Comcast Kicks Tires On 100-Gig Optical Links
Balistyx writes to mention that Comcast has announced the first test of 100-gigabit-per-second optical networking equipment designed to carry data over a production fiber network. The trial equipment will connect Philadelphia and McLean, VA. "In November, Verizon said it completed the first field test of 100-Gbps optical transmission on a live 312-mile network route between Tampa, Fla., and Miami. The telco's test used a live video feed from the FiOS TV network, and optical equipment from Alcatel-Lucent. Comcast's test is different, according to Schanz, for several reasons: It's running live traffic, and the 100-Gbps wavelengths in the Comcast trial are running over the same physical fiber as its existing 40-Gbps wavelengths, which are handled by Cisco Systems gear."
CIA/NSA need more bandwidth from Comcast I guess
But what good is this 100 gigs if you can only pay for it but not use it?
~Dan
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Demo of bonding 10 wavelengths together, each carrying 10 Gbps:
http://gigaom.com/2006/11/14/100gbe/
The comments after that post include one about NTT testing 111 Gbps over a single wavelength for 160 km. That's more like the article, which sounds like it's describing a single wavelength.
Backbone fiber uses wavelength division multiplexing, which means that more than one color of light carries data over the fiber. So it's common to talk about lighting up a wavelength ("lighting a lambda"), and in general to use "wavelength" to mean one of the several carrier frequencies on the fiber.
So a "100 Gbps wavelength" means a single laser-receiver pair modulated to carry 100 Gbps.
I won't believe it until Comcast runs a 100 Gb/s link to my apartment for me to try out. For free. After that, I'll be happy to recommend them to Slashdot users and anyone else they want me to promote to. Hey, everyone has their price! :) (Now to see if the Comcast execs will take my bait...)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Awesome! Now they can slow down my P2P traffic even faster!!
Though the article is ambiguous. When it says "100 Gbps wavelengths" it could mean multiple wavelengths each carrying part of the data stream.
Seriously, why are they testing trial equipment on a produciton network?
If you need to see it in action, there is an Emacs command to do that of course, C-x M-c M-comcast.
I want an argument...
OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
A couple of questions:
/. ers do.
Cable
What is the end cost to the users? I understand that Comcast has a modulated speed. One big pipe, a lot of users on the same pipe. Farther from the hub? fewer users, smaller pipe.
Will you be able to pay for more of that pipe and get better speeds?
Can you pay them not to downsize your P2P?
With the new Hulu site out there, will they mistakenly see legal traffic as illegal and stop it from working?
DSL
For DSL, what speeds could you buy? (They mentioned Verizon testing)How much would it cost?
Will people in the US ever see the speeds that you are supposed to see in Korea?
Just some thoughts. I obviously don't have the answers, but I know that some
Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
Otherwise, are they getting tired of optical thingies? It makes no sense. It must be a misspelling.
I missed the word "kicks." I haven't had my coffee yet, and I'm a typical Slashdot reader. You can't have too high of an expectation for me.
Wait - they used a competitor's TV signal to test the speed of their lines? They must realize they're in bad shape, bandwidth-wise.
I live in Philadelphia. No FIOS, no Comcast Blast. Just standard DSL or standard cable speeds, those are our options. I'm 100% certain Comcast won't sell anything faster until we have FIOS here, and I'm 100% certain we will never have FIOS here because Comcast is based out of Philadelphia. Thanks for nothing, Comcast.
Ah, yes, good ol' C-x M-c M-comcast. Friggin' emacs...
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Although these dense wavelength division multiplexing systems (DWDM) are using different wavelengths, they are barely different, with lambdas separated by just a few (really almost one) nanometers (10^-9 m). This is possible because looking at the wavelength shows that there is a separation of 100 GHz for 1550 nm systems. DWDM is currently the most efficient (by density) method for transmitting mutiple frequencies of light, and the most resiliant to noise. The wavelengths are always grouped together in center frequency, which is chosen for it's optimal transmission capabilities according to a fiber. The currently popular frequency is 1550 nm, but there were several others in the past. There are even some fibers that are efficient for a few wavelengths, which must be the type of fiber Comcast already laid in this case.
I mean to say, the currently popular *wavelength* is 1550 nm.
You deploy these http://cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.html
Which btw during development was not referred to as the CRS, but the BFR (Big F-ing Router; ala Doom's BFG).
You mean the company that on day one of my service ( they bought my local provider out, wasn't my choice ) bricked my modem and told me to call back in a week if i was still having troubles? ( as did several others that i know personally that had the same problem. Some on cable, others on DSL.. ) And gotta love that 'welcome letter' i got. "welcome to comcast, your rates are now increasing by 20 a month"
The same comast that hasn't stayed up for more then 3 days straight and i have to restart my modem?
The same comcast that throttles bandwidth?
Who cares if some monopoly is kicking the tires of 100g fiber, we 'little people' wont see any of it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There's been somewhat of a race in the industry between the people who think the next step after 10 Gbps should be 40 Gbps or 100 Gbps - 10 was a really convenient speed, because the Telecom/SONET part of the world does multiples of ~155 Gbps * 2**N, so OC192 is basically the same speed as 10GE and they can reuse many of the components and technology. 40 Gbps OC768 is fairly cutting-edge, but some carriers have been deploying it, while others have been waiting for 100GE, and it's easier to do a 4x generation technology change than 10x.
Also, several generations of Cisco gear have had names like that; I think the 12000 GSR was HFR?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I dunno. They're tearing the shit out of this (east) end of South St and running something electrical to each building on the street. I need to ask one of the workers exactly what they're doing, but I'm hoping it's FIOS. They also cut down all the trees so the roots wouldn't fuck with whatever they're laying down.
Japan's customers are being offered 1Tb connections for three-fiddy/month. Meanwhile, Comcast has announced that they are going to redirect 95% of their R&D and deployment budgets to paying for Washington lobbyists and contributions to national party coffers to get FCC oversight to be eliminated.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Going to take serious subprime bailouts to pay for these cable plans.
"...as if a billion Pinky jokes wooshed overhead and fell silent."
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Calling them "different colors" doesn't mean much to us mere humans, since the whole set of "colors" used is way down in the infra-red range. But since this is laser light anyway, you need to be extra careful when handling those devices: even though you cannot see the light rays, they can still damage your retina.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
s/serve/screw/
My point is that bit rate and latency are orthogonal. Imagine that Mr. ISP divides time into successive intervals (0, 1] each lasting one second. At the time 1, he sends every packet you gave him during that interval, up to your allowed bit rate. Packages sent at time 0.00001 will have almost a full second delay. Now imagine he transfers each packet instantaneously (again, up to your allowed bit rate).
You get the same bit rate (measured in bits PER SECOND) in both scenarios, yet significantly higher latency in one versus the other. Packets will not "sit in queue" Thank you. Now I can just laugh at you and move on