Slashdot Mirror


10Gbit to the Home by 2010

womby writes "Nihon Keizai Shinbun report (Japanese) that NTT, Fujitsu and the Japanese Government are forming a working group to develop internet technologies that will hopefully allow homes to receve 10 gigabit internet connections by 2010.
'The Japanese government (the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Post and Telecommunication) are going to start a development plan next year that will increase the speed of the internet in Japan to 100 times faster than the current 100MB fibre internet, with partner companies it is aiming for completion by 2010.' A complete Translation is here, if my blog gets beaten into the ground try the Coral Cache Link."

286 comments

  1. Uhh... by xgamer04 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, we need hard drives and system buses that can get the data moving at this speed.

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    1. Re:Uhh... by TheNME · · Score: 0

      Everybody's waiting on somebody else, they should all just do what they can and wait for everyone else to catch up, imo.

      --
      Windows sux. Am I cool now?
    2. Re:Uhh... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      10Gb is only 1.2GB/s which is easily transfered by hard drives and system busses now. 100Gb is where things start to get tricky though.

      --
      The original generic sig.
    3. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe with all this bandwidth we can just keep tranmitting the data around all the time and not actually store it anywhere ;)

    4. Re:Uhh... by ron_ivi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      First, we need hard drives and system buses that can get the data moving at this speed.

      But you don't need consumer drives that fast. I suspect the plan (of the carriers) is to have your data on big storage arrays at your ISP - for better lock-in to your ISP.

      This bandwidth, if it's low latency, would make a thin/diskless client much more practical than it is today.

    5. Re:Uhh... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 1

      oh... G... ha... that's GIGAbit I caught it now.

      I feel like an idiot being off by a factor of 1024 and all
      --
      The original generic sig.
    6. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yup. 2MBit/sec will do fine for VCR-quality video. 10GBit is fine for high-def with bandwidth to spare.

      I suspect these guys want to be a server-side-storage, thin-client version of your TiVO as well.

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

      No, that's gigaBIT and you were off by a factor of 8, dipshit.

    8. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      make a thin/diskless client much more practical than it is today.

      Interesting. Within an intranet Gigabit ethernet makes thin clients reasonable. 10X this would make it a pretty good experience. Having all your files at the ISP would add quite a barrier to switching ISPs too.

    9. Re:Uhh... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 1

      um... no I said 1.2 Gbit. I was think Mb and not Gb meaning I was off by a factor of 1024.

      --
      The original generic sig.
    10. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Uh, what hard drive you do have that can do 1.2 gigabytes per second?!?! Without RAID, I've never see a HD read benchmark much above 50 MEGABYTES per second. (+/- 50%. I don't follow hard drives too closely.)

      As for bus throughput, SATA is 150 MB/sec, PCI in its various forms ranges from 133 MB/sec to 533 MB/sec. PCI-X is about 1GB/sec, and PCI Express finally breaks the 1.2 GB/sec barrier if you use the 8x or 16x variety.

      Of course, if you gave the NIC a Hypertransport bus link directly to the CPU, you could also do this now. But Hypertransport is definitely cutting edge for home users. I wouldn't call it "easy".

      Given hard drive limitations, you'd better be streaming all that data into RAM, or you'll never keep up. :)

    11. Re:Uhh... by hattig · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Please point me to a hard drive that can write at 1.2GB/s.

      Even U640 SCSI can only transmit at half that rate, so even if you set up a large ass raid array you couldn't write quickly enough.

      By 2014 I expect that hard drives will be between 2 and 20 TB in size on average, and probably can write at 600MB/s, each directly connected by SATA600 or faster, so it should just about be doable by then. What is more scary is the concept of being able to store 1000 High Definition movies on a single hard drive.

    12. Re:Uhh... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 1

      yeah... I caught that... read the reply from myself to myself

      --
      The original generic sig.
    13. Re:Uhh... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      It depends on where software makers think they'll make money, but they could expand functionality such that you'll still want something faster yet.

      10Gbit is nice, but I'm not counting on a latency that would beat a 1Gbit network inside the case. 10Gbit network is still great for remote storage though.

    14. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "thin/diskless client"

      Yup. Better way of insuring that you "lease" your applicataions rather than "buy" them.

      No need to buy Doom3, just pay-per-play from the file installed at your ISP.

      No need to buy Brittney Spears's latest MP3 or video, just pay-per-play from the file installed at your ISP.

      etc.

    15. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone please mod this numpty down.

    16. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put them in RAID, and you got no problem with the speed.

    17. Re:Uhh... by SmasKenS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By 2014 I _really_ hope we don't have hard drives anylonger. Atleast not as we know them now, with moving parts and all.

      What I mean is that I hope we have some other type of storage avalible for consumers by 2014.

      --
      -- - e.m.p.t.y - --
    18. Re:Uhh... by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Not if you don't want to save the data - do you save everything you see on TV?

      Now, any processor that wants to deal with the data one bit at a time wouldn't be able to keep up.

      In less than 1 second, all the RAM I have will fill - that's quick enough for now

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    19. Re:Uhh... by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      Maybe by 2010 we'll have something faster than Ultra 640 SCSI (which is already about half as fast as 10 Gbits).

      Besides... you could always use the bandwidth for killer streams.

    20. Re:Uhh... by Junta · · Score: 1

      System bus: PCI-Express. 10 gigabit/second is about 4x pci-e speed, and systems are coming with 4x, 8x, and 16x slots (though most will be predominantly 1x slots (2.5 gigabit/sec, and 16x will most frequently be reserved for video cards).

      With PCIX 64 bit 133MHz you are only at about 8.5 gigabit/sec, so it is true that it won't support...

      I can guarantee that by 2010 the state of the art will have moved significantly on.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    21. Re:Uhh... by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Recently I configured a web server running on a single processor single drive machine. It's time to connect it to the 10000 Gb/s so everyone can download. Uh oh - I can't provide more than 4 or 5 Mb/s if more than one person is connected.

      Looks like it's going to take a lot of RAM

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    22. Re:Uhh... by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. If we went through the mega bit chips in the 90's(from 1 mega bit to 1 giga bit) we should be able to go from 1 giga bit to 1 tera bit in the first decade of the 2000's. One tera byte of system ram in the earlier 2010's should not be surprising.

    23. Re:Uhh... by Ravadill · · Score: 1

      There's a problem with this? To be honest I didn't think Doom3 was all that great, and being able to rent it online for a couple of days for less than the cost of buying it would be great.

    24. Re:Uhh... by SenFo · · Score: 0

      Two questions for you.

      1) Who's to say that this connection isn't being shrared amongst multiple computers in the house.

      2) How can you use current day technology as a basis for your assumption? Much talk is already in place to do away with mechanical disk drives in favor of much faster drive with no mechanical moving parts.

    25. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I [the grandparent post] don't think there is any problem to this. Just explaining that larger bandwidth can provide interesting services for the ISPs. The guy who started the thread asked "why", and I think the reason is for services like those.

    26. Re:Uhh... by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      What your talking about is today, A decade later I'd hope we'd be pushing a bit more data through whatever media format is dominant :)

    27. Re:Uhh... by AndyMcL · · Score: 0

      How could this post be considered "Insightful"?

      I would call it narrow minded. It is like the famous Microsoft quote from the 1980's that people will never need more than 64k of RAM.

      Voice, video, Internet data access and access to your (and your family's) data and devices from anywhere at anytime are some of the things this amount of bandwidth can bring. This would spell death to traditional telco business. Which is probably why you do not see anything close to it for now in the US.

      -Andy

    28. Re:Uhh... by SeXy_Red · · Score: 1

      and also by 2010: homes in the US will, for the first time, be able to get a 10Mbit internet connection...for $75 a month.

      --

      This sig was generated by a barrel of trained kittens for SeXy_Red (550409).

    29. Re:Uhh... by Kanasta · · Score: 1

      my internet is ALREADY faster than my HD.
      24mbit/s
      maybe its just my sony hd, it dies at about 700kb/s

    30. Re:Uhh... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Uh, what hard drive you do have that can do 1.2 gigabytes per second?!?! Without RAID, I've never see a HD read benchmark much above 50 MEGABYTES per second. (+/- 50%. I don't follow hard drives too closely.)

      He might actually have one of those elusive Beowulf clusters.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. Mmmmm by XaviorPenguin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pr0n at the speed of .... damn that was quick!

    --
    Friends help you move...
    REAL Friends help you move dead bodies... ^_^
    1. Re:Mmmmm by isny · · Score: 2, Funny

      What was quick??

    2. Re:Mmmmm by XaviorPenguin · · Score: 1

      WSelll;, lesdt me gest thissa junl;k off my...

      *wipe wipe* *Spray with Windex* *wipe wipe*

      ...keyboard, then I will tell you! :D

      --
      Friends help you move...
      REAL Friends help you move dead bodies... ^_^
    3. Re:Mmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bithc you get back online and you no pm.

      /u fag
      : P

  3. Imagine it coupled with GMailFS... by master_p · · Score: 3, Funny

    The world's information at your fingertips!

    1. Re:Imagine it coupled with GMailFS... by Gherald · · Score: 1

      >Imagine it coupled with GMailFS...
      >The world's information at your fingertips!

      Coupled with google, perhaps...

      Coupled with GMailFS it's YOUR information at your fingertips. That is, if your fingertips are capable of interfacing with a 10Gb/sec connection . . .

    2. Re:Imagine it coupled with GMailFS... by cmacb · · Score: 1

      "The world's information at your fingertips!"

      Yeah, and your fingertips on another planet.

  4. You silly willy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They (the media owners) plan to send the data so quickly, there will be no way to capture/record it to hard drives. It's all part of their plan.

  5. interested to see how this holds up by womby · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the blog itself is running on a small shuttle box and the internet connection is one of the 100Mbit fibre connections mentioned in the article.

    wordpress is supposed to scale ok, I have my fingers crossed.

    --
    **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
    1. Re:interested to see how this holds up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Connection refused" by both the original and the cache. Bandwidth isn't everything, it seems.

    2. Re:interested to see how this holds up by womby · · Score: 1

      interesting, are you sure, I am sitting here and it appears to be running fine.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
    3. Re:interested to see how this holds up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both links work now, but they didn't when I posted the other comment and a couple of minutes before that.

    4. Re:interested to see how this holds up by womby · · Score: 1

      I worked out why, I have apt-get auto update every week and today was the day, it updated apache so I guess it was offline when you tried.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
  6. RE: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by justforaday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd be pleased just having 100Mbit to the home. By 2010 I might even have all my home machines upgraded to GigE...

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  7. Do the math by TrevorB · · Score: 5, Funny

    10gbps = 1.25GB/s = 2 DivX movies/s = 1 DVD-5/4s = 416 MP3s/s = Brown Trousers time for the MPAA = Roll over in grave time for RIAA

    1. Re:Do the math by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Funny

      20TB / 1.25 GB/s = 4.55 days, 24 / 4.55 = 5.27, so 5.27 Libraries of congress per day.

    2. Re:Do the math by strider3700 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually I see this being a great thing for the MPAA. In reality it will still take a minute or two to get a complete DVD but thats fast enough for me. So all the studios have to do is take their entire collection of films and make the new iTunes for movies. I'd gladdly pay $2 per movie to download some of the really old obscure crap I tend to rent for 49 cents a week on wornout vhs these days.

      The only requirements I have is I must own the downloaded copy, and it must not be tied to a specific viewer.

      Now they may not be interested in releasing the newest movies that way and thats fine by me. I see most of them in theater anyways. Perhaps they could timeshift the new releases like they do to the PPV on TV, 6 weeks after the DVD release it's on PPV. I usually wait the 6 weeks since it's just much more convienent.

    3. Re:Do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Awww, but I want it now!

    4. Re:Do the math by Alapan · · Score: 1

      Will be out at the same time as Longhorn probably ... suppose will make Warez versions of Longhorn ISOs easier to download.

    5. Re:Do the math by hitmark · · Score: 1

      "The only requirements I have is I must own the downloaded copy, and it must not be tied to a specific viewer."

      dream on, dream on...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    6. Re:Do the math by AkaXakA · · Score: 1

      Well sure, but how many libaries of Congress is that?

    7. Re:Do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a buck a movie, I'd be willing to rent it when I want to see it rather then futzing about owning a copy. It would cost more in time-and-money to pirate it then it would to simply rent it again.

    8. Re:Do the math by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      We'll still be waiting for Duke Nukem Forever.

  8. New experience? by g-to-the-o-to-the-g · · Score: 2, Funny
    I think this would change the way the internet is. With 10Gbit internet, you could almost have the entire world as one big Beowulf cluster!

    But seriously, imagine all the fun you could have downloading pr0n^H^H^H^H educational videos.

    1. Re:New experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's more and more talk these days of what could be termed a wwg (world wide grid) being deployed. The astrohpysics communities are working on linking all the main astronomy databases right now.

      The UK part of the project can be found at http://www.astrogrid.org/.

    2. Re:New experience? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Dude, look who's doing it. It's the Japanese. To them, tentacle porn IS an educational video!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:New experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When and if you get your hands on a real woman, you may realize that they operate somewhat differently than those in porn. If I manage to get out of this current lawsuit, I plan on suing Vivid for damages.

  9. Re:I'll believe it by CptChipJew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People said that about 14.4, 28.8, 56k, and DSL.

    By the time we have 10GBits in the home, porn, warez, and Linux distributions will hit a size large enough to make that not the worlds greatest connection.

    It's always been that way.

    --
    Vonal Declosion
  10. ok.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    cue the "i'd be happy to have anything over 300 baud" posts.. .. NOW!

    1. Re:ok.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'd be happy if my broadband throughput didn't drop below 400 kilobytes per second almost every night at about 7 pm. The waiting gets annoying after a while, more specifically after 1.5 seconds.

  11. Maybe by oR3n · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hmmm, maybe like others here might've posted, the faster connections become the bigger files become, everything will probably be proportional. What's the big deal? Is it fast? Sure. But is it necessary?

    1. Re:Maybe by BlueCup · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, of course it's not necessary. We as a species have survived without it for 1.3 million years. For that matter, cars aren't necessary, hell, horses aren't necessary. But all of that isn't the point. The point is we have an opportunity to be able to transfer more data, do things better. We could keep doing things the old way, but if that was all we had ever done we'd still be sitting around a fire happy to be eating rabbits. Improvements aren't a bad thing, just because you don't see the immediate gain doesn't mean there wont be one.

      --
      WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
  12. Why? by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    NO, its a serious question. Why do we really need this sort of insane bandwidth in ones home?

    Cable today can do VOIP with video. Video on demand is across cable, today. Email even works on dialup ( well its mostly Spam now anyway so who cares ) Online games, dsl is enough.. There are rumors of going back to 'usage fees'.... overt P2P will be banned before 2010... ( if DRM and the 'media' doesn't kill general purpose computing by then ).. etc etc etc..

    We cant download movies, songs and we only need so many ISO's of OSS software... so what why isn't the fact that we are underutilizing what we have today more then enough reason to stay with it?

    Oh ya, they can charge us more to be mostly idle...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Why? by bobhagopian · · Score: 0

      There was once a day that Bill Gates proclaimed that no user would ever require more than 8 kb of storage.

      Given an extremely high-bandwidth connection to the internet may not be completely necessary, just like most people don't actually need a 512 mb video card or 4 gb of RAM. Well, with a little time, we will find ways to utilize all of these resources.

    3. Re:Why? by TheNME · · Score: 0

      "There was once a day that Bill Gates proclaimed that no user would ever require more than 8 kb of storage."

      No, there wasn't. Stop pulling things out of your ass.

      --
      Windows sux. Am I cool now?
    4. Re:Why? by ejaw5 · · Score: 1

      Why? Because when I download a linux iso cd(s), I want it NOW!. Plus the insanely massive bandwidth would allow me to easily scp files between work/home/school computers.

      --

      $cat /dev/random > Sig
    5. Re:Why? by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why... A beowulf cluster of this size

      Seriously though, if the next Playstation is going to rely on distributed computing this would be the thing that makes it a reality.

      Seriously, imagine p2p networks that spring up to and combine computing power to solve any math problem.

      We can all build nukes! Forcast weather for the whole planet!

      Imagine the cool "beowulf live" distributions that spring up - boot and enjoy holographic video (rendered on demand!)

      It's not the connection speed, it's the potential to combine computer power that makes me drool.

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

      Why not ?

    7. Re:Why? by general_re · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why do we really need this sort of insane bandwidth in ones home?

      Put it out there, and people will find a use for it. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that because we can't imagine how someone would use it, that means that nobody will find a use for it.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1



      >> NO, its a serious question. Why do we really need this sort of insane bandwidth in ones home?

      It doesn't matter if they can use it. If it's available, people will want it.
      People are already happy to pay for things they don't use/need.

      Might as well super-size your internet too...

    9. Re:Why? by mm0mm · · Score: 1
      High Definition Video/Broadcast over IP

      Could be the future technology for Playboy channel

    10. Re:Why? by bsartist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can all build nukes! Forcast weather for the whole planet!

      If we all build nukes, I'd say the forecast is cold and overcast, for the next few hundred years.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    11. Re:Why? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1
      • Cable today can do postage-stamp-sized video with one other party. It cannot do true conference-calling at high quality.
      • Video-on-demand services are not sent over TCP/IP, they're part of the existing special-purpose digital cable infrastructure.
      • I'll give you the email point, but server-side email solutions (IMAP, gmail) seem to be growing more and more common. Likewise, iDisk-style "Internet disks" could always use more network capacity.
      • Online FPSes with 32 players or so are acceptable over current broadband, or MMORPGs that aren't so sensitive to latency. Something like Second Life is not (neglecting bottlenecks elsewhere in the system).
      The system will evolve to find new uses for things. Half the things mentioned in your and my lists (and in other posts in this thread) weren't even thought to be possible when 28K modems were the fastest consumer connection available.
    12. Re:Why? by bsartist · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was once a day that Bill Gates proclaimed...

      No, there wasn't. But I do remember the day when I purchased my first box of ten 5.25" floppy disks. Ten of them, when I'd been using one for an entire semester. My $DEITY, I thought - I'll never need all this.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    13. Re:Why? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      I've heard this before!

      "Why would anyone need more than 640k of memory?"

      The reason we need it is so that we don't have to wait. Until file transfers of any size are instant and without delay, we will always need better and faster connections.

      But this is in Japan only, so it's kinda moot.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    14. Re:Why? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you. Fast as this may seem, it's still too slow for beaming.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      640K ought to be enough for anyone. I can't imagine a use for more than that.

      - BillG

    16. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh... "they" will find a use for it, but I would wager that in this case, the number of negative application FAR outweigh the number of useful ones.

      imagine the spam delivery system that could run on some hacked servers on that network?!

      or p2p video swapping, etc.

    17. Re:Why? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      Why do we really need this sort of insane bandwidth in ones home?


      IMO, the cut-off point is around 100Mbps.
      Most consumers won't be willing to pay extra for more than that.
      Sure, they'll want more, but if it's a choice between $50 a month for 100Mbps, or $75 a month for 10Gbps, most are going to go with 100Mbps.

      Can we use even 100Mbps? Yes.
      A four person household, streaming four different hi-def videos at the same time would do it.

      -- less is better
    18. Re:Why? by nmk · · Score: 1

      Well, there's one thing that comes to mind immediately, distributed processing. I realize that there will probably be numerous technical hurdles to overcome apart from the infrastructure hurdles. However, with this kind of bandwidth, perhaps your home computer will be able to use some sort of P2P network to become part of some realtime distributed processing cluster. These days most consumer level distributed processing projects (SETI@home, Folding@home) use a batch processing model. In the future, with realtime distributed processing, all your applications (Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Doom 5) will be able to benefit. If this becomes a reality, it will be a quantum leap in computing. I think this potential application alone justifies the investment in these types of networks.

    19. Re:Why? by RealUlli · · Score: 1
      Put it out there, and people will find a use for it.

      AFAIK, people over there already don't swap that much stuff any more - they know it's on some friends computer and if they need it, they just use it - no more downloading first...

      Cheers, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    20. Re:Why? by burns210 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it will change the internet from a download-save-view to a streaming view as you download, but don't save internet. The speed could grossly outweight the development of harddrives. Also, the vast speed of streaming and bandwidth would make it worthless to save things that are just 1 time views...

      I imagine VOIP being completely used worldwide. I see radio streaming, in place of radio. I see video phones, as a standard use of audio-only. I see cable TV over IP.

      Cable TV over IP... That would be badass.

    21. Re:Why? by God+speaking · · Score: 1

      Bingo - just as genetic evolution is cleverer than you, so is memetic evolution.

      --
      All Abstract Structures of Objects and their Relationships exist.
    22. Re:Why? by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      VNC would be nice on a 10GbE setup. You could then have thin clients capable of doing everything, while a big clunky box handles heavy lifting, and it won't even need to be in your state/country/continent.

    23. Re:Why? by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Put it out there, and people will find a use for it

      You can do serious computing with 64kB (second generation mainframes and 16-bit minicomputers) and 300 baud modems. It can be done. When that was all there was, that is what was done. But with current technology and pricing, it's not what one would chose to do. What we now take for granted, and how we use it was not discernable from what we had then. Similarly we cannot expect to be able to see what use will be made, but we can make some educated guesses.

      Multiple remote backups. Cheap proactive disaster planning.
      There are two aspects to security. Keeping others out of private stuff. This gets almost all of the current attention, but much more critical is not losing your own stuff. If you make your house burglar-proof and lock yourself out of it permantently, you have severe problems. (If you're rich enough you can solve the problem by having several houses;)
      As an oversimplification, the system of backups needs about ten times the storage at about ten percent of the budget. A lot of open source achieves this with mirrors, including unofficial mirrors left on peoples' hard drives.
      One problem with backup systems is that they tend to faithfully replicate errors in the main system. There are a few ways a system can work correctly. The ways a system can fail or work incorrectly is essentially unbounded. Several cheap fast independent concurrent backups seems to be the only practicable means of protection. It also helps immensely if you know what you do have and what you do not have. Isuspect many expensive and elaborate backup systems are extremely brittle.

      I'd guess that a lot of the attempts to use the bandwidth will be more or less successful attempts at home entertainment systems, however any such has a very real problem. The main draw for the crowds at Mardi Gras are the crowds at Mardi Gras. There's a big difference between live and canned.

    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like TheNME's mom's cock.

    25. Re:Why? by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      lol Yeah and we only need what 640k of memory right? The key word you used being most...just like most people didn't chose cable or DSl when they first came out....but looking were we are today.

      --
      what?
    26. Re:Why? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Hi-Def VOIP video phones? With multiple simultanious conversations?

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    27. Re:Why? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Ya. Why have 2d screens? Why have one screen? Why not whole rooms, ala some flight training sims, with screens. Why just A/V content, I want touch, taste, smell. That zombie should REEK. That lightning gun should leave the smell of ozone after a shot. Green slime should feel slimy. etc.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    28. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing that we have a way to cancel out global warming.

      Now that the railroads are completed, I've got way too many settlers anyway.

    29. Re:Why? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      If we all build nukes, will you really care about the weather?

    30. Re:Why? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      lol Yeah and we only need what 640k of memory right?


      Even less - we don't need computers at all.


      The key word you used being most...just like most people didn't chose cable or DSl when they first came out....but looking were we are today.


      Yes, today you can get cable and DSL for about the same price as dial up.

      The key word is "price".

      Once people have enough bandwidth for 2 video streams, their desire for more goes way down.
      They want more, but not so much that they're willing to pay more to get it.
      Even if it's a little bit more money for a lot more bandwidth, IMO, people aren't going to pay the tiny amount more once they have enough for two simultaneous video streams.

      That's why I predict a cutoff around 100Mbps.
      Not because we won't want more, but because we won't pay for more.

      -- less is better.
  13. Scary by Vilim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This has the potential to make the internet a worse place than it is today. Currently, a 56k or cable modem when it is a zombie in a 14 year olds bot army cannot do much damage alone. The "1337" 14 year old must accumulate a huge number before he can make any real difference.

    With 10 gigabit, the kiddie just has to get a few bots to cause a server to die, or if they are persitant enough to accumulate a huge amount of bots, they can do huge amounts of damage to the internet

    Barring the advent of far more massive media, who, besides universities and governments would really need a 10 gigabit internet connection anyways?

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Scary by TheNME · · Score: 0

      "Nobody needs more than 640K"

      Not a real quote, but you get the point. Thought 10Gbits sounds like overkill, maybe in 2010 will be using it to download Ultra high definition TV movies to those 1TB holographic discs that slashdot just covered, and other things of that sort.

      --
      Windows sux. Am I cool now?
    2. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but SP2 wouldn't take a week to download, so perhape more windows users would patch their machines.

    3. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fear I have with greater bandwidth is that it may turn the internet from an informational medium and interactive medium (on a personal human level) into nothing more than another entertainment outlet - like television.

      Imagine what it will be like when bandwidth is nearly unlimited? Why would anything remain text? Forums, text-based sites -- all of it will go by the wayside. Anything that isn't high-production, professional style full-form-media will be tossed away as the masses focus only on things with flashy videos and shit.

      It's depressing to think about.

    4. Re:Scary by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Barring the advent of far more massive media, who, besides universities and governments would really need a 10 gigabit internet connection anyways?

      I predict that by 2010 there will be 10Gbit conections to the internet available... but they will be so large and expensive that only the ten richest kings in europe will have one...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    5. Re:Scary by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Could these connections possibly be used for dating?

    6. Re:Scary by astrotek · · Score: 1

      So hosting with companies like Akamai will be required if you run a large website (kinda already that way look at google, whitehouse, ebay, etc). You can kill one node but you cant kill them all.

      Your arguement for need is like saying everyone only needs a 200mhz processor because it ONLY takes 10 minutes to start windowsxp. But if you had that 10 terrahertz processor it would start instantly.

    7. Re:Scary by general_re · · Score: 2, Interesting
      With 10 gigabit, the kiddie just has to get a few bots to cause a server to die, or if they are persitant enough to accumulate a huge amount of bots, they can do huge amounts of damage to the internet

      Well, wait a minute. You're assuming that institutions won't also see their bandwidth rise, but why assume that? If 10 Gb connections are going to be available and affordable to me, won't universities and businesses have access to commensurately larger pipes as well? If I can afford 10 Gb, what's to stop them from buying a hundred 10 Gb pipes and bonding them together? Granted, that only preserves the status quo rather than solving the problem once and for all, but at least it doesn't make things worse...

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    8. Re:Scary by aldoman · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting two things:

      1) By the time most users have 10GBit, most servers will have 100Tbit. Therefore, you still need more bots.

      2) You'd need more than 'a few bots' because otherwise it's very easy to filter out the DDOS. That is why armies of 10,000 similar cable modems are so hard to filter out because they look exactly like legit requests.

    9. Re: Scary by m1kesm1th · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think about it more carefully. The architecture of the internet is likely to mirror the rise in home network speeds. If every user has a 10 Gigabit connection, then it is likely to be capped, at least until servers can handle the greater loads. A lot of what you wrote sounded like fear, uncertainty, doubt.

      People said similar things about adoption of adsl use and its growing popularity. It didn't suddenly make the internet a series of dead servers.

      A determined person can always cause havok on the internet. However it is not likely to crumble around your ears. Problems exist for connections today due to the holes in operating systems and the increase in speed as to which a service pack can be downloaded (in the case of Windows) and a virus getting onto the machine, I believe will always be there. Therein, lies the greater problem.If server speed increases at the same rate home connections do, then the risks will be less.

      People may not need a faster internet connection, not for the size of data transfer, but for speed. Also may give people the option to host their own servers, which would interesting for most people not just nerds. Video on demand could become a feasible reality, possibly even generating a new generation of amateur 'tv shows'.

      Like the internet has opened up computing for people who are particularly interested in pc's this could herald a new type of user or social networking and a new age of the internet where more people are involved in its infrastructure. Therein may lie the risk and the benefits.

      Personally I think there are risks inherent, spam being the greatest problem if greater upstream is available. Not that I am implying damage, I am talking about wasted time deleting or reading through increasingly sophisticated spam messages. Even if servers do increase in bandwidth enough to combat DDOS attacks (which I think you are aiming at), the increase of spam messages, is not always something that can be easily ignored, since sometimes messages do get through. With bandwidth, DDOS can be ignored, spam cannot always be ignored. However, despite this I think this is a good advance and can only benefit. Limiting these services to the chosen few (students I believe are popular candidates for creating 'bot armies'), is not likely to improve matters for the determined few.

    10. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, that'd be great and all if this 10Gbit connection was here, but this is in JAPAN.

    11. Re:Scary by wobblie · · Score: 1

      sounds like the isp's may finally have to get their shit together and learn what egress filtering is.

    12. Re:Scary by Vilim · · Score: 1

      Thats the problem, alot of the websites which are the targets of ddos attacks are run by one or two unpaid staff, ones which rely on donations to stay afloat. These websites cannot afford to pay Akamai or another distributed hosting company to fight the ddosses. The only ones who can are large companies.

      Alot of the time, rather than face personal bankrupcy (through bandwidth) at the hands of a 14 year old with to much time on his hands, the webmasters pull the plug.

      This robs the internet of a valuable voice, which even now is being replaced by the politically correct, bland, corperate websites

      --
      History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
    13. Re:Scary by Vilim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting bigger pipes to combat bigger DDOSses is not a valid solution. If a regular, run of the mill website needs a 100Tbit pipe, 1% of which is for legitimate requests, and 99% of it is to make sure the legitimate requests get through, there is a problem

      --
      History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
    14. Re:Scary by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      If 10 Gb is coming to the masses, surely the central network will be ready for anything

      The best way to make security work is to experience the failures and attacks.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    15. Re:Scary by dozer · · Score: 1

      "10 gigabit ought to be enough for anybody."

      -- Vilim

      (is this a fair summary of your post?)

    16. Re:Scary by Mikeydude750 · · Score: 0

      Then what would you suggest they do to correct the problem? Building bigger pipes is about the ONLY thing we can do to combat the DDOS attacks.

    17. Re:Scary by sevinkey · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that the increase in customer end bandwidth would cause the content owners and distribution networks to up the server side of the equation as well to keep up with the demand.

      If all sides of the equation are upgrading at the same rate, I doubt the increase in scale would cause any more complicated difficulties that we already have to deal with daily.

    18. Re:Scary by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      With 10 gigabit, the kiddie just has to get a few bots to cause a server to die, or if they are persitant enough to accumulate a huge amount of bots, they can do huge amounts of damage to the internet

      You have a good point. Let's all use dial up because cable just causes havoc as well. In fact, let's stop getting more memory because then more viruses and spyware can be put onto our computer. [/sarcasm

      I don't believe in limiting technology which has many many legitimate uses because people it gives hackers and script kiddies more power.

    19. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In dumb client-server architectures, like HTTP, that is.

    20. Re:Scary by Vilim · · Score: 1

      In my original post I said

      Barring the advent of far more massive media, who, besides universities and governments would really need a 10 gigabit internet connection anyways?

      You can't parallel my post with the fake Bill Gates quote because they aren't dealing with the same thing

      First of all I said Barring the advent of far more massive media, so unless we suddenly have holographic movies which need to streamed over the internet. At the moment the worst real time application a home user could do to a connection would be streaming video. If we scale the quality till we hit DVD (9mbit/sec) then what? I seriously doubt that the _average_ home user requires 10 gigabit if some revolutionary bandwidth hungry technology hasn't emerged by 2010

      I am not saying that more bandwidth is a bad thing. I am saying that giving copious amounts of bandwidth to the computer illiterate majority with the current design of the internet isn't the best idea.

      --
      History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  14. Excellent by Neologic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then we can have the bandwidth to play Doom 3 multiplayer with more than a few people!

    --

    "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    1. Re:Excellent by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 1

      But CS:Source will be out for real by then!

      --
      http://brandonbloom.name
  15. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I'd be happy to have more than 50Kbit to some of the places I hang out!

  16. 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by dmayle · · Score: 2, Funny

    that will hopefully allow homes to receve 10 gigabit internet

    Okay, already, I'll learn Japanese. See you guys in six years... ;)

    1. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by zogger · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd be happy for now with a real 56k, instead of the 28.8 I get :(

    2. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by bubkus_jones · · Score: 1

      56K? Oh yeah, dial-up. I forgot what that's like. I hope I never have to remember. You have my sympathies.

    3. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by nvivo · · Score: 1
      By 2010 I might even have all my home machines upgraded to GigE...
      ALL your home machines? Oh, I need to remember who is the average slashdot home user.. =)
    4. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by whovian · · Score: 1

      By 2010 I might even have all my home machines upgraded to GigE...

      Why wait until 2010 when PCI gigabit NICs cost as little as USD 20-25?

      Or if you are building a new system, motherboards equipped with gigabit LANs are reasonably affordable.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    5. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      If you want to relive the experience, you can just get a cheap router, and have 3 computers on the lan behind it... have 4 bit torrent connections running on 2 of them, and try and do anything on the third. I believe my connection was a bit worse than 56k :-(.

    6. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'd be pleased just having 100Mbit to the home.

      Verizon says they won't even have DSL out to our home until 2011. One typically doubles NETT/NYNEX/BellAtlantic/Verizon estimates, so that's about 2018.

      I'm writing this taking a break from digging conduit trenches for my wireless coop, but not everybody is such a geek. Most folks around here will have 56k connections for at least another 7 years and we're only 7 miles from a signficant New England city.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re: 10Gbit to the Home by 2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GigE gear is already dirt-cheap ($20-$30 for the NICs, $150 or less for an 8-port switch).

  17. Me? by Quixote · · Score: 1

    Harrumph... I get 14.5 Gbits to my house in a month! (if I stay dialled in continuosly, that is.. ;-) )

    1. Re:Me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean 14.5 Gigabytes per month. Unless you're only getting .73 Kbytes/sec...In which case you have my sympathy, plus some congratulations for daring to load Slashdot comment pages on such a tiny connection.

  18. Multimedia, Video & Multiple Devices by Donny+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hard Disks - you don't need HDD for video conferencing and such.

    Buses - if you have 10 devices (3 TVs, 2 PCs, 2 video phones, 4 security cameras, 2 PlayStation 5) in your home, it shouldn't be too hard to use up that bandwidth. Any particular device alone wouldn't need to be able to use up the bandwidth, but all together, they could.

    Just imagine how much bandwidth could be consumed by four kids playing virtual-reality games on the Internet...

    1. Re:Multimedia, Video & Multiple Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hard Disks - you don't need HDD for video conferencing and such.

      You do if you're recording the conference for archival purposes (as many people do with emails).

    2. Re:Multimedia, Video & Multiple Devices by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      >>Hard Disks - you don't need HDD for video conferencing and such.

      >You do if you're recording the conference for archival purposes (as many people do with emails).

      You don't if you're recording it on NFS or CIFS drive at your ISP, Google or somewhere..

  19. Bloody hell... by Devar · · Score: 1

    And here I am, excited that other ISPs here in Australia are finally bringing in ADSL speeds that are faster than 1.5mbit/s. I'm going to go and cry in the corner now.

    --
    It's a Bagel.
    1. Re:Bloody hell... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      At least you have a corner to cry in. The cost for such insanely high bandwidth is having the population density of Tokyo. There they have to rent a corner to cry in when they need it.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:Bloody hell... by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but our minimum speed right now is 12Mb/sec. Really, the wind blasting past our faces as we surf the net at blazing speeds dries away the tears. The maximum is already 54Mb/s.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  20. checklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    *) japanese for dummies book... check
    *) japanese dictionary... check
    *) laptop.... check
    *) slacwkare 10... check
    *) gigabit interface... check
    *) plane-ticket... check

    woohoo tentacle pr0n here I COME!

    1. Re:checklist by EnsilZah · · Score: 0

      Or, the other variation:

      *) japanese for dummies book... $12
      *) japanese dictionary... $10
      *) laptop.... $2500
      *) slacwkare 10... $0
      *) gigabit interface... $100
      *) plane-ticket... $250
      *) finding out you're 6 years early... Priceless

    2. Re:checklist by rmezzari · · Score: 1

      *) gigabit interface... check

      Hum, i dont think that will be enough... try one of those new 10-gigabit interfaces! Or you want to browse ten times slower than your neighbour?

      --
      "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds !"
  21. bottleneck anyone ? by selderrr · · Score: 1

    can you imagine what this would do for servers ? Not to speak the backbone infrastructure.

    I guess this stuff will be either for broadcast (TV-over-IP), for P2P to the provider (i.e. one or 2 hops away) or just sit there waiting for the bottleneck to unstop.

    1. Re:bottleneck anyone ? by Sygiinu · · Score: 1
      Don't you think that if consumers are getting 100Gbps to the home that most servers will be connected with even bigger pipes?

      Interesting points about TVoIP though. I can see the day when all the communications into homes come through a single connection.

  22. What it's really for by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We'll need this to support the distribution of pirated movies over "file-sharing" networks with inefficient protocols.

    "file-sharing" systems pumping around MP3 files are already using orders of magnitude more bandwidth than they should. The RIAA only generates a few gigabytes of new content per week, expressed as MP3 files. If it just went out on a netnews binary group, the bandwidth consumption would be trivial. No file would traverse any link more than once. No frantic inter-node polling.

    The consumer electronics industry could just buy out the music industry and throw all the content into the public domain. The entire music industry isn't that big; it's about the size of Compaq when HP acquired it. Content could be viewed as a loss leader for the hardware.

    Apple seems to be headed in that direction.

    1. Re:What it's really for by thisissilly · · Score: 1
      The consumer electronics industry could just buy out the music industry and throw all the content into the public domain. The entire music industry isn't that big; it's about the size of Compaq when HP acquired it. Content could be viewed as a loss leader for the hardware.

      I've been saying the same thing, but for the telecommunications industry. Buy out the music industry, and sell lots and lots of bandwidth. It makes no sense how the larger electronics/telecom industry lets itself be lead around by the nose by media companies.

    2. Re:What it's really for by benna · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are a little off on the amount of music the RIAA releases per week. I just added up all mp3s released in one week last month on a server I have access to and it came out to a total of 66.83GB. Still not that huge compared to the huge amount of data already available on the internet though.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  23. Typicle Japanese style... by u-238 · · Score: 0, Troll

    to tweak and squeeze pre-existing technology to its absolute boundaries (fiber optics in this case) until something new and revolutionary arrives from the West.

    I can only hope a Western scientist, in the next 10 years, scientifically (but more likely serendipitously) stumbles upon something revolutionary and far reaching, espically if we want to extend such speads to our rural areas...

    1. Re:Typicle Japanese style... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way this is the limit of the amount of data that fiber optics can bring. Light can carry a ton of information, and different bands of light (ROYGBIV) can be streamed simultaneously down the same fiber.

  24. More importantly by Complicity · · Score: 1

    Forget 10Gbit to the home by 2010, I'd be happy with 10Mbit to my home now.

    --
    - c -
    1. Re:More importantly by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      It won't be long. One of my local DSL providers (I live in Atlanta) offers 6Mbit service now.

    2. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's download speed. I doubt you get more than 768Kbs upstream. Broadband options in US are generally poor, especially if you consider SLAs and upstream speed.

    3. Re:More importantly by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      True, but I don't really need huge upstream speed for anything.

  25. 2008 presidential campaign speeches by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

    [candidate]: "A chicken in every pot, a hybrid vehicle in every garage, and fiber in every home!"
    [crowd]: Huzzah!!

    I'd vote for that.

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    1. Re:2008 presidential campaign speeches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone smell that?!? Smells of dirty hippie...

    2. Re:2008 presidential campaign speeches by benna · · Score: 1

      How bout some pot in every chicken? That would be entertaining.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:2008 presidential campaign speeches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [candidate]: "A chicken in every pot, a hybrid vehicle in every garage, and fiber in every home!"

      I'd vote for that.


      Wow, you must really like chicken.

  26. You also forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    = suppliers of storage media salivating.

  27. How about the latency? by NoMercy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Though not a major factor in everyones lives, I'd personally like to see the latency dealt with as well, things may be getting faster but it seems latency is largely ignored, there's not much hope for global telecommuiting if they don't address the latency as well *mumbles about that 10ms lag on adsl lines*

    1. Re:How about the latency? by cot · · Score: 1

      Sure modem latency sucks, and some DSL latency is better than others, and those things can be improved, but at the end of the day it's all about c.

      3E8 m/s. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

      --

    2. Re:How about the latency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my 10Mbps fiber line, I get about 2-4ms to my gateway (and other subsequent gateways in my area). Not bad - atleast compared to DSL... but if you can figure out that whole problem with speeding up light particles, then please let us know.

    3. Re:How about the latency? by William+Baric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take a stopwatch and try to see what 1/100 of a second is before complaining. BTW, but you do know that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, right ?

    4. Re:How about the latency? by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      We can't go past c, but it'd be nice to push a bit closer to it, most cables operate at 50% to 75% of c, but I'm sure most of the latency on my ADSL line is due to traversing BT's ATM network before it gets to my ISP where it's then connected to the various internet backbones and LINX (ISP-ISP links).

      We need a much faster switching system, ideally all the switching decisions should be made before the packet ever gets to the switch while inside long-haul carriers, while the global network needs to be improved coverage wise, Asia is comming up in the internet world but dispite fast local links there's a relative lack of decent global connections and conections between the various islands of high technology dotted around.

    5. Re:How about the latency? by cot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure some local hardware could be improved, but the bottom line is that if you have a decent broadband connection, you're already getting far better latency for many local servers than you'll EVER get for ones across the globe, or even across the US, just due to the speed of light.

      Even if cables transmitted at the speed of light (which as you say, they don't, it's generally at least a little slower) the time for a photon to get from here to the other side of the planet along the surface is something like 2E7meters/3E8 meters/s, or 67ms. So to ping a server there you'd HAVE to get something over ~135ms as an absolute limit. Throw in actual speed of light in the cable and the fact that the cables probably aren't "as the crow flies" and even without finite latency in the routers you're going to do worse than that.

      I just pinged www.hinet.net (a taiwanese ISP) with my cable modem and got an average of 165ms and mantraonline.com (an indian ISP) and got 290ms. It's just not gonna get that much better than that. Sure there are probably plenty of podunk ISPs in Asia that could use beefed up connections and better routing or whatever, but for many cases, we're already doing shockingly well.

      --

    6. Re:How about the latency? by womby · · Score: 1

      NTT seem to be doing ok with latency

      orac: womby# ping 203.141.142.163
      PING 203.141.142.163 (203.141.142.163) 56(84) bytes of data.
      64 bytes from 203.141.142.163: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=3.44 ms
      64 bytes from 203.141.142.163: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=2.88 ms
      64 bytes from 203.141.142.163: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=4.42 ms
      64 bytes from 203.141.142.163: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=3.38 ms
      64 bytes from 203.141.142.163: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=3.25 ms

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
    7. Re:How about the latency? by Saeger · · Score: 3, Informative
      Your packets can't travel faster than the speed of light, so you'll always have some inherent latency even after the switching is finally all optical.

      The minimum possible latency when chatting or gaming with someone on the opposite side of the planet will always be greater than 133ms (40000km circumference / 300000 km/s speed of light *1000ms/s).

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    8. Re:How about the latency? by praedictus · · Score: 1

      Slight error in the math there: If the other guy is
      on the other side of the planet that's HALF the circumference: Giving us a more respectable 67 ms
      ping time!!!

      --
      Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
    9. Re:How about the latency? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      20000km ping.
      20000km pong.

      roundtrip latency: 133ms.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    10. Re:How about the latency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean 12000 km diameter / 300000 km/s = 40 ms ? That's surely reachable by staying within the bounds of the currently known laws of nature. Although you might need something really exotic to create the link... even if the core of the Earth is conductive enough to prevent all communication by electromagnetic radiation, there's still the possibility of communicating by neutrinos or maybe even quantum teleportation.

    11. Re:How about the latency? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I want 10ms latency to Australia! There's no reason I cant have it!

    12. Re:How about the latency? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      AND the 3e8 is in a vacuum. Cables are not vacuum.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    13. Re:How about the latency? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      Hum... the lower bound would rather be
      ~ 42.3ms ( that is 133ms / Pi ^^ ).

      that would imply digging a looong way ;)

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
  28. Business by astrotek · · Score: 1

    Think of all the small business openings this will create. Almost anyone will be able to start a small streaming media company without buying 20k/month in bandwidth. More bandwidth will mean the death of television as you know it.

  29. Pipes fattern than John Candy by FoboldFKY · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm still on a 56K modem, you insensitive clod!

    But seriously, to all the people saying "bleh! What are we ever going to need that kind of bandwidth for?", just remember: no one should need more than 640KB of memory.

    Face it, people are constantly doing things which require more and more bandwidth. People will start wanting to stream HDTV-quality movies over the net from their favourite P2P ne...uh... I mean MPAA sanctioned distribution channel. They'll want online games with thousands and thousands of people with realistic physics, and audio chatting. They'll want...

    Ah who am I kidding? This is for p0rn, plain and simple.

    --
    We're geeks... We're the sorcerers of the modern-day world. --
  30. What about RAM?! by slashcop · · Score: 0

    With about 10 gigs of ram none of this is going to matter.

    Harddrive Speed is important but ram is more important.

  31. MP3s/s by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 5, Funny
    MP3s/s

    I love it. The NEW standard to measure bandwith.

    1. Re:MP3s/s by TCM · · Score: 1

      an MP3 is Kb/s so MP3s/s is Kb/s^2?

      And that's just how we measure bandwith. But how do we measure bandwithout??

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    2. Re:MP3s/s by dapyx · · Score: 0

      No, that was libraries of congress per second.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
  32. Because by jackb_guppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DRM does not work in the current setup.

    With that massive pipe, there is no need for local hard drive or other resource (tape/DVD) to hold information. It can all be on-demand.

    With that setup you only need to see what you want see when you need it. AND PAID for it on per-use bases.

    We are getting to what VNC was originally designed for... Central Processing centers with only remote display devices.

    So nice plasam TV, with a keyboard, camera, mic and speakers (phone & music) attached. Add to it point at (touch) screen design and you have very the all propose enterantment and mind control device, that for $19.95 per month can spy on you.

    1. Re:Because by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Forgot -

      Some one patent this before they do.

      When the office got it first HP Laser Jet 1 printer, we thought about adding a scanner and phone line to it, with a tape recorder for storage encase of printer while a fax came in.

      Boy did we miss the money train!

  33. 25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Each human eye has about 4K x 3K retinal receptors triggering the optic nerve at about 40Hz. Assigning 2x2 32bit pixels to each, at 60Hz, is 2*8K*6K*60*4 bytes per person, per second. That's under 24GBps, with hifi audio channels and metadata, it's still under 25GBps per person, before our senses can't tell the difference from more data. 2:1 compression means 12.5GBps, or 100Gbps - only 10x more than these plans. The end of multimedia data networking might be just over the horizon, at least for one person at a time.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting (4k by 3k) ... where did you find those numbers? .. I looked before and found much higher values.

    2. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you assume that sending video streams is the only, or even the most important, thing to do with a broadband connection, which is unlikely.

    3. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by spektr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah - the HiFi-freaks will still swear that those unrecognizable things above 10 TBps *DO* make a difference. And a 100 TBps pipe still can't beat vinyl. I predict a celluloid-revival for 2009. People will trash their DVDs and enjoy the smooth gradients that only celluloid can deliver.

    4. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We established them in the early 1990s, from optic tract biology research in the 1980s. We were replacing film scanners with a digital camera for commercial "digital prepress" (desktop publishing). 36mm film had about 4Kx3K dots on its 1.5"x1" surface, too. But those analog "media", film and retina, are arranged in a stochastic layout, rather than the grid of our video sensor. So even though we achieved 4Kx3K sensor pixels, we'd need at least double that, in each dimension, for the 2D Nyquist minimum sampling requirement. And even then, the moving eye, in its stochastic polar/radial texture and nonlinear, asynchronous retinal innervation, would sense the underlying grid, at odds with continuous surfaces it had learned to see. We compensated somewhat with out tech, which mechanically stepped a 512x512 pixel sensor across 8x6 subsampling tiles, then ran interpolation to turn our square-wave sample into a smoother approximation of continuous surface coloring. Just the microscopic jitter of the moving sensor offered some complex smoothing that complemented the eye's jitter. But the fundamental limits, against which we asymptotically invested R&D, were the eye's polar layout and high resolution.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Even if it's not the most important, it's the biggest consumer of bandwidth. That 25GBps includes over 1GBps of metadata, which seems generous. This model is to determine the highest threshold beyond which marginal returns on investment drop precipitously to negligibility. Just sending the rendered sensory input from a "dumb" terminal to a smart server network is the least efficient consumption of data, so it's the extreme case for capacity. One could argue that the requirement is actually double, to simulate the eyes of the remote observer.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but they're really talking about the grid, vs. continuous reproduction media. They're right, but wavelet encoding and other technologies, like perhaps Bessier codecs, will keep the nostalgists at bay for longer. At least their complaints are keeping us honest :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1
      well, it's either video streams or video files...or maybe still pictures. =P

      HD p0rn will be the first to require a 25 GBps link...and, guess what...someone will buy it

      p.s. someone help me, please! I have 6 gmail invites and only need 5 people to complete an offer. sign up for infone...no fees and you can cancel it in a week or so.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    8. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to beam directly to retinal receptors, you need to update the data feed immediately as the eye refocuses. This requires hefty low-latency processing at the video server, which likely won't be a sensible arrangement. On the other hand, to produce a perfect 3D perception at the customer end, you either need to send a holographic pixel stream at enormous resolution, or an object-based 3D scene definition. The latter may well be more bandwidth-efficient.

    9. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Unless you want to ship more data than that for some sort of local processing. Imagine (for example) a super-high-res MMORPG where you want to ship all the textures that the user might look at because the latency is too high.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    10. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Once we have such high resolution output, we'll have rendering techniques to accommodate the comfort of the eye's usual periodic refocusing, perhaps by refocusing the projector slightly, with cues. But the actual data required to construct the image will not exceed the Nyquist oversampling of the data actually sensed by the retina. That amount is the upper boundary of data capacity necessary. There are many ways to waste bandwidth, but more bandwidth won't be required, even if it is eventually delivered. People drive SUVs in flat, paved Manhattan, with $2:gallon gas at 15MPG.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Latency will also have the technology to decrease, as we continue down the road. The increase in all-optical processing will increase bandwidth as it decreases latency.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:25GBps ought to be enough for anybody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's not to say that there won't be good reasons for local processing. There almost certainly will, including some unavoidable latency, even at the speed of light. Texture delivery, or even multiple alternative views might be required to satisfy feedback. And there's the principle that content expands to fill any capacity, with unanticipated applications springing into the gap. I wonder what other architectures we'll see, once some of our bandwidth blinders are off.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  34. And... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Informative

    There will never be a time when slashdotters will give up on urban legends about Bill Gates saying X something will always be enough for everyone.

    Give it up, please.

  35. What it's really for-Charity plea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The consumer electronics industry could just buy out the music industry and throw all the content into the public domain. "

    And just why would they do that? So a bunch of freeloaders can get free music? A business's purpose is to make money. Not be a charity. At best they'll go into the music business, and we'll pretty much be were we are now. Except you all be complaining about the "Consumer Electronics Industry (CEI)" instead of the RIAA.

    1. Re:What it's really for-Charity plea. by womby · · Score: 1

      give away music, sell bandwidth, seems like a way to make money to me.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
  36. Pr0n?.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Funny

    ....I can't even move my hand that fast.

    1. Re:Pr0n?.... by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Currently the parent comment is rated:

      Pr0n?.... (Score:2, Informative)

      Informative?

      I'm stunned.

      Informative?

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    2. Re:Pr0n?.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just was looking around on my user page and saw I had a score of "3"....

      ...checked it out and saw "Informative" which scarred me because I was going for "Funny"... but I'm a karma whore so I'll take it.

    3. Re:Pr0n?.... by Keruo · · Score: 1

      more like too much information

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
  37. Re:I'll believe it by aldoman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, I disagree.

    With Standard Definition Movies (in XViD and DiVX formats), the filesizes are remaining at around 700-1.4GB (1-2CDs). Not only that, thanks to more faster CPUs, more compression can be done which means a lower bitrate is needed for the same quality.

    Not only that, home connection speeds have went from 512/768 to 2,3 and soon 4 and 5mbit/second.

    Some things are the same, but music and movies are just staying the same size (unless HDTV rips start coming, but that's a long way off as we currently have no way to transfer a HDTV rip to a TV without use of large HDDs etc) which is bad, bad news for the music and movie companies.

    For games, they have gone from 1-2CD in 2000, to 3-5 CD (or one DVD).

  38. Bwahaha! by paul248 · · Score: 1

    I already have a 10Gbit link to my home.

  39. Re:Why? Aked the clueless American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because in other parts of the world, people ARE allowed to download movies. Just in the United Fascist Theocracy of America the working classes are not permitted what people in civilized countries consider their birth right.

  40. New experience?-A spreading sickness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think this would change the way the internet is. With 10Gbit internet, you could almost have the entire world as one big Beowulf cluster!"

    Or one big viral/ trojan clusterfuck.

  41. Re: Not bloody likely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm, not bloody likely in the US. But in my neighborhood --somewhere in Asia that shall go nameless-- they're laying fiber in the street right in front of my house as I type, no lie, and I live way the hell out in the suburbs.
    Right now I get 1Meg Up and 5Megs down DSL for thirty bucks a month. There's no reason for me to think 10Gigs on that fiber they just laid out front is unlikely in five years.

  42. right... by Altanar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe by 2010 I'll be able to get something other than a 56k connection... Cable and DSL isn't even remotely available here. You know it's bad when local paper celebrates the coming of dsl to a town that's 50 miles away.

    1. Re:right... by Tripster · · Score: 1

      Same here, still 56k to the house, although our telco is threatening to bring it here "soon", which has been "soon" since January, but that is better than "no hope in hell" which is what the installers were saying a couple of years back while laughing.

      Nice email to the CEO wondering why I wasn't going to be getting it even though I was within a digital local loop enabling 56k service helped a bit. Latest reports was sometime in August, still waiting though, and certainly not holding my breath either :)

  43. Not for long by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    If you are a member of the WTO, you will soon be coming on board. If you arent, you will be or you wont be allowed to trade with the rest of us.

    You must not have heard of cases in other countries of similar acts from large businesses and governments.

    You are not exempt from coming restrictions.. dont kid yourself.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Not for long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, whatever Darth Vader.
      As a matter of fact governments can sign WTO agreements all frickin' day long. Whoopdee freakin' doo. Yeah, those WTO guys all got paid. Good on 'em.
      But enforcement? Heh heh heh. Yeah, go ahead and tell me about how the evil empire is going to enforce its own fucked up copyright laws in other countries. So what if a bunch of officials signed some paper. How you going to enforce it? You aint. Ta da!
      Game over.
      Please Insert Coin to Continue.

  44. Speed demons by SilentJ_PDX · · Score: 1

    I was just in Tokyo on holiday and saw some Japanese friends I met in London. They were laughing that 512kbps was the normal broadband speed in London and 1Mbps was considered fast.

    I guess they've just introduced 40Mbps over here...

  45. use RAM! by slashcop · · Score: 0


    The hard drive does not need to transmit at that speed if theres enough ram. Also the harddrive can have cache itself to speed the process. 128 megs of harddrive internal cache with 10 gigs of system ram and you might have the type of computer to take advantage of the speed.

  46. Yet another misleading story... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    By 2010 *IN JAPAN*

    Yay. Great.

    Lemme know when it hits the US.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:Yet another misleading story... by womby · · Score: 1

      its not a misleading story for me, I am living here.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
    2. Re:Yet another misleading story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great and everything, but most ./ readers don't live in Japan.

    3. Re:Yet another misleading story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, it is pretty misleading.. sorry, but it is.

      not everyone lives in japan, i think most people on this site don't, anyway.

    4. Re:Yet another misleading story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://slashdot.jp/ might be more appropriate for ya next time, bud.

      I have to agree with the grandparent poster: misleading.

  47. The reasons why and few explanations on infra. by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

    apt-get update
    apt-get dist-upgrade
    12 years from now ...[6 years to implmentation and assume they use it atleast 6 years after that...]
    Its Another point is the movie and entertainment. Streaming video from home computer to home computer at 3000x2000 resolution. Video conferences so that there will be 16 of said streams needed, [30" flatpanels are going to be cheap.] Consider the idea that there are 4 family members sharing the connection too.

    IPV6 is doing something on latency, the thing their design is going to do something on latency too. [By reducing conversion between optical network and other network.]

    For the backbone bandwith. If you can wave multiplex 200 different frequencies and run at 50Ghz operation and bundle 1000 fibers to a single cable you are lacking some bandwith so they need some improvement on backbone to get em the bandwith, but still they could just assume for first generation that not everyone is going to use entire bandwith at same time, so you could just over subsribe it a lot, and just draw the 10Gb lines for last mile as those lines are NOT going to be upgraded. And upgrade the backbone as soon as there is technology todo that.

    The backbone bandwith requirement will be huge which makes me wonder the powercomsumption of said network equipment!

    There will be some die shrinks before 2010 so they may put single chip router, for it. With address table on same die/package as the routing logic. Hopefully mostly optical networking, etc...
    The cooling of said single chip router maybe liquid, so they need extremely reliable liquid cooling available.

    --
    Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
  48. Re:I'll believe it by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Eh? That's not true at all.

    Linux Distros are the same size today as they were 6 years ago. 1-2 main CDs for the main installation along w/ supplemental apps CDs which don't really count.

    Most desktop apps like Office are still only 1 CD (600-700 megs). XP Home/Pro... 1 CD. Win2k3 1 CD.

    Warcraft 3 - 1 CD. Doom 3 - 3 CDs. Riven (1997) - 5 CDs.

    There hasn't been any increase whatsoever in the size of warez/apps/porn/whatever. The only thing has has changed has been the introduction to downloading DVD media like PS2 games or movies. Even still those only take a few hours to download on a 4Mbps connection.

    We're talking 10Gbit in another 6 years. I highly doubt most apps will even double in size.. and even if they did, a common 2-5 CDs is nothing on a fast connection like that.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  49. Why not? by bsartist · · Score: 1

    Seriously - why not build out the bandwidth first, and then let people find new and interesting ways to use it?

    --
    Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  50. Japan thinks ahead and reaps the awards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why?

    How about:

    VOIP that doesn't suck like today?
    Video conferencing that actually works?
    Digital broadcasting in high definition without that awful blocky video compression hell?
    On demand video games, films, tv, true hifi music etc?
    On demand OS systems and office applications?
    Remote office working , language education and the list goes on and on...

    Everything that was promised by internet pioneers 10 years ago but couldn't be delivered due to poor bandwidth.

  51. Holographic Data Cubes by hattig · · Score: 1

    Will arrive at the same time as flying cars and DNF.

    1. Re:Holographic Data Cubes by freqres · · Score: 1

      DNF? Is that Duke Nukem Forever or Did Not Finish?

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    2. Re:Holographic Data Cubes by hattig · · Score: 1

      The former ... hehe ... which implies the latter I suppose

  52. High Definition Video by Detritus · · Score: 1

    I want multiple feeds of high definition video. In raw form, that's 1.5 Gbps per stream. Compressed to "network feed quality", that's 45 Mbps per stream.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  53. The future holds... uh-oh... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Funny


    There's no storage problem. GMail accounts will be 1 Terabyte by then. Email yourself a big attachment.

    We won't have 2GHz processors that wait 99.999% of the time for your every keystroke, like they do now. They will be 20 GHz and will wait 99.9999%.

    There will be mods that turn a motherboard into a radar.

    Britney Spears will be an old married woman by then. You will be able to examine her stretch marks in high definition detail.

    ... because too much is never enough.

    1. Re:The future holds... uh-oh... by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

      2010? I'll be CEO of Microsoft.

      --
      ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
    2. Re:The future holds... uh-oh... by QuiescentWonder · · Score: 1

      We won't have 2GHz processors that wait 99.999% of the time for your every keystroke, like they do now. They will be 20 GHz and will wait 99.9999%.

      Not that processors wait for your keystroke right now anyway. That would suck, your keystroke just triggers an interupt.

  54. Re:I'll believe it by tuxlove · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not only that, home connection speeds have went from 512/768 to 2,3 and soon 4 and 5mbit/second.

    I already get 4Mb at home, and 6Mb is offered in my area. In Japan, apparently 20-30Mbit is common. My colleages there get that speed, at least.

  55. Seriously, Porn by therealseadawg · · Score: 1

    With all the jokes about getting pr0n faster, I think people may be forgetting that it is porn that drives technology at many levels.
    vhs/beta, dvd, and i'm sure broadband internet, to an extent, all pushed by porn. So when you wank, wank in thanks for porn to the home by video cassettes, dvds, and 10 gbit internet.

  56. Imagine a beowolf cluster of GMailFS's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a beowolf cluster of GMailFS's with multiple load-balanced 10Gbit connections? I think I'd crap my pants... or not.

  57. P2P 2010 style by microbrewer · · Score: 1

    That will mean more Jappanesse kids using Winny and Share (the developmet after winny that is almost imposible to find) in 2010.In Japan it is considered illeagal to develop p2p file sharing aplications so there will be more clandestine way to hide data by the year 2010 .

  58. Re:I'll believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personal web pages slashdot YOU...in Japan!

  59. Yet another.... by Junta · · Score: 1

    Story that REALLY needed the '... in Japan' subject.

    See here if you don't find this funny (search for 'in japan').

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  60. Units in English please? by noidentity · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Enough with the technical mumbo-jumbo. I just want to know how many Libraries of Congress that is per minute.

  61. Two Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One, they're doing this in Japan for those of you that didn't RTFA. Second, everyone's complaining we won't have any use for this bandwidth. I call bullshit. True we probably won't have any uses that will require a full 10Gbps 24/7. However, having that big a pipe will makes things tons faster when you do want to do something. You'd be able to buy a dvd online and download it in a few seconds rather than hours. The rest of the time, the pipe might sit there unused.

  62. I for one by jjholt1213 · · Score: 1

    Welcome our new high bandwidth overlords

  63. Mod parent up! Hilarious! by Adolph_Hitler · · Score: 0

    Give Alapan 5+ stars!

    --
    People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
  64. Upload? by Dragon218 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But the upload speed will still be around 128Kb/s.

    --

    "It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
  65. For those who don't think we can use it... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    Think about the bandwidth required for a hologram. A typical hologram can resolve 5000 lines per millimeter. A 10 by 10 cm holographic plate therefore contains 250 billion "pixels", times (presumably) 32-bit color resolution per pixel means you could easily get a terabyte per frame. I think our only hope for storing this much data is a holographic hard drive or a quantum-type hard drive.

    Bah... call me when I can upload my conciousness into a computer net. Or when they figure out what my conciousness *is*.

  66. Re:I'll believe it by timmi · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall Office 2003/XP is three CD's

    (Only one was actually needed, really) the other two were clip art, and tutorials respectively

  67. w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring on the pr0n!

  68. Easy to Keep Up With by Jameth · · Score: 1

    There are comments all over this article about how hard it is to keep up with a 10 Gbit connection.

    Am I the only person in the world who shares an internet connection between multiple computers? Do you honestly think that I can't use up 10 Gbit when routing it across seven computers which are heavily used by a mixture of people demanding low latency and high through-put?

  69. Re:I'll believe it by djsmiley · · Score: 1

    Movies are the largest file type (cept Isos etc of course) which the adverage home user downloads.

    We have nearly enough speed behind our net connections now (in most places anyway, the UK seems to lag) that you can stream any type of media accross the net and not have any problems.

    When everyone has this almost perfect net, it will mean there will be no more need for FASTER networks. Hopefully then, they will start working once again on the backbone, making it more secure, making it less error prone.

    Only reason we need much faster networks at all, is for industial and scientific uses. Both of which can deal with MASSIVE data tranfers, how ever, these have already over come this problem, by having their own deicated networks (such as Internet2 for the education system).

    Disclaimer: Im from the UK, the prices here for boardband really suck. The cables are all owned by one company.

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
  70. No we don't by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    This kind of speed will be used for streaming radio and TV. We need A/D converters which run that fast! More realistic, we need multicast enabled routers able to handle this shit.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  71. Obligatory Simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Nerd: I make a program that downloads porn off the Internet 1000 times faster.

    Marge: Hmm, does anyone need that much porn?

    Homer [drooling]: Ohh... 1000 times faster...

  72. What about us bandwidth starved in the US? by Promethyl · · Score: 1

    Screw Japan, what about getting OC style connex to the USA homes?

    --
    -Promethyl
  73. Re:I'll believe it by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "People said that about 14.4, 28.8, 56k, and DSL."

    And I'm still saying that about DSL. It's nice to know that if I lived in the heart of New York City or Los Angeles that I might be able to get 10 Gb/s, but right now my router says it's dialling in at 24 kb/s.

  74. More than just internet by doormat · · Score: 1

    Its really about what other stuff you can get to the home. Excellent phone service, HDTV streams, videoconferencing, telecommuting, etc. I'm sure the **AAs are craping their pants however...

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  75. Let's think scientific research. by Vlion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK.
    In a research project near my university, a professor wants to be able to store roughly 30 GB/s.
    He is sampling some states in the nervous system.
    O'course, he a bio prof, but that gives you some idea about scientific computation.

    Now, let's think video.
    Say in 10 years professional movie makers film in voxels, not pixels. That takes an incredible amount of storage.

    Or say gaming- instead of relying on mega-servers to handle your rpg, you can run a 256-player game from your home machine without blinking.

    I would wager only bus limitations prevent one from doing that with a modern 2 CPU system. :-)

    --
    /b
    |f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
    /a
  76. Question here... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    You have a 10 gigabit per second connection to the central office. Your neighbor does too. So do most of your neighbors. Yet you all have a line that runs all the way to the CO before it can connect with anything else?

    At this time, we've got network speeds at home (Gigabit ethernet) that can rival a small internet backbone over a distance of a few hundred meters. Now, suppose you and 16-ish neighbors were to buy a 24-port gigabit hub. You can all hook into that hub and have faster-than-lightning access to each other's data. You have something like 4 to 8 ports of the hub left open.

    Now, similar groups do the same, and you link to 4-8 of their gigabit hubs. Now 60 to 80 people have burning-fast access to each other for gaming, data exchange, web pages, etc.

    This trend continues, with an expanding web of people having uber-speed links to each other. Eventually, you truly have an internet without ISPs because EVERYONE is an ISP.

    [Now I might be missing something here... Would you need a computer as a router between each 24-port switch? As in, can the switch route subnets through it's ports?]

    There are several technological hurdles to this. First, everyone on your network would have to connect using IP6. This is because everyone on this new network has to talk to each other and that means each needs a public IP address. Unfortunately, the IP space under IP4 is getting VERY tight. Now, I just tried to find out what the "private" addresses for IP6 are, but holy shit... my brain imploded trying to read the RFC. Something about 5 addresses per interface (???)? Uh, yeah... Anyway, other problems would be how to deal with malicious hackers and viruses/worms/etc having gigabit speed access to millions of computers. But other than that, most of the requisite material is already available, no?

    1. Re:Question here... by Spectre_03 · · Score: 1

      Not quite correct in many ways, your point about requiring IPv6 missed entirely, I have run entire companies off of a single IP, Nat/Pat to the rescue. Also you do not need a router between each switch, you only need a routed interface per VLan segment if you did indeed want seperate segments. In what you describe this isn't enirely needed nor wanted so long as each had it's own switch/router or the like. No need to even read up on RFC's that are coming down the line if you can't use the space you have already in the correct manner. I say this not to be pompous but more along the lines of that I currently run an ISP responsible for over 130 Companies and over 100 of them have web services and other services in which I use less than a class C internet address space to service. IPv6 is coming, but not because of address space abuse or that we are going to usurp it all. We could implement better networks and make that a non issue for a long time. In fact it will be here because of improvements in services and implementation as well as long term address space concerns that may not even surface. Just my 2

  77. never under-estimate the bandwidth of a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stationwagon filed with tapes speeding down the highway...

    Ok I won't, but latency is important too.

  78. It's "shimbun" not "shinbun" by soundcore · · Score: 1

    Shame on you commander - not knowing such a simple word as "newspaper" in Japanese.

    1. Re:It's "shimbun" not "shinbun" by AndyMcL · · Score: 0

      You can write it either way. M and N are the same sound in Japanese. There are 13 sounds in English that do not exist in Japanese hence the pronounciation problems sometimes.

      I have seen it both ways.

      -Andy

  79. Re:I'll believe it by HawkingMattress · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know i had doom1 given to me on a few floppies, same thing for warcraft, or windows 3.1.
    And MSDOS fitted enterily on one 1.44 floppy, not so long ago...
    700 megs / 1.44 = 486,11. Yay, a recent os is about 400 times bigger than msdos something like 12 years ago...

  80. Correction! by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    Almost any stay-at-home wife will be able to start a small streaming media company ;-)

    Paul B.

  81. Yes, but somehow I still imagine... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...that RealPlayer will still be Buffering 0%... 10%... 20%...

  82. What's the use? by Zedrick · · Score: 1

    I've got 100Mb connection at home (yes, I'm Swedish). And sure, it's nice to be able to download a 700MB DivX-movie from my local DC++-hub (usually takes about 2-3 minutes), but that's the only I really make full use of my connection, since most people on kazaa or eDonkey has 10Mb or even slower connections.

  83. Re:I'll believe it by RealUlli · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Linux Distros are the same size today as they were 6 years ago. 1-2 main CDs for the main installation along w/ supplemental apps CDs which don't really count.

    You must have been using Suse. Debian Sarge (the upcoming release) is 1 CD for the basic install, and 11 CDs more if you want to do more than basic things with it. These values are for ia32-CPUs, the coming 64-bit CPUs might see a twofold increase in binary size... (I don't have any data on that, though...)

    Regards, Ulli

    --
    Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
  84. Television? by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

    I haven't watched TV for years after getting cable internet. I won't have to wait for some new speed boost for that to happen.

  85. Re:I'll believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most importantly, the size of a linux distribution is limited by the amount of OSS programmer time available. Every bit of code results from a programmer spending valuable thinking time on the code.

    The only possibility I can see for linux distributions growing suddenly multiple orders of magnitude is if there's some reason to include prerecorded video streams in the distribution. The reason could be hand-holding video documentation and tutorials. Or the long-awaited pr0nLinux (includes everything a nerd needs!)

  86. Not here in the US by MadHungarian1917 · · Score: 1

    We will be lucky if we can get 384k DSL! to most homes by 2010.

    Remember the ILEC's took rate increase after rate increase to 'deploy broadband services like ISDN' Still can't get ISDN in most locations (useful for T1 backup) The money went towards divdends for shareholders and buying wireless companies.

    Bring back the regulated monopoly i.e. you get to make 5-9% profit but you must deliver services to all comers _not_ just the most profitable markets.

    Italy has fiber to the home! Here in the US if you have a major facility (1000+ People) you might be able to get the ILEC to install a fiber.

  87. Library of Congress is only 20TB? by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 1

    Would have figured it would be growing somewhat faster...

  88. I notice a trend of one track mindedness... by Spectre_03 · · Score: 1

    How is it that almost everyone here feels this is meant for strictly one pc and tends to whine about Hard Drive speeds and bus speeds in a single PC not being able to keep up? Has so few here remembered or just not used Voice over IP? What about video conferencing devices? And the days ahead when you just may get your Television feed through your internet connection? The power of the internet is we are leveraging it to do everything we want it to do and coming up with more it can do daily. That is where both cost savings and innovation are most prominent at, and it's why we should encourage it most. Incidentally, one of the greatest innovations to date, and yet misunderstood is still Voice over IP, as it was the next logical step to fostering and encouraging still developing nations to partake in a global environment. But I digress, lets lose the ideals of Hard drives for a moment and think about the jealousy we should feel here in the states (for those of us living here) and remember, it must be nice to live on a tiny island at times. All joking aside this should allow us to focus on trying to encourage the same elsewhere and to try to think of more useful ways we could indeed use a connection such as that aside from surfing porn and the like. Not that having a passtime is so bad either ;-) ...

  89. Faster connection vs content by owlstead · · Score: 1

    Why keep governments keep spending money on such idiotic tasks as getting fast internet to the home. The only place where that's interesting is for areas that are difficult to cover using current technologies.

    What I would really like to see is a government that has more than a token presentation on the internet. Please let me use that internet connection for real tasks, instead of trying to improve the connection. The market will do that for you.

    Anyway, all the projects the government started up in the Netherlands have turned into vapourware anyway, so they are not only the wrong person to implement fast internet connections, they actually can't cut it.

    Now give me a freaking linux/apple or java version to fill in my freaking taxes. Currently I have to buy Microsoft products to even USE the currently available government services.

    1. Re:Faster connection vs content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I would really like to see is a government that has more than a token presentation on the internet

      Guess you'll have to move to the US. There's a lot of useful .gov sites, anything from Federal statistics for arguing on Slashdot to downloading forms and instructions direct from the IRS to databases at the DMV to find local emissions inspection stations.

  90. 90% of America won't need it for awhile by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Having that much capacity to the home will only work if it's better than other technologies that meet people's needs and desires.

    Most people use bandwidth to get inbound audiovisual, two-way audiovisual (telephone, webcams), and to give and share "data" whatever that means.

    90% of Americans don't and probably won't do more than:
    1) watch or record-for-later-playback a few tv channels or other audiovideo streams at once
    2) talk on more than a couple videophones per person at once
    3) search for or download information that's useful to them.

    Other than high-end users with "home theater" systems (which could easily consume such bandwidth) I just don't see a mainstream market for it before 2020. It would be neat to play Star Wars in the same format that it played in "digital" theaters, but broadcast on my living-room wall.

    Heck, if we took the cumulative bandwidth of "500 channel digital cable" and reallocated it to packet-data, we'd have a very big pipe. Not 10Gb, but very big. String a few of these in parallel to your neighborhood fiber connection and you could have 10Gb in short order. The only things not widely available (?) is the technology to "bond" multiple coaxes into one virtual pipe a la serial line bonding of the 1990s, and the lack of standards and a viable economic model.

    10Gb and higher will come to the home, but only when their's either a natural market at the price it's offered, or it becomes only marginally more expensive to offer than lower-bandwidth connections.

    On the flip side, it'll be nice to download Knoppix in less than a second. Of course, by then Knoppix will be 4 times as big, at least, but even 4 seconds is better than half an hour or more.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:90% of America won't need it for awhile by Brianwa · · Score: 1

      The connection speed would be somewhat useless for many computer owners until there are speed improvements in other areas as well. It would be great to download Knoppix in one second, but it would certainly take a lot more than one second just to write the file to my hard drive, and I don't have enough RAM to hold it all...

  91. Re:I'll believe it by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

    I have 10 MBit. It's very common here (Sweden). (And yes, it actually, really does reach that speed, all the time when I transfer files.)

  92. They already have 26Mbit ADSL in Japan by AndyMcL · · Score: 0

    My wife is Japanese and we go over there often. Japan already has 26Mbit ADSL (vs. lame 768k in the US).

    It is actually 26Mbit down and 1.5Mbit up. Which still kicks the butt of anything in the US. Oh yeah and it is about $30-35 US dollars a month.

    It really burns me up! Why do US Telco's suck so much compared to Japan? I lived in Japan in '94-95; at that time the US was way ahead in business and home use of the Internet. Now it is a different story. I think South Korea also has awesome service. Europe?

    Yahoo Broadband is one of the major service providers in Japan. YahooBB please come to the US and give us some real broadband!!

    -Andy

  93. Wireless? by jfarnold · · Score: 1

    Couldn't we do something like this with dirigibles and x-ray lasers? I thought everyone was moving away from wires?

    No I'm not advertising SkyCaptain and the World of Tomorrow.

  94. Re:I'll believe it by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    So basically, not much has changed since Office 97?

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  95. Japan has got it right by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

    A few weeks ago, I was wondering what kind of internet speed consumers needed for everyone to be happy. I settled for 10 Gbps which is roughly what is needed for 4 concurrent HDTV streams at the highest resolution. up to three 250Mbps streams would be available at all times leaving a fourth available for all your browsing/downloding/uploading/gaming needs. I think that a true 10 Gbps symmetrical connection should be enough for anyone for the next 20 years at least.

    I wonder how many years it'll take the U.S to get these kind of speeds in all high/medium density areas. I estimate that in about 5-6 years, we'll be where Japan was 3 years ago. Roughly 10 years behind...

    1. Re:Japan has got it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you might be a bit confused. HDTV will consume about 20 meg. Multiply that by four streams and you can chew up 100 with a small amount of room to spare. I'm not sure how you got 250 Mbps. If you take that and multiply it by 4, you have only used a single Gig. You still have nine to go. Also, it is crucial to recall that in HDTV or Video in general, compression is king. So you can crunch down your bandwidth quite a bit.

  96. Re:Do the math, we would fail if it were a test by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Flawless, colorful, and I like it.
    ____ Maybe the US Congress and Senate will learn eventually that the (waste of time and money) laws passed, over the last 20 years, will be overcome by events in foreign countries that they can only control by threat/action. That making of citizens criminals to provide corporate welfare is almost treasonous. All the science, technology, and capitalism control laws are a waste of time ... they gotta learn to think-outside-the-box.
    ____ Why is it so damn hard for FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, management in general (3/4's or more, even in business) ... and Congress members to understanding reality (shit happens and things change, fighting reality is not health for the USA). The US has controlled by fed-mandate and/or corporate welfare policy science and technology to the continuing determent of the citizens' resources/choice economic stupidity, .... We (in the USA) are going nowhere fast in science, technology, capitalism, ... due to dejure-stupidity and corporate give aways.
    ____ We are about 11th in telecommunications services, about 40th in education, and falling into the economic pit of buy-by-loan technology developed and manufactured in other countries, how long until the loans are cut off by World-Bank, ... whoever. Our bonds ain't in big demand anymore.
    ____ Why do we need all the bandwidth, more RAM then 64K, harddisk bigger than 10M, ... well for the idiot politician, the answer is don't worry, we promise to leave no one behind, but your damn stupid laws are leaving the USA further and further behind on science, technology, medicine, global economy, education, ....
    ____ Why don't we use the Irish or the Brits as our model education systems ... I here when they get out of high school they can all read, but we have college grads that have problems with books written for USA eighth graders.

    OldHawk777

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  97. Re:I'll believe it by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Nah, Gentoo.

    Bout 1.5 CDs.

    Like I said, supplementary/apps CDs don't count :)

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  98. Re:I'll believe it by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    I downloaded 1 ISO for Office XP.

    The other CDs were probably extra fluff that's not needed.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  99. Re:I'll believe it by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I said 6 years, not 10-12.

    Either that or Doom/Warcraft 1/Win3.1 came out in 1998 in your area of the world.

    Games popular 6 years ago:

    StarCraft: 1 CD
    Quake 2: 1 CD
    Diablo: 1 CD
    Half-Life: 1 CD

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  100. Bad Religion by karniv0re · · Score: 1

    Sweet! The band Bad Religion have a song called "10 in 2010"! Although I don't think this is what they were talking about.

  101. Faster in coaxial cables by r6144 · · Score: 1

    EM waves should travel at the speed of light in air (which is pretty near the speed of light in vacuum) in coaxial cables. Of course, in optical fibers it will be significantly slower...

  102. What else to do but wait? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    The processors run a loop, waiting for the interrupt.