Slashdot Mirror
2 Terabits of Bandwidth
Pondscum writes "that Ciena has a new press release about Multiwave Corestream which will deliver up to 2 terabits of bandwidth. "
I'm getting annoyed reading all these articles about X gigabit
and terabits of data when I still connect with 1
channel of an ISDN line.
I would if I could, but cable modems are not available in the majority if the United States. You seem to live in one of the few areas in which they are available.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I highly recommend getting either a cable modem or a DSL line, whichever you have in your area. Bandwidth is bandwidth, as far as I'm concerned (especially if it's cheap ;-)
The technology the article describes is optic fibre backbone bandwidth. This will never be in our homes. But it would speed up the Internet or in fact the Abilene project (Internet 2)
The Lucent 400G is shipping and it transmits 3.2 terabit/sec!
I did not expect to see such hate filled comments on an article about bandwidth. I mean sheesh, make due with what you have! If you can get something better, do, but don't get sore about other poeples fortune.
Preach on, bro. I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, and its hard enough to get a decent modem ISP up here. Things have been getting better thanks to the OC48 they installed (www.alaskaunited.com), but us getting adsl is far off. While this may make us seem backwards, let me assure you, we're more advanced than alot of states are. We just need better telephone companies that feel that we'd like something better. But until then, People like me all over the US dont need to be told we're fools for having modems.
2 terabits per (second?) is uh, cool... but is there going to be switching technology that will let such a channel be shared in the next decade? If it can only be used in gigabit-sized frames, it's not nearly as useful. Does anybody know what the current state of the art is in switching and routing latency?
;)
Meanwhile, we can all hope aliens will drop by with an "indistinguisable from magic" solution to the last mile problem.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Don't be a podantic dude! Here in Bedrock if someone asks what speed your lan is it is generally ok to reply "ten megabit" or "hundred megabit" or "it depends upon the user load -- It's slower than a slug on a piece of sandpaper today!" The "per second" is understood by most "normal" nerds. I say "most" because, ....er, well, this message is here isn't it?
Fred
Live long and prosper!
Actually, it's worse than this. A bigger netpipe just means that more physical lines will be consolidated into one physical line, and the old lines will be "retired". This will (1) save the backbone owners money, (2) not necessarily increase total network bandwidth, and (3) make the internet more fragile (since now a single backhoe can do the damage of 10 or 20 backhoes).
I'd rather see more redundancy in the internet than faster individual backbones.
That's not correct. I usually score +2 by default on my posts. I've been -1'd more than once for being controversial.. the only effect it seems to have is on the likelyhood of you getting moderator access *not* your default score.
Ellis has been working on another linux distribution. It appears to be unpopular at slashdot. Well, that's putting it mildly. I've seen several mentions -1'd within minutes of their posts. Somebody, or maybe a small group of somebody's, do not want that known to slashdotters.
Bend over & I'll moderate you down!
Posted by d106ene5:
Quit your whining - the faster the backbone is, the faster your downloads will be.
As for business with T1's - they can upgrade anytime they want. Most urban centers have access to bandwidth far exceeding T1 capacity. OC3 should be available in any urban center.
Yah yah I hear all this shit about getting cable or ADSL. Let me tell you something wear I live its 56k or ISDN period. That's it. There is no cable or ISDN. There's T1 but that's outrageous. Since I'm not financialy independent moving isn't really an option and neither is going to college (generally gotta complete high school first right?).
-- Rambar
...the only effect it seems to have is on the likelyhood of you getting moderator access...
Am I wrong in assuming that this means that the moderators will slowly become an 31337 bunch of m0r0n5? (Oops, we were just about there already last week...).
Stop whining Taco. I'm pretty satisfied with the cable. I get speeds upwards of 100k/s and that's enough to surf the web and play Q2 with no lag.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
If you've ever had more than a ISDN connection you would not have to ask this question.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
That only 6% of elligible customers actually make use of the cable modem option can be seen as a good thing, given that the bandwidth of the connection is largely dependent on the number of users. If the service became more popular and widespread the cable companies might have to expand their services, but I'd be worried about their response time. I've had bars on channel three and static on channel 19 for the past three months and they aren't exactly springing into action about that one if you know what I mean.
As for the telcos and T1 prices, I've heard from family members who work for our phone company (Bell Atlantic & Nynex) that they have no interest in marketing data services to the private residential sector. Hence the horrid pricing (at least in my market) on ISDN and xDSL services, not to mention the sky high fees for T1 connections. Old phone company joke: What does ISDN stand for? It Still Does Nothing. This reluctance to cash in on a huge market can only hurt the phone companies in the long run. As it stands now I can get cable modem bandwidth that is comparable to, and in some cases exceeds, T1 service for about $30 a month. Compared with the $959 monthly charge for a T1 it's chump change.
I'm getting tired of companies trying to sell terabyte bandwidth when there isn't enough content on line that I'd care to get to justify DSL access.
Darn it, in my day people didn't go around talking about bits this and bytes that. They said baud, and they were grateful for every one of 'em, dagnabbit.
you sure have it rough, try using a 28.8 modem once in a while, and you'll see how stuck I am here at work....
While communications technology improves at an amazing rate, the Bell companies are stuck in the 19th century. Their primary goals appear to be increased profits through elimination of skilled union jobs, investment in anything but their core business, and maintenance of the status quo in services and pricing.
How difficult would it be to bypass them? I'm thinking of something like the Ricochet radio modems, except at much higher data rates.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Like I said, they are just widening profit margins. The ISP half of a T1's cost hasn't changed much, and the telco's has been static for a long time. Of course you can get cheaper t1's, but I'm talking about those of equal quality. You can't really compare a uunet t1 to a savvis or digex t1.. Of course, bandwidth is getting a lot cheaper for the tier 1 providers, but I have yet to see cheaper prices for end-users.
-djp
Hey, _I_ connect at 28.8 and do just fine thanks.
It's not great, and useless to serve or for graphics. But the leap up to "50"k isn't really worth the cash. 100k maybe, 50k no.
Sure I'd love cable, but then the ONE cable company in the area has been promosing to deliver it for 2 years now. I'm not holding my breath.
Actually, as I'm in the UK (when I am), I'll be getting cable as soon as it arrives because it'll cut my phone bills by 80% straight away. I.e. cost is much more significant than speed.
(Average spending rate: >£100 per month. Peak times >£300. Cable rental rate? Predicted £30 per month).
And I can run myself a telnet server. Having a computer of my own that's accessible from anywhere on the net is amazingly useful a resource. So far I've had one at work for a while. Incredibly handy.
seeing as how at least in connection rate soemthing per second is basically the standard form of expression I would think so
come on.. what about those of us who can't afford isdn, and don't have cable or adsl in our area? huh? HUH? quit your bitching... i miss my ethernet... i won't be whining when i get back to college =)
switched 10 megabits to fddi to oc3 baby!
stu =)
hi =)
- NOT
COOL!!!Wow, network technology that doesn't seem like fluff. Not like the exobit over powerlines. But it seems like we are going to be able to progress in the future of networking and get out of the age of 26.4k connections. My cable connection is good enough for me right now, but hey this will help out in the back bone area, which here in the US does need major updrading.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Bend over and I'll give you a problem with the last 12 feet!
Just reading about this kind of bandwidth makes me jealous.
;=>
I am awaiting the arrival of 2way low orbit satellite links.
I would just about kill to have even a stable 28.8 capable telco line. But I like living out in the boonies and the infrastructure just does not exist.
Be happy for what you have.
I am happy I don't have to worry about carrying a hogleg so I don't get mugged in some rat infested city.
Da Unicorn (941)
#941
You can't measure bandwidth in terabits; that's like measuring a car's speed in miles. Surely they mean 2 Tb per second?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I'm getting tired of all these stories since we aren't seeing much effect on the end user. When will the time come when small to medium businesses have more than 1 - 4 t1 lines? I'm also one of the lucky few who have had a cable modem since 1996 and have regularly downloaded at t1+ speeds, but I still feel the evolution is a little slow. Heck, only 6% of people who CAN get cable modems have them. In short, I really don't care until it has an effect on people other than helping companies build backbones that widen profit margins and allow them to get in the telco game. Seriously, I havent seen T1 prices change very much lately.
-djp
dennis@potechin.com
-- forgot my password
Hmm.. wouldn't it be reply, then paste, then...
Sounds like this guy is hunting for bugs or something.
I agree.....In my area ( obviously not a "target market area" ) I still do not have anything higher than the infamous 56k ( hehehehe )....and no definate time when anything else will become available.
I too am weary of the talk of higher bandwidths at reasonable costs.
Guyote was here.....
If this is a mistake, then I suppose that the millions of copies of excite's web page that you posted over on the RedHat IPO thread (as seen on your User Info) were all you pressing Submit by mistake over and over and over?
I agree. You people out there in the world need to get more bandwidth. No one is going to deliver a magic connection that gives 2TB over your power lines. Cable and DSL is the only way to go right now.
Linux O Muerte!
Actually, someone may well be preventing him from buying a faster modem, if not buying one, at least putting it to use. In my area, ISDN is not available. Neither is DSL or Cable. The ONLY thing available is a lousy 24k max over bad analog phone lines. Not that that gives anyone a right to be rude, just pointing out that what you were saying may not be entirely doable.
Well hell I bought a faster modem - a 56k - and I only ever connect at 45333... Even then I'm lucky to get download rates in excess of 3kb/s due to net congestion.
What other options? ISDN? costs about $450 to get connected - no thanks.
No ADSL/SDSL here, no cable modems,
There is Tele2 radio connection at 128kbps but your limited to 200Mb/Month transfer...(!)
So for now I will stay with my modem. But better backbone tech will let me actually use all my 45333 bps (hopefully)....
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
Wow, that SUCKS big time!!! We need out "own" phone-company-less network.....I wish the wireless market were more mature....like using part of the upper HAM frequencies or something......maybe someday, huh?
Guyote was here.....
Where's a moderator when you need one....
With the way most folks actually are planning to use any connections, the problem is the last 12 feet. Almost noboby I talk to in everyday life could have the faintest idea of moving data from a cable modem or DSL either into the living room (where the set top box will be)or into the den/bedroom (where the computer is). As for any networked "appliance"-sized applications (like MP3 players)there exists no way to do thses things that an ordinary person can understand.
That's the real reason why it's all going to come down to Pay Per View for a long, long time.
Having a terabit per second isn't meant to instantly drop the price of a T1 or T3. It's meant to facilitate the drop in those prices. I will be nice when all the backbones are replaced with much bigger pipes, then the overall data transfer cost will be oodles less than it is now. Eventually these savings pass on to you the customer, not right away, eventually. 28.8 and 56.6 connections are going to be around for a while yet. They are easy for local telcos to handle since they dont need any new hardware and the equipment is very inexpensive for the user. If telcos can backbones can squeeze more data into existing fiber networks they get very happy and end up lower prices on smaller pipe connections like T3's and T1's. It also helps to relieve congestion because of small pipes, now all the gamers dont need to complain about suzy hommaker watching TNN in real video.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Does this really deserve a score of 2? wtf?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Ah, well. Someday we'll have competition....
George Gilder, author of Microcosm, Life After Television, the upcoming Telecosm, and fee based newsletter Gilder Technology Reports believes one benefit is the elimination of most of the expensive switchs we currently are routed through. So while I continue to "make do" with bonded ISDN (128K) I anxiously anticipate the impending bandwidth availability. There is huge pentup demand for bandwidth (even by folks who aren't aware of it :-). The Gilder paradigm will change where we impute value in communications.
Posted by Bill, the Galactic Hero:
The maximum bit rate per channel is OC-192 (9.953 Gb/s, or about 10 Gb/s).
So 2 Tb/s would require 200 such channels.
Assuming that the channel plan is a 100 GHz grid (0.8 nm/channel in wavelength), 200 channels would require 160 nm.
This is beyond the bandwidth of standard erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (1530-1560 nm). Even if you went with L-band EDFAs you still wouldn't make it.
So if the grid is 100 GHz, this is an unamplified system. The only way to make the system cost effective is to use is for point-to-point short-haul (100 km or less) transmission.
If the grid is 50 GHz, the required amplifier bandwidth would be 80 nm. This makes it possible to use two-banded amplification, so it could be a long-haul system. But it's trickier to find good WDM components at 50 GHz which won't screw up a 10 Gb/s signal.
In other words, they are probably targeting metro-area networks.
Oh wow, like 64k is just sooo slow. Give the poor people living under the opression of a monopolistic telephone network a chance. In Australia there is 1 telephone company that ownes all the final run copper phone lines. (between exchange and termination) This means that it costs about A$20,000 / year for a permanent 64k ISDN (including net connection but excluding the 19c/meg bandwidth charge) because no one else can offer it.
Not just that but the telephone company is putting in fibre in a lot of area except for the last couple of hundred meters of copper. They are compressing phone lines together into fibre and a by-product is that they are filtering out the frequencies that 33.6 and v.90 (28.8 is still fine) so lucky me with my 56k modem and ending up with 28.8.
Thus ends my rant.
Posted by MaldaSuX:
I'm sorry about this, I thought I'd pressed Preview. I was trying to gauge how big a slashdot poting could be. But I must have pressed submit by mistak. Please knock this down to -1 or delete it.
Play nice. Your post isn't doing any better.