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."

Comments

Re:100 gbps wavelength?

[jonaskoelker]

If you read one of the linked articles, you'll learn that

Unlike other trials that used 10 separate 10 Gbps wavelengths to carry 100 Gbps, the Verizon test utilized a 100 Gbps signal on a single wavelength. Other interesting things from that article:

"This is another critical milestone on our way to ensuring that we have the most advanced telecom network technology at the right time, in the right place, to serve our customers," Having never used Comcast, I'll leave it to those who have to asses the meaning of "serve our customers".

"The field trial also confirms optical networking's role as a critical enabler for competitive transformation, as new services and applications reshape network requirements." I thought peer-to-peer data transfer already "reshaped network requirements" and left the ISPs struggling to keep up.

"Applications based on online video are clearly drivers for higher bandwidth [...]" Again, how about peer-to-peer transfer.

"Transmission at 100 Gbps will enable low latency and significant improvement in real-time transaction. Trading institutions and other Verizon customers using real-time communications will find the associated performance very attractive." I can transfer 100 Gbps by putting hard disks in my backpack and running a short sprint. This is orthogonal to latency (which is what real-time is about). Okay, strawman. Assume the big fiber is deployed, and everybody uses it. Then you'll run into contention issues, and your packet will sit in a queue. I'm not saying bigger pipes won't help, but I want an arguement; right now, all I have is a claim.

Re:What good is it?

[sahonen]

Hit the nail on the head. I have Comcast's fastest plan in this area and I can only sustain an FTP upload at 50 KB/sec. At 3am. To my own private server. It's ridiculous and unacceptable. If I had ANY alternative I would switch immediately. If having all this extra bandwidth means they can relax their insane throttling I'm all for it as long as they don't try to charge me extra for the privilege. I know for a fact that there's more than enough bandwidth in the pipe. They're just not giving any of it to me.

The Cost?

[DKlineburg]

A couple of questions:

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 /. ers do.