Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Says It Can Deliver Internet 1,000x Faster Than Google Fiber (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Verizon Fios has topped Netflix's speed index for quite some time now with its 500 Mbps up and down internet speeds. When compared to dial-up speeds of about 56 Kbps, Fios is roughly 1000 times faster (since 500 Mbps is equivalent to 500,000 Kbps). Google Fiber on the other hand offers 1 Gbps speeds, but it's not as widely available as Fios as of yet. In a statement made to ZDNet last week, Nokia said it has figured out how to deliver internet that is 2,000 times faster than Verizon Fios, or 1,000 times faster than Google Fiber. Their technique is called Probabilistic Constellation Shaping (PCS), which can deliver 1 Tbps speeds over a fiber connection. "The trial of the novel modulation approach, known as Probabilistic Constellation Shaping (PCS), uses quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) formats to achieve higher transmission capacity over a given channel to significantly improve the spectral efficiency of optical communications," Nokia explains. "PCS modifies the probability with which constellation points, the alphabet of the transmission, are used. Traditionally, all constellation points are used with the same frequency. PCS cleverly uses constellation points with high amplitude less frequently than those with lesser amplitude to transmit signals that, on average, are more resilient to noise and other impairments. This allows the transmission rate to be tailored to ideally fit the transmission channel, delivering up to 30 percent greater reach." Nokia's demonstration is described as being achieved in "real-world conditions," though there is no timeframe as to when the technology will be deployed in real networks.
Google are actually out there doing it.
Good for backhauls and maybe some DC uses.
Not to the home but maybe to an local hub / node.
10GB e-net stuff is still mostly priced at enterprise levels.
By my count, 500,000 is about 10,000 times more than 56.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
500Mbs is ~10k times 56kbs, not 1k times as the article is written
~8,928 but who's counting?
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
500 * 1024 / 56 = 9142.857142857142...
I'm counting. And yes, kbps means 1024 bits per second. Networking clowns fucked up and used 1000 instead of 1024 because they were stuck in the analog world of symbols per second and baud. b = bits, not baud, you fucks.
I'm aware that there's basically no networking gear, manufacturer, etc. that uses 1024-based shit. That doesn't make them correct, it makes them unanimously retarded. If you want more proof they're retarded, why would they use 1000 instead of 1024 yet still go to the trouble of branding things as 1000 Mbps instead of 1 Gbps?
While I'm sure getting a terabit to the home would be wonderful, the real-world situation is most people are going to continue to have copper to the home for years/decades due to regulatory capture.
Is the Probabilistic Constellation Shaping concept also applicable to twisted pair/coax copper? Because being able to get some people decent DSL would be a major advance. My parents still can't get 1990's-vintage 200 kbs DSL because in 20 years, AT&T still hasn't run fiber *to their own fucking cabinets*, much less the home.
I know AT&T already has g.fast, but that's one of those things that's mostly only useful for short distances and "demonstrations", the actual real-world speed isn't much better than DSL after so many hundred feet, and it would have required the same AT&T who has refused to spend money on fiber to spend money to upgrade their existing cabinets.
...they save the money shot until the end:
"there is no timeframe as to when the technology will be deployed in real networks"
-Styopa
...since the speed of google fiber in my area is zero due to no availability.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I'm looking at wiring a house we might buy for Ethernet. Should I string some fiber in there too?
Not a Microsoft company.
Microsoft purchased the "Devices and Services division" of Nokia,
but the rest of Nokia is still Nokia.
TFA doesn't claim Nokia said anything about Google Fiber. All it claims is that the number Nokia's talking about is 1 Tb/s, and that "For comparison on the consumer side, Alphabet's Google Fiber embryonic US fiber-to-the-premises service is offering 1Gbps connections.", so the comparison is being done by ZDNet, not Nokia.
They also say "on the consumer side", so it's somewhat like Caterpillar saying some new haul truck can handle 500 tons and the article reporting on it saying "For comparison, on the consumer side, a Ford F-150 can handle 1 1/2 tons" - it's not as if somebody's going to use one of those big trucks to do residential construction, it's just there to give a sense of scale.
Nokia -- a Microsoft company.
No, it's not. Nokia is an independent company that sold its mobile phone handset business to Microsoft. They mainly sell stuff that's used to build networks.
So, to reverse the common quote about paying later for hamburgers...
You are promising me faster internet LATER? I suppose you'd like me to pay you for this now?
Way to go guys... I can do this NOW... You just cannot afford it.... And who wants to drop 10 Gig onto their WiFi router anyway? Oh, you want me to WIRE everything back up? Thanks, but no..
Call me when you can do that for what I'm paying now... I'm sorry but promises of way faster internet in the future get you a "Well Duh!" from me. Who doesn't expect it to get faster? I'm planning on it myself..
So, you want me to pay today for a hamburger next Tuesday? No thanks..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1Tbs unless offered at a good price, would be useless for most homes....Perhaps if I had a 4k TV it may be more important
Try 40,000 4k TVs: Netflix 4k takes 25 Mbps. I don't expect to see this technology in the home anytime soon except perhaps in some selected test areas. There is no 'killer app' which needs this much bandwidth in the home at the moment. If it is cheap enough to act as a home link they would be better off marketing it as a replacement for 10Gb network links and switches. I could easily imagine using that sort of bandwidth for analysis of research data on a cluster in a data centre. Why would you aim it at homes to start with?
If I recall the fiber telecom courses correctly, at 1 Tbs/s, we get close to the optical fiber maximum bandwidth.
However, we have no switches that can handle that. The only way to actually use the huge fiber bandwidth is to use wavelength multiplexing, but when we do that, this Nokia groundbreaking innovation is of little use.
And in any case, this innovation is not directed toward consumer's last miles link. It is not a possible competitor to Google Fiber and other similar services.
Hasn't this already been invented many years ago and is called DWDM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength-division_multiplexing) and can have speeds over way 1Tb via single pair of fibre?
As mentioned in other comments, probably great for back-haul upgrades but for me doing average web browsing, the connection speed is irrelevant as 99.999% of the delay in loading web pages is due to the hundreds of ad-pushing/sniffing websites that the underlying web site relies on before completely loading. I could have a dedicated terabit connection and my load time would be the same.
No, the issue is the explanation is sparse.
From what I gather, intentionally shaping the probability density down to lower amplitudes in situations where there is less noise allows them to stay farther away from what's known as the third order intercept.
The third order intercept is the amount of power passed through a device such that it produces an equal amount of third order distortion as original signal. Why's this bad? The distortion products interfere with whatever carrier lies in that frequency in an OFDM scheme.
So if the the noise is low, they use the PCS scheme to keep overall power down, which should hopefully allow them to stack in more carriers in the same BW. Which increase the Hz/bit figure of merit to almost theoretical max.
That's if the research I'm looking at is the same..
>> Nokia Says It Can Deliver Internet 1,000x Faster
The small drawback : it costs 15x more
aaaaaaa
When compared to dial-up speeds of about 56 Kbps
Okaaay, crazy old man, back to bed and the nurse'll be round with the green pills.
"Dial-up" indeed.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Considering google fiber isn't offered here or where anyone I know lives, I'm betting that Nokia CAN in fact deliver better than 1000 x 0.
Of course not - an actual deployment schedule in the US would depend on the existence of actual competition driving incumbent companies to actually upgrade their infrastructure, and we can't have that because too many politicians are in the pocket of those incumbents.
My Internet connection is 1.21 Jigabits per second. Signed, Doc Brown
Great Scott!
Power limits meant 53.3kbps max. I clocked a few downloads north of 50, so it was possible.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're