100-Petabit Internet Backbone Coming Into View

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

100-Petabit Internet Backbone Coming Into View

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday September 29, 2009 @01:01AM from the movies-on-whim dept.

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."

92 of 137 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Blu-Ray by daybot · 2009-09-29 01:07 · Score: 4, Funny

...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?
1. Re:Blu-Ray by kimvette · 2009-09-29 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see why porn addicts would want to watch porn at 1080i. I mean, do you really want herpes blisters and gonorrhea drips to plague your fantasies? Seriously now!
  I don't see what you get out of porn anyway. You don't get the girl, so what's the point? Why not put that money into a decent wardrobe and haircut, and you know, actually socialize and get a girlfriend or boyfriend?
  I know, I know. This is slashdot, who am I kidding? Some slashdotters have downed a few too many bags of Cheetos and 2-liter bottles of Mountain Dew during their two-month World of Warcraft or Evercrack binges, but exercise and diet can unload a lot of that weight pretty quickly.
  In all seriousness - really, what is the point? You have a bottom-of-the-barrel industry that isn't known for its ethics and is known for airbrushing photos and videos, and you want what - high resolution airbrushed blurs? For what? And I do stand by my statement that the money typically spent on porn is better spent on hygiene and wardrobe.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
2. Re:Blu-Ray by von_rick · 2009-09-29 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's just about enough to cope with today's worldwide porn output, but what happens when the industry switches to Blu-Ray?
  Folks will start getting blue balls?
  
  --
  Face your daemons!
3. Re:Blu-Ray by 0110011001110101 · 2009-09-29 07:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  >>Why not put that money into a decent wardrobe and haircut, and you know, actually socialize and get a girlfriend or boyfriend?
  umm, so to be clear... will this girlfriend or boyfriend help me find more porn??
  
  --
  Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
Too bad by Spazztastic · 2009-09-29 01:12 · Score: 2, Funny

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.
1. Re:Too bad by Idiomatick · 2009-09-29 01:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I really don't think this was intended for end users. You could have all media saved on computers over the course of a week. Whining that you wont get that seems extreme. Also I doubt HD vids on netflick are 20gigs.
2. Re:Too bad by thesandtiger · 2009-09-29 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I agree - the fraction I'd be happy with would be 9/10ths. Totally reasonable!
  Being serious, this is only indirectly for end users, and people bitching about slow connections here would be like me bitching in a NASA thread about how it isn't fair that NASA has crafts going 20,000 MPH while my bicycle is still stuck at a max of about 30mph. Different toys for different uses. This is clearly an infrastructure tool, one that offers much better speeds and lower costs of deployment than the current stuff.
  That said, I'd really be happy if I could just get FIOS where I live. It is absurd to me that, living in downtown Chicago, I can't get anything better than Comcast cable.
  
  --
  Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
3. Re:Too bad by Spazztastic · 2009-09-29 01:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I don't see anything OT about this thread, but apparently since it doesn't have to do with the theory of deploying 100Petabit fiber, it has to be OT. It's not like I'm throwing in a hot grits Natalie Portmen comment. Mod me down more, I have plenty karma to burn while you groupthink mods waste your points.
  
  --
  Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
4. Re:Too bad by Spazztastic · 2009-09-29 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Being serious, this is only indirectly for end users, and people bitching about slow connections here would be like me bitching in a NASA thread about how it isn't fair that NASA has crafts going 20,000 MPH while my bicycle is still stuck at a max of about 30mph. Different toys for different uses. This is clearly an infrastructure tool, one that offers much better speeds and lower costs of deployment than the current stuff.
  My entire point is that even if this was deployed, the end user such as myself would probably still be capped at an unreasonable 5mbit download and a fraction of that for the upload. The USA has fallen behind severely in internet speeds while other countries are providing 100mbit right to your door at the same cost.
  
  That said, I'd really be happy if I could just get FIOS where I live. It is absurd to me that, living in downtown Chicago, I can't get anything better than Comcast cable.
  Up until about a year ago you couldn't get FIOS in Philadelphia. They're now starting to deploy it in some parts but it's going to take a while to be deployed. It'll be nice for people in the city to have an option since WiMAX crashed and burned.
  
  --
  Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
5. Re:Too bad by poetmatt · 2009-09-29 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think more accurately the point they are making is that advances in technology are showing that there is no reason for the ridiculously low usage caps we are facing.
  I don't exactly love a 250GB cap with comcast, but trust me that 50MB down/9MB up for $80 (including basic cable which is pretty bullshit because it's 90$ without) - is alright. That's what I'm getting in Evanston.
6. Re:Too bad by aynoknman · 2009-09-29 02:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  people bitching about slow connections here would be like me bitching in a NASA thread about how it isn't fair that NASA has crafts going 20,000 MPH while my bicycle is still stuck at a max of about 30mph.
  Don't know about you, but I want to go to the grocery story at 20,000 MPH, and be able to bring back a container full of stuff too!
  
  --
  We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
7. Re:Too bad by iamhassi · 2009-09-29 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  "I think more accurately the point they are making is that advances in technology are showing that there is no reason for the ridiculously low usage caps we are facing."
  
  Exactly. Anything that makes it cheaper to deliver higher speeds filters down to us. Any time AT&T, Sprint or Tata is thinking "Gee, we'll need another 50 Tier 1 lines to keep up with demand" and scientist come along and say "No, you can do it with one 100 Petabit line, and you can use fewer repeaters", it saves them money and allows them to eventually pass the faster speeds down to us.
  
  I'm at 10mbps/1mbps and I probably only hit max 1% of the time. The other 99% I'm using about a 1/10th of that. Would I like to say I have a 100/10 connection? Sure! Do I need it? Only 1% of the time ;) I'd rather have a lower ping. Pinging my ISP is 20ms, but pinging Yahoo or Google is closer to 100ms.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
8. Re:Too bad by Kjella · 2009-09-29 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know about you, but I want to go to the grocery story at 20,000 MPH, and be able to bring back a container full of stuff too!
  If you live so far from the grocery store you need a 20,000 MPH craft to get there, it's time to start growing your own.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
9. Re:Too bad by nacturation · 2009-09-29 03:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Don't know about you, but I want to go to the grocery story at 20,000 MPH, and be able to bring back a container full of stuff too!
  If you live so far from the grocery store you need a 20,000 MPH craft to get there, it's time to start growing your own.
  Do you know where one can purchase grocery store seeds?
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
10. Re:Too bad by Trahloc · 2009-09-29 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  It'll trickle down, slowly, but it will. The carrier hotels will be upgrading to this eventually so the USA ISP's wont have much excuse except being cheap bastards... pretty much the same as now except it'll be extremely obvious when a small ISP no one ever heard of offers 100mbps both ways to the home and comcast is still offering their measly 768k.
  
  --
  The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
11. Re:Too bad by poetmatt · 2009-09-29 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  absolutely agreed. Much lower latency may up server requirements a little as the traffic increases but I'll take it any day hands down.
12. Re:Too bad by Idiomatick · 2009-09-29 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'd take an extra 9 of reliability any day over either of these things.
second.kilometer by Paul+Rose · 2009-09-29 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Maybe old hat to you network engineers, but I was previously unfamiliar with "bits per second.kilometer".
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
1. Re:second.kilometer by dsginter · 2009-09-29 01:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Maybe old hat to you network engineers, but I was previously unfamiliar with "bits per second.kilometer".
  This is equivalent to 43 LoC/HI (Libraries of Congress per hour-inch).
  
  --
  More
2. Re:second.kilometer by hattig · 2009-09-29 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  How does that compare to cmol/LoCm (light speed moles per Library of Congress Metre).
3. Re:second.kilometer by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-29 01:59 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  c mol / LoC m = (3x10^9 m/s) mol / (10 TB) m = 0.00003 mol / byte s. I'm at a loss for how to interpret this dimensional measure. Maybe it has something to do with the number of monkeys needed to type the works of Shakespeare in a specified amount of time.
4. Re:second.kilometer by Megane · 2009-09-29 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What I want to know is how many bits there are in the first.kilometer and the third.kilometer.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
5. Re:second.kilometer by jgs · 2009-09-29 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Maybe old hat to you network engineers, but I was previously unfamiliar with "bits per second.kilometer".
  Thanks for the info. No, this is not old hat to network engineers. I've never heard of it and I've been working in the industry for more years than I care to admit. I think it might be old hat to marketing people though, since it appears to be a classic BIG MARKETING NUMBER. Normal networking people would call 15.5 Tbps * 7000 km... 15.5 Tbps.
  Maybe it's true that optics geeks really do use numbers this way, I dunno. But the fact it comes from an AlcaLu press release doesn't lend it a whole lot of credibility.
  I am massively unimpressed by the headline on the Slashdot story. Maybe another article headlined "kdawson swallows inflated AlcaLu marketing fluff hook, line and sinker" would be in order?
6. Re:second.kilometer by imakemusic · 2009-09-29 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well lets think about this logically.
  
  If 43 LoC/HI = b/s.km
  and there are 14 cw/f (cubic whales per football pitch) in each cmol/CoCm
  According the google the exchange rate is 1.7.
  So a quick calculation gives us...
  
  about 7.
  
  --
  Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
7. Re:second.kilometer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-29 02:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So it is a unit that sounds really big but really isn't all that useful? I would much rather have the bandwidth between point A and point B, not the bandwidth plus the distance of the cable between the points.
  I mean, I could say the longest cable in my house are carrying signals with 105 (Gb/sec)(ft) just because I have 105 foot cable between 2 Ethernet switches running at 1Gb/s? ( (1Gb/sec)*(105 feet))
  Or would a better way of saying is that normal Cat6 1Gb/s Ethernet with a 100 meter distance limitation runs at 100 Gb/(s*meter)? (Or in feet, about (333Gb/sec)*(ft) ) (It is 100m right? Or am I thinking 100Mb/sec?)
  Also, the use of "." in the statements in the article slightly confuses me because I would want to read "bits per second.kilometer" as "b/(s*km)" when it should be read as "(b*km)/s"
8. Re:second.kilometer by sharkey · 2009-09-29 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Can you convert that to rods and hogsheads please? I'm a little lost.
  
  --
  
  --
  "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
9. Re:second.kilometer by Rising+Ape · 2009-09-29 03:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Given that optical fibre capacity is limited by dispersion (different parts of the signal travelling at different speeds, causing adjacent symbols to overlap), it's a reasonable number - both a longer distance and a faster symbol rate make the problem worse. So if this is what's limiting you, you can double the distance by halving the speed, or vice versa. Of course, that's not the only limiting factor, and IIRC some forms of dispersion don't scale proportionally with distance, so it's not the only relevant factor.
10. Re:second.kilometer by alx5000 · 2009-09-29 03:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I thought it was quite common to express the capacity of an optical system by its bandwidth-distance product... Or are we talking about something different here?
  
  --
  My 0.02 cents
11. Re:second.kilometer by jgs · 2009-09-29 03:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  At the very least I assume we can agree that "100-Petabit Internet Backbone" is a gross misrepresentation of what the press release describes. "15.5 Tbit long haul" would have been accurate.
12. Re:second.kilometer by TheTurtlesMoves · 2009-09-29 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well it would be a 100-Petabit Internet backbone... if it was just 1 km long. ;)
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
13. Re:second.kilometer by dotgain · 2009-09-29 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Never underestimate the bandwidth of a (fleet of) stationwagons full of backup tapes! Mine does 302 Libraries of Congress per Gallon (at sea level)
14. Re:second.kilometer by kimvette · 2009-09-29 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  So why don't they just say "bits per second" without any distance spec? That just introduces a new rating that no one anywhere ever uses. I mean, I've dealt with 4 km optical fiber links, but the speed was just a mbits/second rating. Not "x megabits per y km" rating. That only confuses the issue, causing people to say "wtf does that mean?"
  Isn't it just easier to say that "the medium supports 100 Petabits per second over a 1 km link?"
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
15. Re:second.kilometer by jgs · 2009-09-29 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is, it wouldn't, which is why the headline is so totally wrong. (Yes I saw the smiley.)
16. Re:second.kilometer by jgs · 2009-09-29 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, the story headline is talking about something totally different. I mean, how do YOU read "100-Petabit Internet Backbone"? Most people would not interpret it to mean "15.5 Tbps delivered over 7000 km." (The headline error is repeated in TFA. Ironically if you click all the way through to the AlcaLu press release the headline is more accurate: "Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs announces new optical transmission record and breaks 100 Petabit per second kilometer barrier".)
  I will grant you that optics geeks may find the bandwidth-distance metric familiar... but I continue to assert that [Inter]net geeks do not.
17. Re:second.kilometer by smoker2 · 2009-09-29 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  So why don't they just say "bits per second" without any distance spec?
  
  Because 80% of their target market (2 people tested) wanted a really stupid metric. congratulations, they succeeded. Now you have no idea what they have achieved, but the PHB will think it's good, so you'll have to implement it next week.
18. Re:second.kilometer by Lost+Race · 2009-09-29 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Or an exabit 100-meter LAN. Sweet!
19. Re:second.kilometer by epine · 2009-09-29 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  The bandwidth distance product is useful if they're planning to compete with Seagate. The line storage capacity would increase nicely if they stretched it out to one full earth circumference, with the benefit of bringing the stored data back to its point of origin. With a 200ms rotational latency, the IOPs would suck, but the parallelism would be great with a deep request queue exploiting deterministic access times.
  I never thought of this before, but with control of a large enough bot farm, you could keep a pretty large information store in-flight at all times. The flying gmail box. It would take a redundancy algorithm to make Google proud.
  The interesting case is where the in-flight capacity is an order of magnitude greater than aggregated node buffer capacity, and the nodes have a short hold window for any given packet. It would take an immense excess of transmission to make this work, but that's there to squander due to the fine engineering work of Alca-Luc and their witless promotion of distance bandwidth products.
20. Re:second.kilometer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-29 11:29 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Maybe another article headlined "kdawson swallows inflated AlcaLu marketing fluff hook, line and sinker" would be in order?
  Now that you mention it, most kdawsom stories can be adequately described by stating "kdawsom swallows". I propose a tag.
21. Re:second.kilometer by enriquevagu · 2009-09-29 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's quite common; I studied that at the University on my Ms. It is an effect of the signal dispersion in the fiber, which is increased with the distance. Therefore, the speed (bits per second) decreases with the distance.
22. Re:second.kilometer by thexile · 2009-09-30 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  I need some car analogy as well!
Who cares, solve the last mile already. by grumpygrodyguy · 2009-09-29 01:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
1. Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. by Capsy · 2009-09-29 01:15 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  The wonders of 2mbp/s internet.
  
  --
  "Chance favors only the prepared mind." -Archimedes
2. Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. by i_ate_god · 2009-09-29 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  While the telcos are exaggerating the scenario with too many people using up too much bandwidth, that doesn't mean it can't / won't happen. The telco's should be laying down new cables, but that infrastructure exists in their country only. At some point, that country will saturate the bandwidth of the undersea cables.
  So yeah, this is part of the overall picture for better speeds.
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
3. Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. by Shrike82 · 2009-09-29 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I feel exactly the same. Perhaps with the promise of decent underlying backbones the ISP's and hardware owners will finally shell out some money and upgrade the most critical section for residential customers. Holy shit, I made my laugh so much I spilt my cup of tea...
  
  --
  You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
4. Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-29 02:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I know in my area in PA, we have the same options you list above. The only one missing is the Fibre-to-the-home... but that can be had in the Pittsburgh, PA area via Verizon's FIOS. I know here in the middle of PA with comcast's cable modem I get around 14Mbits/sec down and about 3Mbit/sec up.
5. Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. by GeorgeS · 2009-09-29 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Here in SouthEast PA I get FiOS at 20/5 speed and they do have faster speeds available but, I haven't tried those, yet.
  
  --
  "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
6. Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. by RealGrouchy · 2009-09-29 06:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, you can solve about 38% of the "last mile" problem if you switched to metric. Then you'd only have to worry about the last kilometre.
  - RG>
  
  --
  Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
7. Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. by BikeHelmet · 2009-09-29 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  I know how you feel. My ISP advertises "Up To 3/1mbit" - which translates into roughly 2700kbit downstream (good!) and 450kbit upstream. (not so good)
Will we notice? by maggotsforbreakfast · 2009-09-29 01:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Will we notice? by Niksko · 2009-09-29 01:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think I read that only 10% of undersea cable capacity was/is being used. Can't get you a source, but I remember reading it when I got off on a tangent after the last undersea cable damage.
2. Re:Will we notice? by jhfry · 2009-09-29 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  If they can do 10x without having to maintain additional fiber runs, repeaters, and endpoints... then the 10x is a huge improvement. Sure the dark fiber is there, but it's dark for a reason... it's not cost effective to light it up.
  I don't suspect that they will be deploying this soon... but if it is more cost effective than lighting up more of the existing dark fiber... then maybe they will upgrade.
  
  --
  Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Confusing units by gringer · 2009-09-29 01:16 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Confusing units by Niksko · 2009-09-29 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  I believe it's equivalent to 313471681789590822345900936 Mp3s!!!!
2. Re:Confusing units by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-29 01:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, lets see: 12 parsecs per hogs-head/bushel^fortnight = 3 onions.
3. Re:Confusing units by kimvette · 2009-09-29 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Your numbers appear to be perfectly cromulent.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Qien is mas macho by Darth+Sdlavrot · 2009-09-29 01:21 · Score: 1

Seeing petabit internet backbones or seeing Russia from your back porch?
Re:Whoa whoa whoa. What's with all the SI units? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2009-09-29 01:23 · Score: 1

I think it's about 14 gigabytes per hogshead, which averages out to eleven teraflops per cubic kilowatt.
1901? by i_ate_god · 2009-09-29 01:23 · Score: 1

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...
1. Re:1901? by gardyloo · 2009-09-29 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html
2. Re:1901? by fridaynightsmoke · 2009-09-29 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html
  Sir;
  reading that took up my entire afternoon. Thank you.
  
  --
  This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
3. Re:1901? by gardyloo · 2009-09-29 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  One of my favorite essays. Likely extremely outdated, but an eminently entertaining way to blow an afternoon!
already have this at home by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-29 01:25 · Score: 4, Funny

I've had 100-Petabit/decade internet at home for a while now.
1. Re:already have this at home by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-09-29 01:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  112589990684262400 (100 petabits) 10( years) 12 (months) 365.25 (days) 24 (hours) 60 (minutes) 60 (seconds) ------------ 29731345.93 (bits per second) 29034.52 (kilobits per second) 28.35 (megabits per second)
  
  This new line transfers the equivalent of one decade of fully-saturated domestic ADSL2 line (24Mb) traffic every second.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
2. Re:already have this at home by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-09-29 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Look, I don't have time to figure out if you mean petabits, kilobits, Libraries of Congress or Brassiere's Capacity of Katie Price.
  
  12 what?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
3. Re:already have this at home by Kjella · 2009-09-29 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  I've had 100-Petabit/decade internet at home for a while now.
  Google is perfect if you want it in hogsheads per forthnight, in this case:
  100 (petabits per decade) = 340.255519 megabits per second
  But just between us, if you want to brag about your connection I'd use a more common unit.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:already have this at home by swillden · 2009-09-29 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  112589990684262400 (100 petabits)
  
  Actually, 100 petabits is 1000000000000000 bits. Communications technology uses traditional power-of-10 SI units, not the power-of-2 units.
  I think you also made another mistake, not sure where. Because I get:
  100 * 10^15 / 10 / 365.25 / 24 / 60 / 60 / 10^6 = 316 Mbps.
  So, this new line transfers the equivalent of one decade of more than 13 fully-saturated ADSL2 lines' traffic every second.
  (Calculated by typing "2k100 10 15^*10/365.25/24/60/60/10 6^/p" into 'dc')
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
5. Re:already have this at home by AliasMarlowe · 2009-09-29 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because I get:
  100 * 10^15 / 10 / 365.25 / 24 / 60 / 60 / 10^6 = 316 Mbps.
  My calculation agrees with yours. I have 100 Mbps fiber at home, and I calculate it only gives 31 petabits per decade at full utilization. Luckily, my ISP imposes no limits, but I still rarely use even a percent of the available capacity (at most a few hundred GB per month out of 32 TB potentially available).
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
6. Re:already have this at home by BikeHelmet · 2009-09-29 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  You're off a bit. No conversion is necessary when converting bits to... bits. You just have to divide the time.
  See the replies below.
7. Re:already have this at home by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-09-30 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  True, I didn't remove the months after I altered the math from years / months / weeks / days to years / days (to account for leap years).
  
  In that case, everything should be x12 and everyone should be even more impressed with this connection! :D
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
second.kilometer? by Lord+Lode · 2009-09-29 01:31 · Score: 1

What exactly does bits / second.kilometer mean? Does it mean that with more kilometers, it becomes slower?
1. Re:second.kilometer? by gardyloo · 2009-09-29 01:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yep. Decoherence/absorption/dispersion happens. Packets get dropped.
2. Re:second.kilometer? by Opportunist · 2009-09-29 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Electrons are people too! When you have to run a few kilometers, you'll start to slow down as well!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That faint "thump" you heard in the background by Opportunist · 2009-09-29 01:38 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
and yet by DragonTHC · 2009-09-29 01:48 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:and yet by DaMattster · 2009-09-29 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  A large reason for this was the pricing protection and the delaying of network neutrality that the Bush Administration gave the telecom industry. It filled the telecom industry full of hubris. The good news is that this hubris is nothing more than hot air and once network neutrality becomes law, we will see the end of price collusion and more competition. Network neutrality is the telecom company's worst fear because it means that they must upgrade their network to deal with the increased bandwidth needs, not continually tweak one that is past its prime. If the Verizons, AT&Ts, Comcasts, and Qwests won't do it, other competition will move in. When other competition does move in and finds that data moving over the big boys network is significantly throttled, they'll have an army of evidence that these companies are breaking the law. Then, the big boys will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. When Japan had fibre to the home at 10GB symmetric at the turn of the century, you know that the US is significantly behind the technology curve only in the name of maximizing profits for shareholders.
2. Re:and yet by Snowblindeye · 2009-09-29 05:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  Thats because we don't have real competition in the US, so why should they give you more for less?
  Compare this to Germany for example, were you can get 16 Mbps for as little as 15 euros/month, 50 Mbps is available and Kabel Deutschland just announced that they are going to start selling 100 Mbps starting next year . Amazing what competition will do.
3. Re:and yet by Ant+P. · 2009-09-29 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  What are these companies doing with these multiple Tbps backbones right now if consumers are being bottle-necked on purpose?
  Using them as justification to charge you $30/Mbps, of course.
simple math by mapkinase · 2009-09-29 02:12 · Score: 1

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.
Conversions? by theJML · 2009-09-29 02:12 · Score: 3, Funny

This is the US... Can we get this in Libraries of Congress/mile?

--
-=JML=-
1. Re:Conversions? by Mystery00 · 2009-09-29 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, this isn't the US, this is the Internet.
  
  --
  "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
2. Re:Conversions? by Kjella · 2009-09-29 03:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I had to substitute 1 LoC for 10 terabyte myself, but according to google 100Pb/s*km = 2863278 LoC*mph. So if you give everyone in Chicago a copy of the library of congress and they drive around at 1 mph, it'll have the same bandwidth. Simple, right?
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:Conversions? by Ant+P. · 2009-09-29 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  So if you give everyone in Chicago a copy of the library of congress and they drive around at 1 mph, it'll have the same bandwidth.
  But you could also have one LoC travelling at 3 million mph.
  This begs the question! Why are we wasting billions on planning two-year Mars expeditions for half a dozen astronauts when we could pack 1000 people into the Library of Congress and get there in hours instead?
New Metric by Powys · 2009-09-29 02:13 · Score: 1

I like the new metric of DVDs per second. Do you think that will catch on?
1. Re:New Metric by drdrgivemethenews · 2009-09-29 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. RIP, "bandwidth of a stationwagon".
  
  Though the metric actually seems to be DVD kilometers per second. Assuming about 800 DVDs per cubic foot, and 2.7 cubic meters to a station wagon doing 120km/h on the freeway, the BoaSW is approximately 933 DVD km/sec. Leaving aside whatever the article means by "400 DVDs per second.kilometer", 12PB/sec at the speed of light in fiber (~200K km/sec), divided by 4.7GB per single layer DVD gives us approximately 510 billion DVD km/sec. That's a lot of stationwagons.
  
  But, a more ordinary distance-neutral metric gives us a stationwagon bandwidth of 28,000 DVDs/sec * 4.7 GB = 132TB/sec. 12 PB/sec is still a good ways ahead of that, so it looks like we've finally left the stationwagon behind.
4chan by scott_karana · 2009-09-29 02:41 · Score: 1

Petabit backbones still won't be enough to keep 4chan online through all those DDoSes they suffer.
Gee, that's nice by kheldan · 2009-09-29 03:53 · Score: 1

..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!
1. Re:Gee, that's nice by DaMattster · 2009-09-29 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but let's wait and see what becomes of the network neutrality legislation. Let's see what loopholes their might be. If the wording is unambiguous, Comcast will be f*ed. They won't be able to charge higher prices for long because competition will muscle in and be able to partially use their bandwidth because throttling or queueing will be a violation of the law.
Much better blog name than... by DigitalCrackPipe · 2009-09-29 04:37 · Score: 1

PETA-bit would be much better PETA's poorly chosen blog name. Seriously, what is wrong with those people?
Re:Say what? by GameboyRMH · 2009-09-29 07:16 · Score: 1

Petabear approves!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Nitpick on units by tyrione · 2009-09-29 08:56 · Score: 1

It's traditionally described as kilometer seconds [km x sec] and not [sec x km].
How about reducing latency instead? by zuperduperman · 2009-09-29 11:33 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:How about reducing latency instead? by DJ+Rubbie · 2009-09-29 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not that fast. Circumference of Earth (~40 000 km) / Speed of Light in vacuum. (~300 000 km/s) = 0.133s.
  Also, speed of light in glass fiber is about 2/3 that, so it will take light 0.2 seconds to travel around the globe in a glass fiber. Don't forget most routers take the light signals they receive, convert it into electric signals so the circuits can route the packets, before converting them back to light again. At least this is the case until full optical packet switching becomes prevalent.
  
  --
  Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null