Wired and Wireless At the Same High Speed 110
Roland Piquepaille writes "The next generation of optical networks needed to satisfy our appetite for bandwidth is currently under development. And researchers from Georgia Tech have built a new architecture which delivers super-broadband wired and wireless service simultaneously. This hybrid system 'could allow dual wired/wireless transmission up to 100 times faster than current networks.' In fact, this optical-wireless network can carry as many as 32 different channels, each providing 2.5 gigabit-per-second service to your home or your office. And companies such as NEC and BellSouth are already working on such hybrid optical-wireless communications networks."
WiMAX? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WiMAX? (Score:1, Interesting)
WiMAX is for long-range communication (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (Score:1)
Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (Score:1)
Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (Score:2)
Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (Score:1)
Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (Score:1)
Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (Score:5, Informative)
At first I was confused, because the article seemed to be talking about internet access. But then I noticed that Bell South was one of the sponsors. So, welcome to the future of the internet as envisioned by Bell South.
Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean AT&T. Or whoever buys them out.
Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (Score:2)
I think (hope) what was actually intended by the abovementioned bold text was that your router would spit out signal on 32 different channels (and each computer could have its own, until you've got way too many machines connected to your home networ
Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (Score:2)
Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (Score:2)
(Cue: Empire Strikes Back Soundtrack...)
Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, except the new free space optics solution -- which isn't new per se, companies have had niche products for years -- isn't constrained in an optical fiber which would prevent interference. Instead it uses free space, and this immediately limits your bandwidth as you ultimately have to share it with people nearby you or nearby the other end of the air interface.
Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (Score:1)
catch? (Score:2)
Maybe it's because the wireless solution will suck so many frequency bands that it can't unleash it's full power unless you are living in a really remote area where other APs are quite unlikely.
Re:catch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:catch? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:catch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tree leaves are not really an issue since there is "pure" LOS, no blockages. However, the issue with such high frequency transmissions is the EM wave energy being absorbed by the water molecules present in the atmosphere. This presents a high level of signal attenuation which greatly reduces the range of the wireless tranmitter.
Imagine you get the full data rate before it rains,
Re:catch? (Score:1)
Outside a controlled environment (Score:3, Informative)
Before then you're in a range that the military has used, at least experimentally, to image runways when landing in fog.
Think short ranges (1 km for sure), shorter in humid environments, and a relatively benign interference environment since there are so few natural sources in that range and it's so easy to make a small highly directional antenna.
People have only been holding off on deployments bec
Re:catch? (Score:1)
Re:catch? (Score:1)
Re:catch? (Score:1)
Re:catch? (Score:1)
Re:catch? (Score:2)
I don't know, I think a wireless LAN based on sound waves might be kind of neat. At the very least it could be used to drive the local users (and/or their dogs) crazy...
Re:catch? (Score:1)
layer? (Score:3, Insightful)
the framing and termination guts of the wireless transceiver aren't all that expensive. there are already perfectly good layer 2 and 3 approaches to the problem of distributing the same content over wireless and wired networks'
One thing I've wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
To effectively use incredibly fast end-user technologies, some absolutely incredible switches and routers would need to be designed, otherwise all this is for nothing. I mean 2.5 Gb per port on a 24-port switch would require a 60 Gb backplane - way higher than anything available today.
And as someone who managed a medium-ish sized network (250+), we currently find that setting a lot of peripheral users to 10-full gives much better performance than setting them to 100-full, simply because our switching fabric - coupled with the number of users - can handle this a lot better.
So although this is possible, wouldn't it be more suited to backbones, rather than having a client-heavy network?
True, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, once we have a wire to my house capable of some outrageous speed go ahead and restrict it to match your network speed as long as that excess capacity is kept in reserve for future improvements. This seems to me a more sensible way of engineering the network, the most expensive upgrades (last mile) should be done right once and let the rest of the network catch up after many incremental updates.
Yes, but it doesn't work that way. (Score:2)
If your house isn't the bottleneck, than as soon as the "bottleneck" is removed by upgrades, then what eventually becomes your house? [Hint: it will be last to receive the upgrades]
Which is cheaper? 1) Install fiber to 100 existing homes [requiring digging,etc]? 2) Upgrading the line that runs between a neighborhood and another station, ONCE?
What if it isn't even fiber? What if it just means replacing a device near each customer versus replacing equipme
Re:Yes, but it doesn't work that way. (Score:1)
Limiting capacity (Score:1)
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:2, Informative)
Really?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6421/prod_b
"Full bisectional bandwidth for all ports, providing 2.8 Tbps (Cisco SFS 7012) and 5.4 Tbps (Cisco SFS 7024) of bandwidth"
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.
The routers/switches we use at work say they'll scale to 720GB/sec, but we'll never come close to that. Those sup720 cards are almost universal these days.
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:2)
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:1)
Both Cisco, with it's76xx series [cisco.com], and Force10, with it's Exxx series [force10networks.com], currently offer line-cards with 40Gbps switching capacity.
Regards.
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:2)
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? The low-end managed switch fabrics have as much bandwidth as you are discus
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:1)
Re:One thing I've wondered... (Score:2)
-Ack
But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:2, Funny)
my office? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:my office? (Score:2)
Re:my office? (Score:2)
Also looks way too organized.
Re:my office? (Score:2)
Not Speed - Latency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Speed - Latency (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Not Speed - Latency (Score:2)
Re:Not Speed - Latency (Score:1)
Which no internet links the average consumer will use does, it adds a 280ms hop. The main overcomable problem is the time taken to convert light to electricity, switch, and convert back to light. Switches that use mirrors and can switch light directly will save time.
Re:Not Speed - Latency (Score:1)
Going off on a tangent, does anyone know if there's a way to detect these photons compared to non-entangled ones? I only ask because surely for SETI, it would
Re:Not Speed - Latency (Score:2)
Re:Not Speed - Latency (Score:2)
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt [rfc-editor.org] is an important read.
We'd better play catch up.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We'd better play catch up.... (Score:2)
WARNING! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WARNING! (Score:1)
So?
a) Primidi.com is only linked through rel=nofollow in the article summary. This means that Google doesn't increase his pagerank.
b) There are no links to his personal website in the submission. The linked articles are not on his website; therefore, all your criticism about Blogads and whatever else is moot.
c) Everyone links their name to their personal website when submitting stories. Just because R
Re:WARNING! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WARNING! (Score:2)
Re:Processing that much data (Score:2, Funny)
You are apparently not familiar with the bandwidth and data transfer requirements of Windows Vista bloatware,...
Wonald (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And will be available... (Score:3, Insightful)
For what? Are the Swedes hitting sites that come anywhere close to that kind of speed?
One word... (Score:2)
Re:And will be available... (Score:1)
There are servers in Sweden too you know..
weather? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:weather? (Score:1)
Several hundred meters if an order of magnitude more range than I would expect
it to be disigned for.
This short range is an advantage, and a disadvantage. The network would have to
be 'cellular' in nature. There would need to be several base stations per area,
even someone standing between you and the base station would block the signal.
On the other hand the re-use distance for a given channel would be fairly small,
the band is
Re:weather? (Score:2)
Probably like a sniper with a $4000 telescopic sight.
(Just think about it)
Re:weather? (Score:2)
Millimeter wave frequencies penetrate fog splendidly but are blocked by rain. Since that's sorta the opposite of what visible light and infrared do, a line of sight system could get good reliability by having both optical and mm-wave components and some failover logic.
Re:weather? (Score:2)
but my enthusiasm will remain subdued until I hear how well it performs through, say, several hundred meters of thick fog.
You're from the UK, aren't you...
-Chris
Re:weather? (Score:1)
Are you just meaning it's faster than what we currently use? otherwise it doesn't sound much like FSO. It seems to me that their wireless component is nothing special. Higher than current frequencies, not as high as FSO, but similar to what many others are working on.
The interesting part is the hybrid feature. Sounds like they are creating a single physical layer where the signal travels on both wireless media (the air) and wired media (optic cable) using an all optical c
Small problem here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I'm not Mr. Optimistic here, but just who the hell is paying for this infrastructure? Already I only want 35% of the content I have to pay for, and none of what I pay for has the latency that I would like to have. The money vs. service issue is all out of whack here. I don't care if its wireless or wired personally, if they could just get the service right in the first place, it would be nice.
Bundled cable, ISP, and VoIP... this is starting to sound like the beginnings of Cable Operators part two. I just know that they need all the bandwidth to support the DRM content that nobody wants to pay for, never mind watch. All I need is DRM'd reruns of "I love Lucy" on my telephone bill to make the world a perfect place again.
There is simply way too much HYPE in the technology sector these days. God forbid any of them think of providing good service before figuring out how to sell me 2 terabits of bandwidth to watch reruns with.
I'm not feeling very enthused about ISPs and content industries right now...
Someone ping me when... (Score:2)
1: Realtec has a $19.99 add on card with technology
or
2: It automatically comes with my next motherboard purchase
Untill that time, I'm plenty fine with the 6mbits/sec that I'm currently getting from the my internet provider.
BBH
Woooooohoo!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
Meanwhile, Japan is getting 100Mbits/sec at $30/month
2.5Gbps (Score:2)
Phooey! Wait 'til you see TOKEN-RING! (Score:1)
Start buying your tokens on EBay now. You can never have too many!
Re:Phooey! Wait 'til you see TOKEN-RING! (Score:1)
I'm hanging out for... (Score:1)
I wish their technical paper were available (Score:2, Informative)
The point of this? (Score:2)
Re:The point of this? (Score:1)
Awwww... (Score:1)