Slashdot Mirror
100-Petabit Internet Backbone Coming Into View
lostinbrave notes laboratory work that could lead to long-haul network cables capable of exceeding 100 Petabits per second.kilometer. "Alcatel-Lucent said that scientists at Bell Labs have set an optical transmission record that could deliver data about 10 times faster than current undersea cables, resulting in speeds of more than 100 Petabits per second.kilometer. This translates to the equivalent of about 100 million Gigabits per second.kilometer, or sending about 400 DVDs per second over 7,000 kilometers, roughly the distance between Paris and Chicago. ... The transmissions were not just faster, they were accomplished over a network whose repeaters are 20 percent farther apart than commonly maintained in such networks, which could decrease the costs of deploying such a network."
...or sending about 400 DVDs per second
That's just about enough to cope with today's worldwide porn output, but what happens when the industry switches to Blu-Ray?
Too bad nobody in the USA will ever get that. Even if we were to get a connection that fast, it would have a 20GB/mo cap so the second you stream one HD flick on Netflix, your cap is filled and you're stuck at a measly 768kbit/sec down until the first of the month.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
They're gonna make the internets out of Petabytes? Wait until Chris Hansen gets wind of this!
Wait, what?
End of lesson. You may press the button.
From the PC World article:
The measurement takes into account both speed and the ability to maintain it over distance, by multiplying the network's speed by its distance in kilometers. In this case, a network with an aggregate speed of 15.5T bits per second (Tbps) was able to maintain that speed over a distance of 7,000 kilometers (4,349 miles), or roughly the distance from Paris to Chicago
I would trade this in a second for a guarantee that the last mile problem will be resolved in my lifetime.
It's been 10 years and I'm still stuck with a crappy 1.5m/256k (1.2/180 actual) ADSL line.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Does anyone know what percentage of our current trans-atlantic bandwidth we are using? The full article says that we currently have 10 Petabits/s*k, so this would be about a 10x increase. Thats a lot, but less then I thought.
I guess undersea cables are hardly often replaced. Considering the current growth in internet traffic, is 10x enough? Will this even matter at all?
Sorry, I'm not quite up to scratch with those new-fangled DVDs-per-second-7000kilometers. How many library of congresses per leap-year.light-year is that?
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Seeing petabit internet backbones or seeing Russia from your back porch?
I think it's about 14 gigabytes per hogshead, which averages out to eleven teraflops per cubic kilowatt.
Wow, I wasn't aware there was such an extensive transcontinental cable system in 1901: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1901_Eastern_Telegraph_cables.png
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
I've had 100-Petabit/decade internet at home for a while now.
faster anyway. we think the same old hoodwinking machine has been restarted/fine tuned to a pleasant hum, despite the altruistic intentions of mr. obama etc.... he's not done yet, butt it's looking thin for most of us. if he'd gotten the job 4 years ago... things might be looking more stable by now.
fortunately, powers that most of us cannot imagine, will help decide our fate?
No how, no way.
What exactly does bits / second.kilometer mean? Does it mean that with more kilometers, it becomes slower?
That was MPAA chairman Dan Glickman fainting and hitting the floor 'cause nobody cared enough to catch him.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Some guy in Paris will be able to watch the Cubs in high def over IP for $10/month. But we will taunt them with our superior $15/month 768K "Broadband".
All these advances in speed and yet consumer ISPs can't seem to offer more than 6Mbps down and 1.5Mbps up for less than $70 a month.
If Internet bandwidth were like hard drives, we would have passed the $1/Mbps mark last year. Instead, it's still $30/Mbps.
What are these companies doing with these multiple Tbps backbones right now if consumers are being bottle-necked on purpose?
They're using their grammar skills there.
100M Gbit/s / 300 mln users = .3Gbit/s = 333Mbit/s = 40 Mbyte/s
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is the US... Can we get this in Libraries of Congress/mile?
-=JML=-
I like the new metric of DVDs per second. Do you think that will catch on?
Petabit backbones still won't be enough to keep 4chan online through all those DDoSes they suffer.
comcast will cap this at 250gb hit your cap in less then half a day with comcast.
..but Comcast will still try to create excuses for continually increasing the cost of broadband while finding excuses to decrease and limit the bandwidth.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
PETA-bit would be much better PETA's poorly chosen blog name. Seriously, what is wrong with those people?
> 400 DVDs per second over 7,000 kilometers,
Compare that to shipping a container full of DVDs.
Remember the old saying: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon loaded with backup tapes.
... is rotating in his grave...
As most of the post was apparently a joke, I'll answer the last paragraphh.
In all seriousness - really, what is the point? You have a bottom-of-the-barrel industry that isn't known for its ethics
Find me an industry that is known for it's ethics. That's pretty irrelevant really
and is known for airbrushing photos and videos, and you want what - high resolution airbrushed blurs?
Well, that's an generalization. There is actually a huge amount of porn that isn't edited (well, of course cut, etc. but the actual material), especially in videos. Pictures are usually edited yeah but well, that's these days.
Pretty much all of women I know well (in their twenties, extremely good looking on any scale. Friend zone sucks pretty badly) do photoshop their pictures a bit before putting them online. Often rather significantly (editing in some facial expression, open eyes or such from another image, etc.) if they don't like the images (and they usually don't). It's more common than you might think, outside the industry too.
For what?
Let me return to that later.
And I do stand by my statement that the money typically spent on porn is better spent on hygiene and wardrobe.
What money? Who buys porn from a store? Streaming is the way things work now. If you don't stream from the numerous (many hundreds of them) ad supported sites, you pay a small monthly or yearly free for access to huge sites. I think that very few people use enough money to porn that it changes their budget to any direction.
Hygiene and wardrobe are not mutually exclusive with porn. One can have both. So there is no "Or-else", just "is there any reason to watch porn at all?" which brings us back to the "For what?"
For what do you eat good food. Or for what would you want sex or a girlfriend in the first place? The enjoyment from it is enough to make up for the trouble (very minimal in acquiring porn) you see in order to achieve it.
It's traditionally described as kilometer seconds [km x sec] and not [sec x km].
Screw bandwidth, these days what I want fixed is latency.
Light can travel around the earth in about 0.02 seconds, yet latency on connections is about 10 - 30 times that. Having more bandwidth might let me download yet another movie a bit faster but it won't enable certain types of application that I think are far more interesting such as distributed computing and real time collaboration (eg: games) that currently are very limited by latency.