war on terrorism." He also made some wonderful remarks about how those who came before us preserved their ideals in the face of destruction (lest we forget that our enemies burned the White House and other buildings to the ground during the war of 1812), and that we shouldn't be the generation to succumb to fear. A very powerful and refreshing episode that brings hope to those who, like me, almost lost faith in the American peoples' love of freedom and democracy.

      My sig is a quote from the movie Braveheart. Anyone who has it on DVD should really listen to the speech he makes where that statement is called aloud. It's actually very relevant to the current struggle we face to have courage and could just as easily had been said by a great leader on Sept 12, 2001. If anyone's seen a great leader around lately, please let me know?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    6. Re:Dark Fibre? by The_Sock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wanted to mod you down, but there is no option for "-1 Wrong". I sat and thought about this for a minute or two and here's the best I can come up with.

      Wrong answers generate a good number of responses... corrections and such. This adds more comments total to the article. This will drive up the average comments per article. Articles with higher number of comments will make more people read the comments. This could again lead to even more comments. The responses correcting the misinformation will generally be modded "+1 Informative" or left alone, not modded down (nor should they be). People will not mod you off topic, troll or flamebait, because you are none of the above, you are just plain wrong. This will appear to give a better the signal to noise ratio, as there are now alot more positively moderated or non-negatively moderated posts. I say appear because comments such as these, though not modded down, are noise. The responses, though correct, also shouldn't be her, making them noise as well.

      So we have: Appearance of a better signal to noise ratio, more comments per story, and more people reading these comments which equals more ad views and a higher chance of a click-through. These all looks better to advertisers and would be advertisers. This will lead to more ad clicks, and possibly better payout per ad click.

      Conclusion:

      The slashdot powers that be are purposefully leaving out the "-1 Wrong" moderation option to get more comments per story in order to generate more ad revenue.

      Now, as for you being moderated up... well.. Apparently there's also a moderator out there who is "-1 Wrong".

      --
      For a good time call www.sawkie.com
    7. Re:Dark Fibre? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      From the text of your post, I see three main points:

      First, I am wrong. Nevermind that the post was a semi-rant about the computer industry's annoying habit of replacing a product before it was used in the first place. And nevermind the fact that you never provide any evidence or reasoning, logical or otherwise, to dispute what I have said. Your arrogance is surpassed only by your paranoia, which brings me to the next point.

      Second, there is a massive conspiracy by the editors to make money. Now, I'm not Taco's accountant, but I don't think he's catching up to Bill Gates anytime soon thanks to slashdot. They may make questionable decisions from time to time, but the fact remains that they're maintaining a FREE website for our enjoyment. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Until now, I would have difficulty naming a major mistake they've made with this site, but I now see the one huge mistake that has yet to be corrected: allowing you to moderate.

      Thirdly, the moderators who modded me up (there were two so far) are both wrong. Well, that's three people who are, according to you, wrong, and once again we have a statement of opinion made without the benefit of any supporting arguments.

      It must be nice to allow one's self to become so amazingly dillusional. Thank you, and you have a nice day! :)

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    8. Re:Dark Fibre? by The_Sock · · Score: 1

      There is no reason to not use that dark fibre, and no reason to assume that it wouldn't be used. In fact, it would be ignorant to think it would just go wasted, never touched, because it can fill the roll it's needed for just as well as this new plastic fibre, possibly better, as we do not know the throughput on this new fibre. Also, from a cost standpoint, no matter how cheap it is to lay this new fibre down, corps have already eaten the cost of laying that dark fibre. It would be foolish to lay down new fibre when there is perfectly good fibre already laid, just waiting to be lit up.

      So your poorly thought out comment was wrong. It also couldn't qualify as a rant about "the computer industry's annoying habit of replacing a product before it was used in the first place" as you did not allude to the comptuer industry, this existing fibre is not controlled by the computer industry (unless you stretch the "computer industry" to be defined as you need it be, much like you did rant), and your two lines were not
      a) a violent or extravagant speech or writing
      or
      b) a speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence.

      Perhaps you could call it a bit sarcastic, but definately not a semi rant, rant, or a raving.

      Now, for my conspiracy theory, lighten up a bit. It was not intended in any way as a serious critique of slashdot. It was just for shits and giggles. Sorry you did not get a kick out of it.

      And thirdly, three people have been known to be wrong before, and this is one of those cases.

      And yes, it IS nice. You should remove the stick from your ass and try it. And you also have a nice day.

      --
      For a good time call www.sawkie.com
    9. Re:Dark Fibre? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      We're getting there, still not quite "there" yet though...

      "There is no reason to not use that dark fibre, and no reason to assume that it wouldn't be used. In fact, it would be ignorant to think it would just go wasted, never touched, because it can fill the roll it's needed for just as well as this new plastic fibre, possibly better, as we do not know the throughput on this new fibre. Also, from a cost standpoint, no matter how cheap it is to lay this new fibre down, corps have already eaten the cost of laying that dark fibre. It would be foolish to lay down new fibre when there is perfectly good fibre already laid, just waiting to be lit up."

      People have been saying this for years, and yet companies continue to lay new fibre without ever turning on the dark fibre already available. This article has some excellent information on why I'm right. To quote a nice part of it, "...companies that installed fiber conduits in the late 1980s to latecomers who started installing cables last year. ... Most of the fiber is unused and many of the companies that installed it are struggling. ... the conventional wisdom among telecom experts is that about 95 percent of the nation's fiber is unused, or "dark." "

      On to the next silly response...

      "...couldn't qualify as a rant... and your two lines were not
      a) a violent or extravagant speech or writing
      or
      b) a speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence.

      Perhaps you could call it a bit sarcastic, but definately not a semi rant, rant, or a raving.
      "


      Well, now let's see if this holds true.
      If we click here and go to the noun, we find, "1 a : a bombastic extravagant speech"
      Ok, let's go further. If you click here, you'll see that it says bombastic means "overblown". And if you click right over here, we'll see where extravagant means, "2 a : exceeding the limits of reason or necessity" (as in, overblown).
      So a rant is... Something which is overblown and exceeds the limits of reason or necessity. Sort of like saying we should chop up all the dark fibre? I think so... :)

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

      I think you'll find something more fitting to your personality either here, or there, or maybe here, or perhaps there, or here.

      And as for 3 people being wrong, and you being right? Please check here.

      Thankyoupleasedrivethrough

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    10. Re:Dark Fibre? by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

      "Which will be useful, because there are many places that don't have fibre running to them, and running it is expensive. Like £200,000 per mile expensive"

      Plastic Optical Fiber won't particularly change the high cost of laying cabling - most of the cost lies in the act of acquiring right of way, digging the hole, even the act of cabling the fiber the fiber is a very small part of the cost(Corning SMF-28 Optical Fiber runs about $.15/m - and you can get a couple of orders of magnitude cheaper if your doing a big install - i.e. 100,000kms at a time).

      Where Plastic Optical Fiber will make a substantial difference is in wiring of Offices (replacing Twisted pair), or possibly as a last mile solution - all of the places where the skill(as in intelligence to follow directions) required to install glass fiber makes the installation cost too much.

    11. Re:Dark Fibre? by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      I would say this was more informative than insiteful. The remaining infrastructure could be much increased with cheaper cable. Though the cost of digging stuff up to lay it wont go down. We could do with more of it in the UK. Oh- Btw- nice serpinski triangle....(Or carpet even)...

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  5. Grrr by s20451 · · Score: 2

    Advances in optical-fibre making at the Australian Photonics research centre could bring communications at the speed of light into Australian homes and businesses in the next few years.

    Dammit, communicating over copper with electrical pulses is also at the speed of light (roughly). This is a painful but all-too-common misuse of terminology, confusing speed as in data rate with speed as in velocity. Damn marketing types.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:Grrr by pbinmt · · Score: 1

      Electrons don't flow thrugh coper at the speed of light, in fact it is much slower.

    2. Re:Grrr by s20451 · · Score: 1

      Correct, but the electrical field propagates through the copper at nearly the speed of light -- and the signal travels at the speed of the electrical field.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:Grrr by mekkab · · Score: 2

      yeah, but it's like 76% the speed of light.
      I can't tell the difference! They both seem pretty damn fast to me! And I can't drive 55!

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    4. Re:Grrr by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Electrons themselves don't, but the charge does...

    5. Re:Grrr by masterkool · · Score: 1

      Electrons dont flow at all through copper. Its a longitudinal wave. The electrons just pass the energy along from one to the other down the length of the wire.

      --
      I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
    6. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electric field travels at the speed of light in copper, not nearly, or close, but at the speed of light in copper. It just so happens that the speed of light in copper is slower than it is in vacuum, which is also known as c, or the simply the speed of light.

      Furthermore, the speed of light in copper in cat 5 cable is about .70*c (though it varies on the cable). The speed of light in glass is typically around .66*c. So in some cases a copper conductor is faster than a glass tube at carrying a signal.

      These speeds are not to be confused with the actual electrons, which move extremely slow (much much lower than even the "relativistic" regime).

    7. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electromagnetic field propagates through copper wire at a speed of 60-90% of the speed of light in vacuum. Signal propagation in Cat5 is typically about 70% of speed of light in vacuum. Light in single mode fiber travels at 0.7*c too. Electrons in copper are moving very fast (about 1600km/s at room temperature) but randomly. The drift velocity of electrons in an electromagnetic field however is measured in cm/s.

    8. Re:Grrr by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Is it a wave, is it a particle?? Is it the spaces or the electrons that is flowing in a wave or not? I do know that it IS slower than the speed of light. Maybe someone could post a link to some up to date theory of electronics or something?

    9. Re:Grrr by boskone · · Score: 1

      are you saying that electrical impulses in copper travel at 76% of the speed of light in a vacuum (3x10^6 m/s)? Didn't know what the actual speed was, would have guessed they'd be closer together.

    10. Re:Grrr by be-fan · · Score: 2

      The impuse travels at 120-something miles per second vs 186 thousand miles per second for light.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    11. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, electrical signals in the neighborhood of 10-100MHz propagate through copper at about 0.1C or (18,600 mi/sec or 30,000 km/sec).

    12. Re:Grrr by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Not at all correct, I'm afraid. The reason metal has the electrical properties it does is that some of the electrons can be passed easily from one outer shell to another. In fact, the free electrons can't really be said to be in any one atom's orbital.

      Therefore, when exposed to an electromotive force (voltage), the electrons do get pulled down along the wire. Because of impurities in the copper, they end up bouncing around like a ball in a pinball machine, and never achieve a high rate of speed (according to my physics teacher, the electrons themselves move along the wire at something akin to walking speed).

      However, in a superconductor, there's nothing for the electrons to bounce off, and they do achieve a significant fraction (80%?) of the speed of light. Which is approximately the speed at which the voltage itself moves. You can imagine it as an army of twenty million people in a long column. When they hear a whistle blow, they start walking. Every individual is moving at a very slow rate, yet the signal to move propagates down the column at the speed of sound.

      Does any of this help?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  6. Speed of light? by AirLace · · Score: 1, Informative
    "Advances in optical-fibre making at the Australian Photonics research centre could bring communications at the speed of light into Australian homes and businesses in the next few years."

    50 years after Einstein, and people still don't realise that the electrons in a piece of copper wire travel at the speed of light? In fact, as light in fibre optic cabling bounces off the insides of the plastic tubing, it takes a less direct route and thus technically has a _higher_ latency than copper wire.

    1. Re:Speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the electrons on copper travel a few centimeters per second, not at the speed of light. The Tension of the electric differential travels much faster, yet not at the speed of light. About one tenth of it, i believe.

      Light in fiber optic cable travels at the speed of light on fiber optic cable, which is not the same as the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light on fiber optic cable is also not constant, because there are several layers with different refraction, where the light has different speeds.

      Anyway, the latency of copper is higher than the latency of fibre, not the other way around.

    2. Re:Speed of light? by SkewlD00d · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Single-mode fiber has a mixture of materials that have varying indices of reflection, so that the cable is a light guide instead of a light tunnel. This allows for a shorter path because the light is kept closer to the middle. Btw, the latency of copper is much, much greater than typical single or multimode fiber because of capacitive and inductive coupling. Fiber mainly has the advantage of higher bandwidth and noise immunity, but it wont ever reduce you ping beyond (distance / c).

      --
      The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
    3. Re:Speed of light? by bizitch · · Score: 0

      Its bandwidth that matters knucklehead!

      --
      ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    4. Re:Speed of light? by luckbat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unlike photons, electrons have mass. Nothing with mass moves at anything close to the speed of light.

      What is the speed of electrons down a copper wire?

    5. Re:Speed of light? by AftanGustur · · Score: 2


      50 years after Einstein, and people still don't realise that the electrons in a piece of copper wire travel at the speed of light?


      That's only one half of the truth. Although the electrons travel at almost lightspeed, they constantly change their direction back-and-forth, so if you could see a single alectron, it would appear to be traveling at about 3cm/second in (actually *on*) a copper wire.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    6. Re:Speed of light? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      50 years after Einstein, and people still don't realise that the electrons in a piece of copper wire travel at the speed of light?

      Maybe that's because the electrons in a copper wire don't move anywhere near the speed of light - it's the wavefront produced by the electrons' motion that travels at or near c.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    7. Re:Speed of light? by theMightyE · · Score: 4, Interesting
      >50 years after Einstein, and people still don't realise that the electrons in a piece of copper wire travel at the speed of light?

      I'll admit that I didn't do the math to re-check this, but I seem to remember the velocity of electrons in copper wire being on the order of a few cm/second - much less than the speed of light. The confusion my be coming from the fact that when you stick an extra electron in the end of an otherwise neutrally charged wire, the spare charge sets up an electrical field that pushes a different electron out the other end (assuming it's grounded or generally has another place to go to). It's the electrical field that travels at the speed of light, not the electrons themselves.

      >In fact, as light in fibre optic cabling bounces off the insides of the plastic tubing, it takes a less direct route and thus technically has a _higher_ latency than copper wire.

      Ummm.. not quite. It's true that the light bounces around inside the fiber, but due to the low index difference between the core of the fiber and it's surrounding cladding the angle of the bounce is pretty small and wouldn't really increase the distance the light needs to travel The distance increase is proportional to 1/cos[angle] so when the angle is near zero, cos[angle] is near 1 and 1/cos[angle] is pretty near 1 meaning no big change in the distance traveled by Joe Photon. For electrical wires, speed is limited by the capacitance/inductance ratio of the cable and is typically around 2-3 times slower than free-space light.

      All in all, it's a good thing that electrons don't go the speed of light in our house wiring - I used to work with a synchrotron, which is a device that gets the electrons moving at relativistic speeds, and whenever the beam of elecrons went around a corner it produced enough X-rays due to the angular acceleration to flash-fry a horse. Be glad that copper wire electrons are slow, since if they were fast we'd get cooked every time a bit of house wiring was anything less than perfectly straight.

    8. Re:Speed of light? by mwjlewis · · Score: 1
      While the light in fiber might bounce off wall here or wall there, It is NOT receiving any interferance, and thus the quality of the link is higher, and the latency might be 1-2ns off, but the end connection is going to have less dropped packets, less overhead, and overall, the data will get there faster

      ok, Flame AWAY

      --
      www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
    9. Re:Speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. The electrons in a piece of copper wire travel very slowly, sometimes a few meters per second depending on the current. The signal, however, travels at the speed of light in copper.

      The term "the speed of light" is generally meant to mean, c. Which is really the speed of light in a vacuum.
      Its probably clearer to say speed of light in a given material rather, like copper in this case.

      The speed of light in glass is indeed lower than that of wire, but only very slightly. Whatever material you use for sending light (as opposed to baseband or RF signals) by definition has to be relatively slow because you need a high refractive index to keep the light bending around the cable. By slow we mean about 66% the speed of light, in the case of glass used for fiber optic cable.

      The speed differences are actually enough to make a noticeable difference in latency.

    10. Re:Speed of light? by fonetik · · Score: 1
      "Unlike photons, electrons have mass."


      I didn't even know they were Catholic! *ba-dum 'ching*

    11. Re:Speed of light? by mindstrm · · Score: 2

      one tenth? More like nine tenths.

      Communication over copper is near lightspeed.

    12. Re:Speed of light? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      The speed of the electrons doesn't determine the speed of the signal. If you want a crude analogy, think of electron motion as being like wind and electric signaling as being like sound.

      That's why you can have a signal moving at half or 2/3 the speed of light while the electrons are just moseying.

    13. Re:Speed of light? by blazin · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way... Fill a piece of surgical tubing with ball bearings (of about the same size as the tube). Now push another bearing in on one side. It doesn't take long for your push to be felt on the other side. Even though you're only pushing at a very slow speed, the message gets there very quickly. Electrons work like the ball bearings in the tube.

    14. Re:Speed of light? by rherbert · · Score: 1

      People also forget that light travelling through glass is much slower than light travelling through a vacuum... I believe it's about 33% slower.

      Not that it makes that big a deal.

    15. Re:Speed of light? by am+2k · · Score: 2
      Fiber mainly has the advantage of higher bandwidth and noise immunity, but it wont ever reduce you ping beyond (distance / c).
      Don't forget that the speed of light isn't c in the fiber. c is the speed of light in vacuum.
    16. Re:Speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a link to about drift velocity (yes, it's a basic description of it, but it works) which is the rate of which electrons themselves move. Note that it says: "It is the change or "signal" which propagates along wires at essentially the speed of light."

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elect ri c/miccur.html

    17. Re:Speed of light? by KingPrad · · Score: 1

      electrons in the copper cable barely move at all - about 1 centimeter per second I've heard. What moves is the electromagnetic pulses. doesn't matter how fast the electrons might move

      --
      Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
    18. Re:Speed of light? by Eric+Seppanen · · Score: 2
      There's no inherent "latency" involved in copper wires, just lower bandwidth and higher noise due to interference and reflections. Signal propagation velocity in copper and fiber are actually quite similar, 0.6c to 0.8c depending on material. Fiber is often slower than copper in actual propagation velocity.

      link link link

      --
      314-15-9265
    19. Re:Speed of light? by yobbo · · Score: 2

      Dude, you've just pissed off a whole heap of trek fans :\

    20. Re:Speed of light? by wsloand · · Score: 2

      Unlike photons, electrons have mass. Nothing with mass moves at anything close to the speed of light.

      Another poster correctly mentioned that the electrons don't move quickly, but the pulses do (as stated in the link you put up).

      Another point that needs to be made is that photons do have mass. The de Broglie equation holds for all energy (and matter is energy) which states that m*v*lambda=h where m is the mass, v is the velocity, lambda is the wavelength and h is Planck's constant (6.626E-34 J*s). That gives near infrared light (lambda = 400nm) a mass of about 5.52E-36 kg. For reference an electron's rest mass is 9.109E-31 kg.

      Bill

    21. Re:Speed of light? by conway · · Score: 1
      Unlike photons, electrons have mass. Nothing with mass moves at anything close to the speed of light.

      Umm, I'm sorry, if photons don't have mass why are they attracted by gravity? (eg. black holes?)
      Photons DO have mass. This is part of the dual wave-particle nature of light.

    22. Re:Speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... is typically around 2-3 times slower than ...

      Really??!! 200% to 300% slower?

      Here's a heads-up for you: THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!

      Maybe you meant "1/2 to 1/3 of the speed" or "50% to 67% slower". Please think before you post!

      DAMIT! - (Developers Against Mathematically Incorrect Terminology)

    23. Re:Speed of light? by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Muons which have a mass greater than an electron move very close to the speed of light, close enough to have a very high time dilation factor. Artifically created muons (as opposed to muons created in the atmosphere by radiation hitting our atmosphere) have achieved speeds as much as 99.7% the speed of light. That gives a time dilation factor of 12. Ref.: About Time by Paul Davies, pp. 55-58

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    24. Re:Speed of light? by t_little · · Score: 1

      Photons do not have mass. They have energy and momentum. The deBroglie relation relates momentum and wavelength. Momentum is not mass*velocity except for very low velocities. The true relation between energy, mass, and momentum is

      E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2,

      where E is energy, m is mass, p is momentum, and c is the speed of light. (In the case where p=0, this reduces to the familiar E=mc^2)

      Photons have m=0, so that E = p c.

      --

      -- Tim Little

    25. Re:Speed of light? by EverDense · · Score: 1

      So that's why they always used Photon torpedos.
      'Cause they were faster than the ships.

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    26. Re:Speed of light? by davidmccabe · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember the velocity of electrons in copper wire being on the order of a few cm/second

      A *few* cm/s? Then how come I can ping from here to my other machine, at least 15 meters of cat5 wire, in average 0.3ms?

      That has to be bogus. Perhaps you meant dekameters or hectometers or even kilometers. Do you know how short a cm is? Eletrons, though I don't know if there're speed-of-light, are FAST!

    27. Re:Speed of light? by theMightyE · · Score: 1
      I mentioned in my post that the electric field (which is closely associated with voltage, i.e. the 1's and 0's of the digital world) moves quickly, not the electrons themselves. This is why we get fast pings from slow electrons. The _average_ speed of any individual electron is pretty slow. It depends on the strength of the electric field it's in, the cross-sectional area of the wire it's in, the number of mobile charge carriers, etc., but it's still nowhere near light speed. Here's a little backup info:

      Some guy at sciencenet
      Dept. of Energy's Ask a Scientist

      As you can see, the speed they give varies between a few mm/sec and a few m/s. This basically depends on what assumptions you make when setting up the calculation. A few cm/sec is just a handy order of magnitude estimate.

    28. Re:Speed of light? by davidmccabe · · Score: 1

      Well, now...we learn something everyday, huh? Sorry I was a bit loud.

  7. So? This is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the things out there now that pass as "fibre optic" are infact plastic. For example, every single digital optical cable (aka TosLINK) I've ever seen is plastic. This isn't news to anyone that's been awake in the last 10 years.

  8. weird corrolation of data by lingqi · · Score: 1
    The communication people want has been increasing from 56kbps a few years ago to 54Mbps now," Sceats says. "In five to 10 years we will talk about how to connect people up at 100-1000Mbps. That's what we need to prepare for.

    from 56k->54M is ~1000x speed. the "future" they are preparing for is only a 2-20x jump. I'd say they should prepare for 54Gbit connections to people's homes, but hey, whatever.

    at the same time, who here actually connects at 54Mbits, anyway?

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:weird corrolation of data by Jobe_br · · Score: 1

      No doubt ... I certainly don't, and a good number of businesses I work with don't, either. Considering a T1 at 1.5Mbps still sets you back between $500 and $1K a month, T3 lines (at 45Mbps) will set you back quite a bit more, I imagine (about 1-2 yrs ago, I heard a T3 would run you about $20K per month). I can't fathom what Rackspace must pay in monthly bandwidth fees for the 3 OC-12s, an OC-3 and a DS-3, which they try to keep at 60% bandwidth utilization (or so). Christ.

    2. Re:weird corrolation of data by joib · · Score: 2

      I have 100Mbps. At home. For about EUR 10 per month, IIRC. One of the benefits of uni housing...:)

  9. Learn some science. by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 1, Informative
    The reason for the "don't bend the fiber" rule isn't that glass is fragile. Glass is very elastic and therefore very "bendy" in small diameters (think of fiberglass). The reason for the rule is because of how internal reflections (which is what fiber optics depends on) works. Basically the laser has to hit the inside surface of the glass fiber at a smallish angle called "Brewster's angle". (Think of looking at reflections in a puddle--as you get closer your angle increases and the reflection suddenly disappears).

    This plastic optics fiber must have a higher index of refraction than glass, which increases Brewster's angle, which increases the amount of bend allowed before the signal is lost. This is no biggie, technologically speaking. The only reason it hasn't been done before is cost. Glass is very cheap and we know how to make thin strands of it already.

    1. Re:Learn some science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PG, with your user name it's going to be hard karma whoring yourself up to a +2. Good luck. By the way, I belive the correct spelling is fibreglass.

  10. Cost of broadband? by Jobe_br · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Interesting quote:

    It's all about getting these big fat pipes that were laid in North America to people who want broadband - and real broadband, not the wussy broadband people are marketing at the moment.

    Maybe I'm just naive (probably), but the limiting factor today for broadband Internet access is the cost of the bandwidth, possibly due to the stranglehold a few key companies have on access to their backbones. The cable that comes into my house can be used for speeds in excess of 30Mbps, if I recall correctly, yet I have a mere 1.5-2Mbps (at $39.95/mo). Admittedly, DSL has technical limitations on speed, but even so, the large limiting factor seems to be the cost of an OC-12/48/96 connection to the 'Net, right?

    When is that gonna change?!? What is needed to bring about that change? Regulation?

    1. Re:Cost of broadband? by NorthDude · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered what exactly was the "backbone" of the internet.
      I mean, I understand the concept, but technically, what is it?
      Somebody want to educate me on this topic?

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    2. Re:Cost of broadband? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    3. Re:Cost of broadband? by be-fan · · Score: 2

      This is a bit oversimplified (and I'm afraid of networking), so please by nice with corrections :) When you connect to your ISP, you connect via something like DSL or cable or (dread) dial-up. Now your ISP is probably pretty small, so he has a fatter connection to some major telcom company (like AT&T, for example). The telcom companies maintain whats called the internet "backbone" (though its more like a web, I'd hate to meet the creature that has a backbone arranged like that :) These companies have fiber optic connections that link them to other major telcom companies. Its these high-speed links between major telcom companies (and probably government agencies and whatno) thats called the Internet backbone.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    4. Re:Cost of broadband? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      the problem is that they're getting away with saying bandwith is expensive. Bandwith is nearly free...its the cost of sending the signal across the lines. Cheap, ne? what needs to happen is for civilians and joe user to have a way to get into a backbone cheaply, not an easy task when the backbones are controlled by monopolists

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    5. Re:Cost of broadband? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It aint the pipe, its the box.

      What is it at the other end;

      TSU $300
      cable $100
      Cisco 2500 $1400 or so
      Cisco 7500 core router ~13K+

      And that gets you T1 one line. (Additionals are less cuz you can put two on the 2500, and a bunch through the 7500 to the BB)

      Think that routing all that data is going to not be necessary just because there is fiber to the drop in your basement?

      For the prices to change, the WHOLE WAY ISPs MOVE PACKETS has to change. Not just the last mile. You cant divide a pipe into more pipes without routing, so your tree structure of routers to smaller routers to your house has to go away.

      I am not sure I have ever seen or heard about anything that could do that task. Maybe there will be a cheap, fibre-capable router-on-a-chip someday. But not today.

      I am not holding my breath for last mile solution. It's a big problem, it will be a while.

    6. Re:Cost of broadband? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      DOCSIS cable has a theoretical maximum of ~45mbps downstream (non-shared) and ~11mbps upstream (shared). This sort of speed will seldom be seen outside the lab, of course, but real world performance should meet or exceed the 20mbps mark downstream.

      This sort of speed will not be used until people start delivering video on demand through it. Look for this to show up in set top boxes within the next few years.

      Incidentally the reason AT&T bought cable companies is so that they could provide the following services, all over one fat piece of coaxial cable:

      • Cable Television
      • Internet Access
      • Local Phone Service
      • Long Distance Phone Service
      • Video on Demand

      Whether anyone will actually do wide-rollout video on demand is up for debate, and has been for a long time. With DOCSIS, however, the technology is certainly there.

      Consider PACE's STB based on Cisco's CM reference design. It contains an MPEG2 decoder (for doing digital cable), a DOCSIS CM, and a cute little computer. It also has a smart card slot, and a RJ45 providing ethernet out the back. All you would have to add to this is a little bit of hardware for IP Telephony (namely a sound card and POTS isolation hardware) and you would have everything you needed to carry out the above tasks. The STB itself can be used to surf the internet, hence it should be able to do IP Telephony (with the above hardware) without any trouble.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Cost of broadband? by simulacrum · · Score: 1

      I work for the cable company. It's not last mile, and it's not even so much the backbone. We make money. It's that it's not worth it to offer it.

      We market to the mass, and 1.5 Mbps is fast enough for 95% of consumers. The 5% of consumers that want faster are already using more than their share of bandwidth and are making up for what others don't use. (ie: the whole pay-per-bandwidth debate) It's not worth it for us to offer higher bandwidth to 5% of users that are going to utilize an exorbitant amount of bandwidth.

    8. Re:Cost of broadband? by Jobe_br · · Score: 1

      So, if its not worth it then wouldn't that mean that either the cost of bandwidth to the backbone or the equipment necessary to offer higher speeds to the last mile (if that's an issue) would be a limiting factor?!? Otherwise, why limit the bandwidth?!?

      I understand what you're saying about 1.5Mbps being fine for 95% of customers (it is for me), but this thread was talking about how having fiber-optics in the last mile won't make much of a difference because of the cost of bandwidth currently ... do you disagree?

  11. Bendy light? by sporty · · Score: 1

    Is this how they got "time" to bend around corners in the explosion in the movie, Time Machine?

    I still have no clue who thought of the idea of time being fluid...

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  12. Excellent quote by Flarelocke · · Score: 1
    ...real broadband, not the wussy broadband people are marketing at the moment.

    Yeah, I don't want some wussy 300Mbps broadband. Where's my 10GB/s? This flexible fiber, according to the article, can cut the cost to lay last mile fiber. It's about time. Now, if we can only get an ISP to offer the service at that speed...
    1. Re:Excellent quote by Jobe_br · · Score: 1

      Precisely ... it'll be *so* nice to have fiber-optics to my house (and even wired *in* my house) and still only get a measly 2Mbps to the 'Net. I think what we'll find happening in the next 5-10 yrs, though, is having differing levels of speed based on geography.

      For instance, homes will be outfitted with particularly high-bandwidth mediums (to stream video from TiVo to TiVo, etc). Then, connections within your neighborhood, community, town will be the next level of bandwidth, as you stay within your local 'Net (so accessing the local newspaper, TV stations, gov't., etc. will be real quick). Then, access to state-wide and nation-wide services will be the next level, as your connection has to traverse the various backbones to get where its going. Finally, access to global resources will be the last level, as you have to traverse intercontinental (trans-pacific/trans-atlantic) connections (satellite, ocean-bed fiber, etc.)

      As the contention for a connection increases, based on the number of folks who would potentially want to access it (less folks want to access local community resources than sites such as CNN or Reuters), the bandwidth experienced will necessarily decrease, right?

    2. Re:Excellent quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very very wierd. it already is like this. your post is redunant. try accessing some sites in another country. SLOW! (it's probably just carnivore dissecting your packets though, making sure you're not trasmitting terrorism or something)

  13. Re:Use a spell checker, dimwit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    America is not the centre of the universe.

  14. Ok so I did not read the article.. by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

    But it occurse to me that plastics are not yet to the point where you could put nearly as many modes through as traditional fiber..

    --
    1. Re:Ok so I did not read the article.. by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not really the point. The point is that this type of FO is much better suited to domestic applications, and applications where using glass FO is not practical (ie: running through conduits not designed for FO). This doesn't look like it's aimed at replacing backbones, but nore like last-mile technology.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  15. Re:Cheap and Bendy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are two attributes of the ideal girlfriend?

  16. Nice troll by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 0, Troll

    The electrons in a copper wire travel a few centimeters a minute. Before trying to appear knowledgeable, it helps to start by actually being knowledgeable.

    1. Re:Nice troll by b0bd0bbs · · Score: 1

      Actually the speed the electrons travel is directly related to the voltage. Roughly, at 1 volt an electron will travel 1 mm/sec on a copper conductor. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the speed an electronic signal travels. By your logic I would need to actually recieve the electron (which would require huge DC power) that you send in order for me to get your signal. If the internet worked this way your ping times would be measured in months. An electron is charged. When it moves, the electron next to it moves out of it's way (like charges repel). The time it takes from when one electron moves and the other 'feels' it is equal to how long it takes light to travel between the two electrons. In essence, the force between electrons moves at the speed of light. They don't call it electromagnetism for nothin!

    2. Re:Nice troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you call his post troll? The original post said "50 years after Einstein, and people still don't realise that the electrons in a piece of copper wire travel at the speed of light", which clearly is false.

    3. Re:Nice troll by joib · · Score: 2

      It's the changing electric field that carries the information. The field propagates at about 2/3 times the speed of light in copper. The motion of the electrons is because of the field, not the other way around as you describe.

    4. Re:Nice troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voltage is Potential difference. If my memory serves me correct, it is the amount of energy required to move one Coulomb of electrons. The higher the voltage needed to move one Coulomb of electrons, the more energy is expended. speed of electrons is not directly related to voltage.

      For you others.. in a 75ohm shielded cable the speed of propogation for electrons is roughly 2/3 the speed of light in a vacuum. Figure out the rest.

      Two types of fibre exist. multimode, multiple modes of light which can cause pulse spreading over longer distances therefore needing signal reconstruction and Single mode fibres, only one mode of "light wave" per say goes through the fibre down the middle of the core.

      And yes no copper wire can match a fibre system in capacity and speed of propogation for a signal.

  17. We do! by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

    It's for work only mind you. Multiple pipes running our web hosting network.

    Then again, I have no idea who could possibly need this for home use. Even watching multiple streamed digital feeds from AOL's new world order couldn't fill that need. In short- that's a helluva lot of pr0n.

    -Matt

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
    1. Re:We do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3D holo-porno could fill that kind of bandwidth.

      mmmmm...holo-Kobe

  18. T3's for all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well ok sure, but this doesn't really mean that any more bandwidht or cost benefits will come to the general market.

  19. Termination? by bizitch · · Score: 0

    I wonder if its any easier to terminate than glass fiber - This too is a major reason why FO isn't deployed in the last mile ...

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  20. Deep inside the ISP boardrooms by brogdon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exec 1: Gee guys, with this cheaper fiber, we could roll out much better speeds than what we get on the copper we use now!

    Execs #2 & #3: Woo-hoo, that'll really help us get a leg up on the competition!

    Exec #1: Oh, wait... We don't have any competition. We don't have to share our lines with anyone, so no one else can get their foot in the door here. I guess we'll have to bonus our expansion money out to ourselves, instead.

    Exec #2 (holding plastic fiber up to his eye) : Hey, Dick, I think I can see you through this thing. Neato. Somebody get me a martini.

    --


    This tagline is umop apisdn.
  21. Re:Use a spell checker, dimwit. by Jobe_br · · Score: 1

    Just a quick note: there are two spellings to this: Fiber and Fibre. Fiber refers to the glass/plastic optical medium whereas Fibre refers to a type of communication, I believe. E.g. fibre channel, a popular method of high-speed connection for external drives. Nothing optical about it (though it can work over fiber-optic cables) and the protocol that runs over it can be SCSI (or anything else, such as TCP/IP).

  22. Telcos don't care about us rural rednecks by FreshMeat-BWG · · Score: 1
    Like I can really get excited about this. I live 52,800 feet from my telco. My copper twisted-pair is so bad going through repeaters that my software modem doesn't even recognize a dial tone. I bought an expensive hardware modem and after disabling all of the "nifty" 56k features I can usually connect at 21.6kbps.

    When will (non-lagged via satellite) broadband come to the rest of us?

    1. Re:Telcos don't care about us rural rednecks by SkewlD00d · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but there's not much of a chance of that happening. The mean path of ground-to-ground satellite communication is really long. you'd have fixed latency of 100-200ms MINIMUM because information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, 3x10^8 m/s roughly. Unless we find a way to polarize tacyons, information doesn't want to go faster than light, because then you could potentially send messages into the past.

      --
      The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
    2. Re:Telcos don't care about us rural rednecks by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      With LEO sats, you could get that down to something more reasonable. My current satellite service gets minimum 600ms latency real world, in geostationary orbit, 35,000km or so up. LEO sats can be much much lower, 300-800km. At LEO, the latency is no longer an issue, in fact, you might get better latency than land lines under some circumstances!

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Telcos don't care about us rural rednecks by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      With the new Squeal like a pig, boy broadband connection from Deliverance Networks, you banjo-playing inbreeds can communicate at the speed of sound.

      Simply plug your modem cable into the ass of a dumb city-boy (preferably one with a purdy mouth ), play that ole banjo tune, and our acoustic routers will pass your signal to the internet.

      Of course, the higher you make the purdy boy squeal, the higher the bandwidth, so if you want gigabit connections, you really have to make the mother squeal.

      A pilot scheme in Royston Vaizey got over 1Mbit, by multiplexing several inner-city Mancunians.

      It's coming your way soon....

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  23. It's the only way anyone will get it cheap. by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

    Groups of people need to organize and configure their own fiber networks. There's no financial gain - as a matter of fact it's a loss - for large companies to offer this technology when they're already running much smaller lines for huge rates.

    There's plenty of stories from small communities who Telco's said couldn't get DSL that organized, purchased the necessary hardware, and now run inexpensive commercial-grade bandwidth to all their homes.

    -Matt

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
    1. Re:It's the only way anyone will get it cheap. by tamias · · Score: 1

      Well, In the case of downtown Vancouver the company offers television and internet (fibre optic) to the buildings they have wired. New buildings in the downtown core are often have fibre put in at construction. This is a small company for sure, in comparison to Shaw cable and Telus (our "local" telco) which are huge monopolies. Like I said I am quite happy with my situation but realize I am lucky to have bought a home in a building serviced by this company. Hopefully, this trend of connecting up new condtruction will continue.

    2. Re:It's the only way anyone will get it cheap. by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 1

      Well I hope for your sake Telus and Shaw/Rogers don't buy out your provider. It's good to see some CLEC's can still handle areas the giants don't go for...

  24. Cheap and Bendy? by JTFritz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Dammit... I saw cheap and bendy and thought this was a Natalie Portman story. timothy, I rate you a -1 OffTopic!

  25. Critical Angle? by AmishSlayer · · Score: 1

    The article mentions that the new fiber can bend more than traditional fiber optics... does that mean that it can bend past the critical angle for the material? With the traditional fiber optics the fiber would snap before reaching the critical angle so you are assured that the light will not leave the fiber channel because the fiber would physically break before you could bend it that far. If the new fibers can be bent past the material's critical angle then stupid human errors can occur and cause problems.

  26. Re:Use a spell checker, dimwit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fiber's the American spelling of it.
    England and the (ex-)British colonies write fibre.

    http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fibre

  27. Perfect timing... by ncc74656 · · Score: 2

    ...given this announcement that people ought to get more fiber...

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  28. In an unrelated story by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

    In an unrelated story, the price of Cu falls on world markets.

  29. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was university in the 1980's, all the fiber optic we used then was already plastic. Was a lot more durable and you could put connectors on it without using the welding jig.

  30. Loss and dispersion? by overshoot · · Score: 2

    The big problem with POF has always been that it has higher loss and dispersion than glass. Until those are solved POF is still going to be limited to very short distances.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  31. Whorin' 4 All the Peeps by PrinceGrammarTroll · · Score: 1

    A hair's breadth from changing thee world

    Advances N optical-fibre making @ thee Australian
    Photonics research centre could bring communications @
    thee speed uv light into Australian homes and
    businesses N thee next few years.

    Thee centre holds patents over a new way 2 make
    optical fibres using plastic polymers instead uv thee
    traditional silicon-based glass. (A polymer iz a big
    molecule composed uv many smaller molecules strung N
    long, repeating chains. Examples R DNA, proteins,
    rubber, rayon and plastics.)

    Thee advance - microstructured polymer optical fibres
    (MPOF) - allows thee manufacture uv optical fibres
    that R much smaller, cheaper, more rugged and easier 2
    make than glass fibres because, N part, they don't
    need thee added weight uv protective coatings.

    Australian Photonics CEO Mark Sceats says thee new
    plastic fibres R about thee width uv a human hair and
    can turn through 90 degrees much more readily than
    glass fibres. thee technology recently won thee
    excellence-N-innov8shun award from telecomms magazine
    CommsWorld.

    Thee fibre's lower cost also makes it attractive 2
    networking vendors who can replace copper coaxial
    networks used N most buildings and homes. Optical
    fibres will boost transmission speeds by several
    orders uv magnitude, from 100Mbps 2 gigabits a second,
    Sceats sez. Plastic-based optical fibres may also
    permit carriers 2 jump thee curb, bridging thee last
    hurdle 2 take high-speed 2-way Internet from thee
    street 2 thee home instead uv using thee slower hybrid
    fibre-coaxial (HFC) cable.

    "Thee communication people want has been increasing
    from 56kbps a few years ago 2 54Mbps now," Sceats
    says. "N five 2 10 years we will talk about how 2
    connect people up @ 100-1000Mbps. That's what we need
    2 prepare for."
    Carriers would no longer have 2 build huge trenches 2
    lay fibre, he says, when a connection thee width uv a
    fishing line would suffice.

    Thee global downturn N telecommunications and IT works
    2 Australia's advantage if we keep our eye on thee big
    prize once a recovery occurs, he says.
    "We shouldn't underestim8 thee amount uv capital we
    will have 2 invest 2 B a player N these gaymes. That's
    why getting N early enables us 2 scale up
    manufacturing 2 a very high volume."

    A problem thee industry faces iz an inability 2 get
    test beds N place 2 prove thee technology, he says.
    Also, it's not enough 2 B a research centre for
    overseas companies, because @ thee first sign uv a
    rocky economy, cuts R more likely 2 B made here then
    close 2 a US or European headquarters.

    "Now iz thee time 2 pump money n2 R&D. Because uv thee
    time it takes 2 get 2 market, we have 2 B well
    positioned 2 catch thee next wave. Its all about
    getting these big fat pipes that were layed N North
    America 2 people who want broadband - and real
    broadband, not thee wussy broadband people R marketing
    @ thee moment."

  32. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheap and Bendy :-)

  33. on the other hand by GunFodder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just read that telecoms have an excess of long haul bandwidth, which means that the issues are the cost of the last mile and consumer uptake.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the main issue is the latter. I have spent some time trying to convince one of my coworkers at a major computer hardware company to get broadband, but he doesn't think he needs it. The uses of broadband are not necessarily obvious if you don't have it.

    I also read that several telecoms will try to address this issues by selling capped broadband at a lower price.

    1. Re:on the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My telecom sells packages with 3 different speeds. Of course the marketing isn't that the first two are capped, rather that they're fast, faster, and fastest, not 'crippled, less crippled, and normal'. Plus the more expensive packages have more extras like a gazillion email addresses you'll never use.

    2. Re:on the other hand by Jobe_br · · Score: 1

      Quoting:

      I just read that telecoms have an excess of long haul bandwidth, which means that the issues are the cost of the last mile and consumer uptake

      While I can understand that the cost of the last mile and consumer uptake can be significant, these are one-time non-recurring costs. Maintenance of the last mile and other infrastructure systems is a recurring cost, as is the cost of backbone connection. Capping bandwidth doesn't really make sense if the last mile and consumer uptake is the limiting factor, right?

      I'm not sure what the solution is to getting the cost of last-mile installation down. Seems you'll always be needing to pay for the techs to come out and get things setup, until the broadband connections are ubiquitous.

    3. Re:on the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      My telecom sells packages with 3 different speeds. Of course the marketing isn't that the first two are capped, rather that they're fast, faster, and fastest, not 'crippled, less crippled, and normal'. Plus the more expensive packages have more extras like a gazillion email addresses you'll never use.


      Think of it more as "You're paying x to use X amount of our bandwidth, y for Y amount of our bandwidth, and z for Z amount of our bandwidth."

      There's nothing crippled about it. They sound like a provider that has a chance of staying in business. You might consider sticking with them.

  34. Not Until The Endless War Has Finished +1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Trivial news about predictable technological
    innovations are posted at Slashdot while
    Amerika's thief-in-chief and resident of

    The White House>

    tries to memorize his Q-cards for President
    Cheney's War For Oil.

  35. Re:Ob nitpicky comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like voting rules?

  36. Re:Use a spell checker, dimwit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but it is the center of the Universe.

  37. Re:Use a spell checker, dimwit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's "center", dumbass.

  38. light in glass? in plastic? by Unordained · · Score: 1

    as far as i know, the speed of light in glass is also less than the speed of light in a vacuum -- thus, both copper and glass (and plastic) fall short of "true" speed of light (in a vacuum) ...

    1. Re:light in glass? in plastic? by Izmunuti · · Score: 1

      Yes, quite a bit less. Rough rule of thumb for light delay through glass fiber is 5 nanoseconds/meter. That's about 2/3 the speed of light in a vacuum.

    2. Re:light in glass? in plastic? by 3waygeek · · Score: 2

      Well, according to a demonstration favored by the late Grace Hopper, electricity propagates through copper at about 1 ns/foot (a bit over 3 ns/meter).

      Of course, that's for an ideal wire -- propagation through coax is about 2/3 that speed, which gets you close to the 5 ns/meter you specify for glass.

  39. Re:So? This is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh so the world is based on your horribly limited expierience with consumer grade crap?

    all real fiber cable is glass... get a clue you idiot.

  40. No.. by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    actually, electron flow through copper wire in a circuit is nowhere NEAR the speed of light. I think it's more like a few feet per second... I could look it up, but I'm lazy.
    I know it's not any kind of high velocity though.

    but it's the elctrical impulse that travels near the speed of light, not the electrons themselves.. think of six billiard balls lined up with 1mm of space between each one. You hit the first one, how long does it take for the impulse to travel? How far do the balls themselves actually move? Not related at all.

    1. Re:No.. by Pyrrus · · Score: 1

      a few feet per second? no. My box (10.0.0.3) is
      connected to my parents box (10.0.0.2) by a ~6 foot
      cat5 cable to the hub, then a ~28' cable to their computer
      generator%ping 10.0.0.2
      PING 10.0.0.2 (10.0.0.2): 56 octets data
      64 octets from 10.0.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=0.7 ms
      64 octets from 10.0.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=0.5 ms
      64 octets from 10.0.0.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=0.4 ms
      64 octets from 10.0.0.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=0.4 ms
      64 octets from 10.0.0.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=0.4 ms

      --- 10.0.0.2 ping statistics ---
      5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
      round-trip min/avg/max = 0.4/0.4/0.7 ms
      generator%
      so the median time to go 68 feet is .4 ms
      68/.4=170 fps not counting it having to go through each network card, hub and
      cpu twice.

    2. Re:No.. by slashhot · · Score: 0

      Hint: the speed of electrons travelling through the wire is a whole lot of orders of magnitude below the speed at which the electromagnetic field propagates. Data is NOT carried by the electrons: it is carried by the electromagnetic waves, so your "measurements" are irrelevant.

    3. Re:No.. by Jus+ad+Bellum · · Score: 1

      First of all use a system of measurement that 5.5bill (give or take 500mill) people use.

      Second the speed of an electron thru a wire is no where near the same as photon thru a fibre. Read some of the other comments for info, or take quantum 101

  41. fiber will never go to peoples homes ! by Brigadier · · Score: 2



    2 years ago it costs approx.$1500 to set up an ISDN line in a clients office. thats 128k both directions.

    today I just set up another client with two officed about 50 miles from each other with a T1 in both offices plus 6 voice lines each. one T1 is 256 the other 512. plus 16 IP's e-mail and such. If I were to call the local phone company and request this service I would be paying upwards of $1500 however with another company using the same exact lines as teh local company they can do it for $600 a month. why ? simple price fixing companies will always stretch technology as long as people are willing to pay. So even if all this wonderful fiber is available commercially I doubt companies will be willing to provide it to homes. keep in mind this involves trenching all over again. A more realistic option will be wireless with fiber running to each transmition point.

    1. Re:fiber will never go to peoples homes ! by sjlutz · · Score: 1

      Although I agree with your point of view about companies hanging onto the technology way too long, I have to disagree somewhat about the cost of adding fibre to the infrastructure.

      It will not be the case in every situation, but these companies ussually didn't just dig a trench and throw a wire in it. They ussually ran a conduit (plastic or metal) to protect the wire, and then pulled the cable through the conduit. Where I live, most of the wiring is in the air on phone poles, which means just pulling the fibre from pole to pole. This is probably more expensive than pulling it through the conduit though.
      I think that even if it was cheap, the phone companies wouldn't run the fiber. There has to be a better reason for them to run the fiber aside from better services. From their point of view, no-one is going to spend the hundreds of dollars on a residential fibre termination unit which will split out internet access and analog phones. (I would of course if I had the chance for higher/cheaper bandwidth). That means they have to supply the addition end-unit equipment (or rent it out).

  42. Who said anything about electrons? by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    He said electrical impulses. And he's right.

    the change in the electric field propagates at near the speed of light through copper. The fact that the electrons themselves flow is more of a byproduct.

  43. Re:So? This is new? by kmankmankman2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Most of the things"? I'd like to see a better, more accurate, metric than that. Comparing consumer grade, short distance, optical cabling like TosLink stuff to carrier and data center cabling is misleading at best. Serious optical networking infrastructure still runs over glass fiber. The promise of a (presumably) cheaper and definitely thinner optical cabling option is very appealing. You've probably never seen the confluence of hundreds of cables under a single data center floor tile all bound for the same patch panel - it can be very difficult just to fit it all. This isn't due to the width of the fiber itself but the protective plastic cladding (usually in either yellow or orange depending on the type of fiber). And while glass is still a bit more flexible than the article would leave one thinking, in untrained hands it is quite easy to break. But don't kid yourself - today's optical networking infrastructure is definitely running over glass - and I've been awake a lot longer than the last 10 years.

    --
    "The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
  44. and it means nothing... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Until we get the internet it's self running in gigabit (1000megabit or better) and have buttloads of bandwidth out there ala the full scale release and switch to Internet2 and ipv6, and replace all the routing and switching gear to the new gigibit or higher stuff it means nothing.. too many people are spoiled with T1 or better speeds into their homes while many many businesses have a 256-512 Kbit connection MAX due to the huge costs with a real net connection. (that is approx $1000.00 a month.. with yout fractional T1 and ISP access costs...)

    fiber into the home.... WHY? is it needed? no.. will it be needed ? not for at least 10-15 years. and it wont be useful to anyone for a lot longer than that. The cost of laying fiber is not the cost of the fiber... it's the cost of directional boring or the manual labor to install it... regular old "expensive" glass fiber is dirt cheap. and most places lie down 24 or 48 count fiber when they only need 1 or 2 of them.. as the cost difference is minimal. (plus you can make gobs of cash selling the dark to other companies)

    Plastic fiber is a neat idea ... but I doubt that it will impact the costs of the fiber it's self, termination or maintaince.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:and it means nothing... by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Internet2
      >>>>>
      He he. Hopefully I'll be out of college by then. I actually kinda enjoy the 300K+ per second I get whenever I connect to someone else on Internet2. Wonder what'll happen to the speed when other people get on :(

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:and it means nothing... by machine+of+god · · Score: 1
      will it be needed ? not for at least 10-15 years.

      On the other hand, if I'm building a new home, I like to think that it's going to be around for that long ya know?

    3. Re:and it means nothing... by dgp · · Score: 2

      Television over IP. and Voice calls with acceptable lag-time. I think its audio/video that will drive high bandwidth networks. The PC will become the multimedia center of the home - TVs will be obsolete, and they'll need major bandwith.

    4. Re:and it means nothing... by Drakula · · Score: 2

      Fiber to the home is needed now. I would much rather have all of my services such as phone, internet, and cable comgin over one pipe. This would require more bandwitdh than you can get over a coax cable, I beleive anyway.

      --
      "It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
    5. Re:and it means nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see I ALREADY Do that with my coaxial cable into my home.. 3 phonelines down taht cabul TeeVee line.. I also get 350 channels for cable 12 porn channels, greater than T1 data speeds.. and I get highly acceptable telephone calls without the lag time..

      Hell I can get Excellent telephone calls with no more lag than what MCI or AT&T gives me over a DIAL-UP with quality hardware compression equipment instead of the crap that 99% of the world tries to use (Internet phone jack... the ONLY choice for telephony... anything else is a childs toy.)

      so what was your point again? I'm there with COPPER..... what is the need again??????

  45. Not sure where you heard that.. by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    but it's not true. You can bend traditional glass fiber well beyond the point where all refraction is lost and your signal vanishes.. well before it snaps.

    Maybe on really old fiber.. but any sample I've seen in the last 10 years, it's been easy to bend it far enough to lose your signal without harming the fiber one bit.

  46. Learn some science? by stevenj · · Score: 5, Informative
    Was the subject line supposed to be ironic? Brewster's angle is a specific angle at which the reflections for one polarization are zero. (That is why you use polarized sunglasses...reflections off of water, ice, etcetera will tend to be mostly polarized perpendicular to the ground, so filtering that out cuts the glare.)

    The relevant quantity in fibers is the critical angle, beyond which all light is reflected inside the higher-index core. (Actually, the whole ray-optics picture is not completely accurate for fibers with features, like the core size, comparable to the wavelength...but it's qualitatively the right idea.) (Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the reflection disappearing from the puddle, since that is a reflection into the lower-index medium, air. The puddle effect has more to do with your shadow blocking the light.)

    Note also, by the way, that it's not so much that the index of the polymer fiber core has been increased, its that the effective index of the cladding is decreased (by adding lots of thin holes/veins, hence the name microstructured fiber). And you can do the same thing with glass fibers. (Because of the higher effective contrast, you can confine light more tightly and e.g. enhance nonlinear effects.

    (You were on the right track that it's the bending light loss, and the advantage therein of higher index contrast, that the article was referring to.)

    Microstructuring can also go in the other direction to photonic crystal fibers and guiding light in air.)

    --
    If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared. S. Augustine
  47. Cheap and Bendy? by Xenix · · Score: 0

    sounds like my kind of women.

    --
    You can't destroy the Earth, that's where I keep all my stuff!
  48. When I saw 'Cheap and Bendy' ... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    ...in the headline, I thought it was an article about legislators that can get laws passed for you.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  49. I thought I'd never see it is print! by eaddict · · Score: 1

    My favorite quote from the article:

    "It's all about getting these big fat pipes that were laid in North America to people who want broadband - and real broadband, not the wussy broadband people are marketing at the moment."

    A dig at Charter? AT&T? SWBell? Har!

    --
    "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
  50. Where did the french come from? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    "Fibre" is the french spelling of the word "Fiber." In english, the word is pronounced "FY-ber". In french, it's roughly pronounced "FIB-ruh".

    The french version of this word belongs in an enlish sentence about as much as the russian equivalent does. Same thing goes for theatER. We don't say "THEE-a-truh" so let's not spell it that way.

    If you want to make a sentence, pick one language for the whole thing please.

    1. Re:Where did the french come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correcting myself. obvious typo "enlish sentence" should of course be English.

      Oh, and Centre is another one. If you speak english, you don't say "SAWN-truh" so don't fucking spell it that way!

    2. Re:Where did the french come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Connard.

      En Angleterre, Australie, et plusiers pays, 'fibre', 'centre', 'theatre' sont absolutement vrais.

      C'est seulement en Amerique que les paysans ne peuvent pas ecrire en Anglais - putains!

    3. Re:Where did the french come from? by mabster · · Score: 1

      "Nucular". It's pronounced "Nucular".

    4. Re:Where did the french come from? by The+Dobber · · Score: 2

      It's Fibber, McGee........

    5. Re:Where did the french come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love an American with blinkers on.

      "re" spellings are in every kind of English except the American variant. You know, the Queen's English. Next you'll be hammering someone for saying "encyclopaedia" or "oestrogen"...

    6. Re:Where did the french come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er...

      The non-American English speaking world spells the word "Fibre". It is said in the same way as the American 'fiber'. The article is Australian. They use 'fibre' along with NZ, UK...in fact everywhere except for the US.

      It's a common thing for English words to be changed from 're' to 'er' in American English.

      So it ain't French, it's English :P

    7. Re:Where did the french come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rough altavista translation:

      Jerk. In England, Australia, and other countries, ' fiber ', ' center ', ' theater' are absolutely valid. It is only in America that the peasants cannot write in English - whores!

      Oh yeah, and he also said "I am a stupid frog"

      But I love putains. I'm gonna remember that one.

  51. Short Distances. by phriedom · · Score: 2

    I have heard studies quoted that 95% of the 10Gbps ports will be for links 2km. And IIRC, more than half will be 600m. So for all the LAN, WAN, and even Metro area stuff, and for the "last mile" it sounds like this POF stuff may be just fine. Maybe they can just blow these "fishing lines" down the sewer pipes if it is cheap enough.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  52. Toy fibers... by TheHawke · · Score: 1

    Im seeing alot of posts saying "so what? my toy has plastic fibers in it too"....
    Unh huh..
    The requirement for fiber optics are FLEXIBILLITY, PURITY, and STRENGTH. The toys with the plastic fiber, are impure and if used for data transmission would have errors in the stream at any length. Some plastic fibers cannot take flexing very well without cracking, and once agian, corrupting the data. How can these plastics handle being strung up on poles and maintain its integrity for years and years?
    If this breakthrough works "down under", then Corning and the other major fiber makers might shift some of its facilities to start making plasfiber optics.
    Then God and the almighty buck willing, the telcos and cable companies will start making curb drops with this plasfiber at the last mile and get rid of their detriorating copper conductors.

    *sighs*

    Now how to deal with a telco that has made a partial rollout with DSL in this commumity then flat out refused to cover the entire community with the DSL service. It can be either legal, or illegal, it just needs to be done.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  53. That's what I meant! by mekkab · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the correction...

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  54. Privacy issues with optical fiber networks by theonomist · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sigh... So many people just can't seem to think at all.

    The real problem with optical fibers is that they transmit light.. Light is what you see with. Now, let's use our heads for a moment: You've got an optical fiber running from your bedroom to your ISP. What travels along that optical fiber? Light. That's right, folks, light. That means that people at the ISP can SEE you when you're NAKED.

    Is that what you really want? Are you willing to pay for the privilege of exposing your bare bottom to the prying eyes of the sort of acne-scarred, socially dysfunctional, unbathed loners who work at ISPs? These people are, if you'll forgive the slur, sysadmins. It's not a nice thing to say, but it's a fact.

    And they're watching you.

    --
    "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
    1. Re:Privacy issues with optical fiber networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That means that people at the ISP can SEE you when you're NAKED.

      Yeah, but this is Slashdot. How often do you think the people here get naked?

    2. Re:Privacy issues with optical fiber networks by kesuki · · Score: 2

      a minor problems with this assumption... the amount of 'light' this thiner than a fishing line optical line transmits precludes sending analog visual data across it. It's sending pure digital data. So that means they need to plug in a digital device to send video data back.
      But you do have a good point, they can watch you, every bit of data that goes across their networks is potentially accessable to them. If you run a webcam at home it's possible for someone to along the way to try to load each image as it's transmitted. Worse yet, instant messages and irc and e-mail are all sent 'in the clear' so they can be monitored, formatted, and greped for interesting words. Quite unlike telephone calls it's technically possible to capture (short term at least) and monitor all clear text transmissions.

    3. Re:Privacy issues with optical fiber networks by grant+harris · · Score: 1

      ...and thats where encryption comes in. 128 bit will likely stop your isp from looking at your bare ass

      --

      I'm never going to achieve Nirvana with my Karma

  55. Cheap and Bendy... by kentyman · · Score: 1

    ...like CowboyNeal's mom. ;)

    --
    You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
  56. Chadz m0m!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheap and Bendy, like Chad's Mom! OOOWWW!

  57. Cable tech isn't the problem that needs solved. by shess · · Score: 1

    I live on the middle of the San Francisco peninsula (Belmont, to be precise, along 101), Oracle literally looms over my house, the area is strewn with .com startups and large tech companies. And I can only get IDSL (aka ISDN with DSL-style metering), because I'm 21,000 feet from the CO. Same thing applied when I lived 30 miles south in Sunnyvale, which is basically ground zero for Silicon Valley.

    The problem isn't that the telco doesn't have the tech to give me a good connection. They do. They simply don't want to. If they're unwilling to spend the effort to splice a more convenient DSLAM in there somewhere, why, exactly, are they going to be willing to lay down miles and miles of fiber, no matter how awesome it is?

  58. Plastic Fiber by ShoeHead · · Score: 1

    I've been doing some research involving fiber optics, lately, and so have come upon information and papers on plastic fiber. It's been around for awhile, so this isn't exactly new stuff... And while it is less fragile, it still has more attenuation than good ol' silica based fibers.

    This is more of a fluff, "invest in us, because we're almost there", piece than a report of a real breakthrough.

  59. australian homes with broadband?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    givwn that the current australian government thinks broadband will ruin the family unit through porn and online gambling, i doubt very much that we will see any benefit at all.

  60. Adult industry implications by extra+the+woos · · Score: 2, Funny

    As we all know, innovations in technology are picked up first by the adult industry. That said, perhaps this will allow inexpensive high-resolution cameras that can fit into "tight places" ?

    --
    replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
  61. Confusing the fiber with the armor. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    every single digital optical cable I've ever seen is plastic.

    I can assure you, as someone working in the telecom industry, that the fibers we're working with are glass.

    Are you sure you're not confusing the fiber itself with the layers of plastic protective armor around it?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  62. That depends on the geometry. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, electrical signals in the neighborhood of 10-100MHz propagate through copper at about 0.1C or (18,600 mi/sec or 30,000 km/sec).

    That depends on the geometry. Use thicker copper and/or space it farther apart and the signal goes faster. A less lossy dilectric helps, too.

    At low frequencies - i.e. where the stray resistance of the line's copper is small compared to the characteristic impedence - the speed is dominated by the dilectric constant of the space between the conductor - and you get your approximate 70% of lightspeed. At higher frequencies (or longer wire) the line acts progressively more like a series-resistors-parallel-capacitors delay line cum low-pass filter. This slows and attenuates the signal, the higher frequencies more than the lower ones.

    Selective slowing (phase shift) of the higher frequencies smears out pulses, while selective attenuation weakens them compared to noise.

    This can be compensated for to some extent (by amplifying and phase shifting the higher frequencies before transmission and after reception). But there's a limit to how much of that can be done: Too much at the transmitter and you exceed the allowable signal level for the wire (causing cross-talk into the weaker signals going the other way nearby). Go far enough out and the high-frequency signals get down near the noise level, so amplification at the far end just jacks up the noise, too, and they're lost. That's why DSL will only go so far (without a repeater/regenerator).

    Telephone wiring was designed for audio of only a few kilohertz, distances of a medium-sized town (rural wiring is a special case), and MANY wires in a bundle. So it uses very thin copper. Central offices were spaced in urban areas so that everybody they feed would be close enough to get a good audio signal. But DSL uses higher frequencies which peter out closer to the source.

    Within the distances and frequencies where a copper structure will act as a transmission line rather than being ruined by this effect you're still talking about 70% of c.

    But when the poster said "propagate through copper" he MIGHT have been talking about the "skin effect". Eddy currents in the copper due to changes in magnetic fields produce a compensating field, and the result is the field doesn't enter the copper until the eddy currents die due to the copper's resistance. (That's why magnetic fields won't enter a superconductor - to a first approximation.)

    But that confuses "propagating through copper" with "propagating along a copper transmission line". In a transmission line (or any other waveguide) the signal and energy don't propagate
    through the conductor(s). They propagate through the SPACE BETWEEN the conductor(s). Raise the resistance of the conductors and you increase the speed of penetration of signals into the conductor, but slow its propagation along the line.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  63. Thermite by undercanopy · · Score: 1

    The cable that comes into my house can be used for speeds in excess of 30Mbps, if I recall correctly, yet I have a mere 1.5-2Mbps

    actually 30Mbps is what 1 Tv channel (6MHZ) worth of bandwidth will get you. Take a modern 850MHz Cable plant and that gives you roughly 4.25Gbps of bandwidth possible over the cable coming into your house.

    The trick there, though, is that they'd have to stop broadcasting TV on that system to get you the bandwidth, but the raw capacity is there, and that's per-node.

    I'm not sure i had a point, just though i'd share the data... doesn't that make you feel better about your 1.5Mbit? *grin*

    --
    -- D-23994, Muff#2613
  64. More flexible?? by jgdobak · · Score: 2

    Considering that singlemode silica fiber is already flexible enough to wrap around a pencil continuously without breaking, I don't know how much more flexible it needs to be.

    Maybe they're putting into layman's terms the new fiber's lessened susceptibility to attenuation due to bending. Modern fiber attenuates horribly if bent to less then (as a general rule) twenty times the outside diameter.

    The upside of this is that if your signal is too high, a proper level is only a pen and some scotch tape away.

  65. Yes, it's the last mile and uptake. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just read that telecoms have an excess of long haul bandwidth, which means that the issues are the cost of the last mile and consumer uptake.

    Yes it's the lack of the "last mile" - and content worth paying for its instalation.

    Lots of spare fiber (and empty conduit) was laid when the trenches were open, so most of it is dark. Boxes were bought to light up a few fibers, and even when they're all lit we can bump the speed to get a few more powers of two before stringing more long-haul.

    But the network speeds and capacities of the first boxes were calculated using what turned out to be Netcom's overstatement of the rate of growth of the internet's bandwidth. For the last 5 or so years it was only doubling, rather than multiplying by 10.

    Doubling every year is no slouch for a growth rate, but it's only about 1/3,125 the traffic the designers of the equipment and networks were planning for at this point. (It was 1/125 at the time of the dotcom bubble burst. Maybe some of those dotcoms WOULD have been profitable if the customer base they'd been told to expect actually existed?)

    So there's a bandwidth price war at the wholesale level, telecoms folding up as debts come due without revenue to pay them, and equipment suppliers having a REALLY hard time selling any more stuff.

    But with the CLECs pretty much all dead, the ILECs and cable companies (with the pre-installed base) have a virtual duopoly on the last mile. So there's no incentive to push cheap fat pipes into your hands. (Markets need THREE suppliers before competition starts driving costs toward price of production. With only two they'd be cutting their own throats to try to cut each others'.)

    So there's no cheap last mile bandwidth. But there's virtually no high-bandwith content available to make it worth peoples' while to buy expensive last-mile bandwidth:

    - CARP killed "internet radio".
    - The RIAA killed Napster, is killing its clones, and finally going after individuals.
    - The RIAA and MPAA are scared spitless of allowing any of their members' digital content on the net, for fear of piracy.

    So what does that leave Joe Sixpack that will convince him to pay enough extra for high-speed internet that it's profitable to dig up his street and give him a fiber? Better animated popup ads? Most of the rest of the net is more than adequate at moderate speeds.

    High-speed internet will be here as soon as there's a "killer app" requiring high-bandwidth that's popular enough to fund a new last-mile deployment, or a cheap-enough last-mile solution is found to be price-competitive with cable and ILEC-based DSL.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Yes, it's the last mile and uptake. by kesuki · · Score: 2

      You have good points in there, and the fact of the matter is that the 'competitors' out there laying curbside fiber aren't just giving you internet. They're selling you your telephone lines, over fiber, and your cable TV over fiber too. All with one monthly bill to replace your cable your internet and your phone bill.
      This is the model that is working for fiber, and you're right only someone looking to offer competition can really do this. The bells have huge burried copper loops in triple redundancy, that they don't even want other companies to have access to. They'd have to abandon all that infrastructure to go to fiber to the home, and you still need to install a converter to allow analog telephones to use the fiber optics for telephone service. The cable company has the same situation with it's coaxial network.
      Still, fiber to the home will get cheaper because of this, and the bells and the cable companies will die a slow painful death because of small start up fiber all-in-one service companies, well, the bells won't go under, since the startups will all be customers of theirs. but cable companies that aren't prepared to adapt will watch as their market share slips lower and lower.

  66. Fib-Ree!!!!! by sinnyin · · Score: 1

    If you say "fibre" out loud it sounds like Fib-ray or Fib-ree!! WOW! LOL! Fibree, like frisbee!

  67. Cheap and Bendy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just know there's a "your mother" joke somewhere here....

  68. Bloody Americans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when did Americans speak English anyway?
    You pronounce your 'O's like a 'U' as in 'up'.
    You tark about people having a cute donkey (ass).
    You get your 'R's and 'E's ass about in words like 'fibre', 'theatre', and 'centre'. And you frequently add a 's' to far too many words anyways.
    By the way, you ignorant blinkered git, there is a difference between 'centre' and 'center'. Perhaps if you ever bothered to look in a dictionary and learn what those queer symbols describing pronunciation mean, you might tark propre!
    While I'm taking this oppotunity to rant, you also can't spell colour, and you still use miles, feet and inches as a measurement system instead of the metric system (invented by the French, thus the spelling of metRE).
    Oh, and when you write about people from any particular country, you should capitalise (notice I used a 's' in capitalise) the first letter.
    If you think that no foreign words belong in your language, the SHUT UP! There is no such thing as an American language, so by your reasoning you shouldn't be writing anything in English (or psuedo-English as you Americans do).

    1. Re:Bloody Americans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You tark about people having a cute donkey (ass)."

      "you might tark propre!"

      No such word as tark.
      No such word as propre.

      What the fuck, are you some monkey who got ahold of a computer?

      Yeah yeah, england was once almost overtaken by the Normans' language, but it takes a true fag to be proud of that fact.

  69. bullshit by gumleef · · Score: 1

    Advances in optical-fibre making at the Australian Photonics research centre could bring communications at the speed of light into Australian homes and businesses in the next few years

    telstra would never allow this
  70. Telegraph pole to home - fishing line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia, digging trenches costs, and people dont want
    1) Telegraph poles
    Power lines
    2) Ugly black wires
    3) More ugly black wires
    4) Fishing line hazards to kill bird life, slice them in 2.

    To slice careless flying birds in 2.

  71. Sorry to burst your bubble but... by narftrek · · Score: 1

    Being a certified fiber optics technician I can tell you that fiber HAS ALWAYS BEEN MADE OF PLASTIC. It just wasn't as good as glass. Most of the plastic fibers were only useable in multi-mode cables as opposed to the less lossy single mode fibers that most of us think we are familiar with. But actually most of us have seen the cheapo plastic cable of home theater systems for the audio I/O. Cheap plastic is also what all your Star Trek Enterprise models have in them or those dorky bushy things they sell at Spencer's that light up and we stare at while we're high. All plastic. Unless you actually have a switch or router connected via fiber I doubt most people have worked with actual glass fiber cables.

    Now the article was, of course, very short on detail so maybe they've made plastic fiber good enough for single model operation. I dunno. But fiber has been pretty cheap for the past couple years. That isn't the problem. It's the finishing($20/hr minimum labor) and the connectors($5-10 each-some more) that cost so much. Even the test equipment can set your back a good bit. Our electric company has a $30,000 OTDR test set and I don't even know how much their fusion splicer was (but since it came in it's own trailer I cringe at the thought). I suppose though that cheaper is always better so if you can get fiber for 2 cents a foot somebody will buy it. But until connectors, technicians, and test equipment costs come down, I don't see many businesses jumping on the bandwagon. Fiber network cards and routers, etc. are pretty darned high and unless you need just ass loads of bandwidth most company's settle for 100BT networks.

    Hope this clears up a few things but to re-emphesize my point: Plastic fiber is not new news.

  72. And you forgot the cost of lighting fiber. by obnoximoron · · Score: 1

    In other words, the cost of the optical transmission gear, the layer 2 line cards, and the switches and routers. As an example, for 10gig ethernet-over-fiber switches, the purchase cost per port is currently in the $400-$1000 range. And the annual maintenance costs are probably much more.

    1. Re:And you forgot the cost of lighting fiber. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      which means saving 3-10 cents on your fiber means absolutely nothing to anyone using fiber.

      I have a $25,000.00 fusion splicing machine... now I have to buy another one or retro this one for the plastic?? unless I am laying 500 miles of it (48count) the cost isnt justified. Plus until they can give me specs and show me splices that have a 0db loss (my fusion splicer regulary gives me a 0db loss splice) it has no benifit to me.. I have armored fiber in the ground... I cant bend the cable far enough to attenuate the light let alone break it...

      there are ZERO benifits to someone that uses fiber on a daily basis.. maybe in the future it will, hopefully it will drive the price of glass down.. but my glass doesnt degrade optically for a hundred years... can they promise me that with their polymer?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  73. DON'T MOD THIS UP and why don't YOU learn somethin by narftrek · · Score: 1

    Being a fiber install I have to tell you you're dead wrong. I don't know much about Brewster's millions or whatever but glass fiber IS FRAGILE. When you stip it to put connectors on it that stuff snaps right off and gets stuck in your fingers. You have to re strip it 2 or 3 times sometimes before you get a connector on it.

    And elastic...NO. If your try to pull fiber optic cable through conduits without using the included kevlar string (it's not there to make it bulletproof) you will stretch it out. Once stretched it is useless. If it were elastic then it would spring back to it's original diameter but it doesn't. You just wasted cable and man hours. Now having the plastic cladding does allow you to do some tighter curves but officially I think it's like 30 times the diameter of the cable is the smallest bend possible. We use pretty generous raduises for our cables and NOTHING angular. Trying to do a perfect 90 degree curve is asking for breakage. When handling it you can toss it around when it's spooled up and whatnot but don't do crap like step on it. You can crush it. Don't play tug of war with it. Stuff like that. Glass is fragile. Drop a glass on a tile floor and see how elastic it is. Oh and one more thing, you said:
    "think of fiberglass"
    Well I have thought of fiber glass and that stuff will snap on you in a heart beat. Even things like fishing poles and CB antennas that are supposed to bend will snap off if you try a tight bend. And how many of us have cracked bumpers and fenders on our crappy 80's camaros cause we leaned on them or dinged the curb. Certainly not bendy.

    Your point on angles of incidence and whatnot might be valid but theary doesn't apply to actually using fiber. It is fragile. You can break it. And don't stretch it.

  74. MODDED -1 WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone tell me why this is Modded -1? His points are valid. I think the spambot mismodded something.

  75. 'Common' being the operative word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Americans pronounce it Farber. A word which to a German speaker might describe someone who colours. ((DE)Farb = (UK)ColoUr)

    1. Re:'Common' being the operative word. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      "Most Americans pronounce [Fiber] Farber."

      I would really like to know where you get your statistics. Chances are you live in some mountains. Everyone there may throw in an extra letter in their words, but I can guarantee you that *most* Americans dont. I've been to New Jersey Michigan, Florida, and Washington State. I worked at a national computer helpdesk for almost 4 years. I've spoken to probably hundreds of people per state. *Most* people are satisfied with the number of letters in a word to begin with, and don't throw in an 'R' at any time.

      That being said, I *do* know 2 people, one from indiana, and one from somewhere in the mideast, that pronounce 'Wash' as 'Worsh', and leave off 'To be' in their infinitive verbs, such as 'That dog needs worshed', but they are the gross, gross, almost statistically invisible minority.

      As well they should be.

  76. Technical analysis anyone? by ITaider · · Score: 1

    Nobody seems really care to find out what is this new material. Hope someone knowledgable can give us some insight with the following information.

    I did a Google search on Australian Photonics research. Got this URL:
    http://www.photonics.crc.org.au/whts_new/wht s_new. htm

    found this publication:
    http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstrac t.cfm?URI=OPEX -9-7-319

    It has a link to the full text. And here is the abstract:

    Microstructured polymer optical fibre
    Martijn van Eijkelenborg, Maryanne Large, Alexander Argyros, Joseph Zagari, Steven Manos, Nader A. Issa, Ian M. Bassett, Simon C. Fleming, Ross C. McPhedran, C. Martijn de Sterke, and Nicolae A. P. Nicorovici, Univ. of Sydney

    Abstract
    The first microstructured polymer optical fibre is described. Both experimental and theoretical evidence is presented to establish that the fibre is effectively single moded at optical wavelengths. Polymer-based microstructured optical fibres offer key advantages over both conventional polymer optical fibres and glass microstructured fibres. The low-cost manufacturability and the chemical flexibility of the polymers provide great potential for applications in data communication networks and for the development of a range of new polymer-based fibre-optic components.

  77. Hemp Plastics! by joshuaos · · Score: 2

    I read somewhere the notion of making fiber out of hemp plastics. Not to mention just about anything else. ;)

    Cheers, Joshua

    --

    When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

  78. Cheap and bendy? by qute · · Score: 1

    When I saw the subject I thought it was describing the state of teenage girls today.

    Oh well, someone had to write it.

    --
    -- Make software not war
  79. Electrons flow in wire at 87% of speed of light by redcliffe · · Score: 2

    At least thats what they said in my telecoms course.

  80. Re:So? This is new? by leasilver · · Score: 1

    The plastic fibers that are out there are going to made of PMMA and can only operate at temperatures of 85c. Admittedly, this does not limit the real world applications, but IMHO we can also infer that existing PMMA cable distorts/attenuates ? the signal over longer distances, thus making a 'purer' transmission of data viable over a greater distance. Remember that items such as TOSlink are quite short.

  81. POF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stuff (Plastic Optical Fiber) has been around
    since the 80's (HP, Misubishi, Boston Optical). Limitations on bandwidth/distance have been the
    biggest hold up for the material.

  82. RE: decaying copper infrastructure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What decaying copper infrastructure?

    There are neighborhoods in my local county-seat that are still wired with LEAD! (thanks GTE!)