Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

10Gbit to the Home by 2010

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the not-bloody-likely dept.

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."

22 of 286 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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. :)

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

    The world's information at your fingertips!

  3. 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

  4. 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
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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...

  7. 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!

  8. 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 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
  9. 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.

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  10. 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.
  11. MP3s/s by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 5, Funny
    MP3s/s

    I love it. The NEW standard to measure bandwith.

  12. Pr0n?.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  13. 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).

    --
    IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
  14. 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!
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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
  18. 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