Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

100-Petabit Internet Backbone Coming Into View

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the movies-on-whim dept.

Networking 137

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."

cancel ×

137 comments

400 DVDs per second? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579155)

I for one think the RIAA/MPAA/etc a tax on this connection roughly equal to the value of "400 DVDs per second"

Blu-Ray (4, Funny)

daybot (911557) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579157)

...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?

Let's hear it for the Chicago Olympics! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579199)

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/video_derrion_albert [myfoxchicago.com]

I wonder if this clip will feature in Obama's appeal in Copenhagen. Events that Chicago residents are sure to win gold in:

1) gawking
2) failing to render timely aid
3) board swinging
4) Ebonics
5) fulfilling racial stereotypes
6) stupidity

Re:Blu-Ray (1)

rcolbert (1631881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580809)

Good question. I think that we're heading towards a world of ad-supported portable porn. Maybe just like with audio the file sizes are actually going to go down. (no pun)

Re:Blu-Ray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29582429)

...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?

Duh. Then its 75 Blu-Rays per second.

Re:Blu-Ray (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29582803)

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.

Re:Blu-Ray (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29583827)

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?

Whoa whoa whoa. What's with all the SI units? (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579163)

How many liters per rod is that?

Re:Whoa whoa whoa. What's with all the SI units? (1)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579369)

I think it's about 14 gigabytes per hogshead, which averages out to eleven teraflops per cubic kilowatt.

Online mirror (-1, Offtopic)

michelcultivo (524114) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579171)

Great, all my pr0m will have online mirror backups.

Too bad (2, Funny)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579205)

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.

Re:Too bad (2, Informative)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579255)

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.

Re:Too bad (0)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579299)

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.

I'd be happy with a fraction of a 100-Petabit connection with no cap. Most people are stuck with lousy 768/128kbit DSL or Comcast with their shared lines and bandwidth caps. Some don't even have that luxury, they have to use dial-up.

Re:Too bad (2, Insightful)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579483)

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.

Re:Too bad (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579669)

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.

Re:Too bad (1)

Trahloc (842734) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581445)

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.

Re:Too bad (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579903)

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.

Re:Too bad (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580703)

"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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Too bad (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581487)

absolutely agreed. Much lower latency may up server requirements a little as the traffic increases but I'll take it any day hands down.

Re:Too bad (2, Funny)

aynoknman (1071612) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580607)

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!

Re:Too bad (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580889)

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.

Re:Too bad (2, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581315)

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?

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29583395)

Yes, but you will need a time machine to get there.

Re:Too bad (1, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579617)

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.

Say what? (0)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579213)

They're gonna make the internets out of Petabytes? Wait until Chris Hansen gets wind of this!

Wait, what?

second.kilometer (5, Informative)

Paul Rose (771894) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579223)

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

Re:second.kilometer (5, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579365)

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).

Re:second.kilometer (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579507)

How does that compare to cmol/LoCm (light speed moles per Library of Congress Metre).

Re:second.kilometer (2, Funny)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579817)

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.

Re:second.kilometer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581115)

I think a byte second is a unit of tweeting throughput.

Therefore this determines how much value there is in a tweet. Precisely 0.00003 mol of value per byte (120 bytes in a tweet) if you tweet every second. Most people tweet a few times a day, so you can extrapolate the value there. Presumably this is moles of nitrogen rather than moles of platinum or gold.

Re:second.kilometer (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580215)

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.

Re:second.kilometer (2, Funny)

sharkey (16670) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580375)

Can you convert that to rods and hogsheads please? I'm a little lost.

Re:second.kilometer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581311)

Can you convert that to rods and hogsheads please? I'm a little lost.

Gladly, as soon as you tell us the size of your rod :p

Re:second.kilometer (2, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579869)

What I want to know is how many bits there are in the first.kilometer and the third.kilometer.

Re:second.kilometer (4, Insightful)

jgs (245596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579905)

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?

Re:second.kilometer (3, Interesting)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580749)

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.

Re:second.kilometer (2, Informative)

jgs (245596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581453)

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.

Re:second.kilometer (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581717)

Well it would be a 100-Petabit Internet backbone... if it was just 1 km long. ;)

Re:second.kilometer (1)

jgs (245596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29582957)

Thing is, it wouldn't, which is why the headline is so totally wrong. (Yes I saw the smiley.)

Re:second.kilometer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581875)

I don't think "15.5 Tbps * 7000 km = 100 Petabits per second.kilometer" is in any way a reasonable number.

It would only be if you could achieve 100 Petabits per second on a 1 kilometer line, which I seriously doubt!

Re:second.kilometer (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 4 years ago | (#29582215)

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a (fleet of) stationwagons full of backup tapes! Mine does 302 Libraries of Congress per Gallon (at sea level)

Re:second.kilometer (2, Interesting)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580915)

I thought it was quite common to express the capacity of an optical system by its bandwidth-distance product [rp-photonics.com] ... Or are we talking about something different here?

Re:second.kilometer (2, Insightful)

jgs (245596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29583059)

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 [alcatel-lucent.com] 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.

Re:second.kilometer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579927)

The weird notation should trip the bogon detector. So, they really do not have a network which can deliver 100 petabit/s over one kilometer. They have a network which can deliver 15.5 terabit/s over 7000 km, and there's no way to turn one into the other, contrary to what the "unit" bits per second.kilometer suggests. Fucking marketers should stick with their own language and leave the tech to people who know how to use units.

Re:second.kilometer (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580233)

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"

Re:second.kilometer (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29582861)

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?"

Who cares, solve the last mile already. (4, Insightful)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579227)

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.

Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. (2, Funny)

Capsy (1644737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579249)

The wonders of 2mbp/s internet.

Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579363)

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.

Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579597)

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...

Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. (-1, Offtopic)

Eivind (15695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579733)

It is solved, it's just that USA is held back by a braindead telecom-structure, this is political barrier not a technological one.

Here in Norway, I've got 4-5 different technologies to choose from, that all trump what you've got. First there's ADSL and ADSL2, the former ain't much better than what you've got, stopping at around 2M/512kbit, but ADSL2 is available up to something like 10M/1M, which is already a significant improvement.

With similar speed, there's mobile broadband, 2-3Mbps download and 500kbps upload, it's got worse latency though so no good for gaming. (but nice in working also when you're traveling)

Then there's internet-over-coax, i.e. alongside cable-tv, this offers speeds up to 50Mbps, though the most popular offering is 3.5 or 7Mbps.

And if none of that will satisfy you, get fibre-to-the-basement with physical capacity for several Gbit/s, but actually offering internet-speeds of up to 100M/100M (i.e. symetrical) to private homes at the moment, the lack of higher speeds offerings if from lack of demand though, not because of any technological restrictions on the last mile.

Most people settle for something in the 3M to 10M range, though, I've got fibre, and that's the most popular solution, but even a 2-nerd household like mine don't really have a reason for more than 25M/25M, so that's what we have.

The same technologies would work fine in USA too -- if only the political barriers of the entrenched telecom-monopolies where removed.

Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580251)

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.

Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. (1)

GeorgeS (11440) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581055)

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.

Re:Who cares, solve the last mile already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29583665)

Here in Norway, I've got 4-5 different technologies to choose from, that all trump what you've got. First there's ADSL and ADSL2, the former ain't much better than what you've got, stopping at around 2M/512kbit, but ADSL2 is available up to something like 10M/1M, which is already a significant improvement.

Here in Germany Telekom seem to be sticking to DSL, but you can get ADSL up to 6M/576K, ADSL2 up to 16M/1M, with VDSL 25M/5M or 50M/10M becoming more and more available. That's 50Mbit down running over phone lines (although I don't know what speed people get in reality - I get about 13.5Mbit down on a 16Mbit line). But they don't seem to have any hidden caps - unlimited means unlimited.

Will we notice? (3, Insightful)

maggotsforbreakfast (1646317) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579233)

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.

Re:Will we notice? (3, Interesting)

Niksko (1355055) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579383)

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.

Re:Will we notice? (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581503)

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.

And 10 times faster lasts for how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579269)

I guess undersea cables are hardly often replaced. Considering the current growth in internet traffic, is 10x enough? Will this even matter at all?

Confusing units (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579283)

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?

Re:Confusing units (1)

Niksko (1355055) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579339)

I believe it's equivalent to 313471681789590822345900936 Mp3s!!!!

Re:Confusing units (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579415)

Well, lets see: 12 parsecs per hogs-head/bushel^fortnight = 3 onions.

Re:Confusing units (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29582879)

Your numbers appear to be perfectly cromulent.

Re:Confusing units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29583609)

Thanks, a solid grasp of maths embiggens the smallest of minds.

Re:Confusing units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580357)

sending about 400 DVDs per second over 7,000 kilometers

There is no confusion sir. You're probably doing something illegal. Expect to hear from us.

MAFIAA

We're going to need some bigger routers.. (-1, Redundant)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579297)

and by the way, how many library of Congresses is that per second.kilometer?

Qien is mas macho (1)

Darth Sdlavrot (1614139) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579343)

Seeing petabit internet backbones or seeing Russia from your back porch?

1901? (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579375)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:1901? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579547)

already have this at home (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579397)

I've had 100-Petabit/decade internet at home for a while now.

Re:already have this at home (2, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579791)

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.

Re:already have this at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580231)

Except you're off by 12.

Re:already have this at home (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580417)

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?

Re:already have this at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580449)

No, just the months on his home planet are very long.

Re:already have this at home (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580735)

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')

Re:already have this at home (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580459)

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.

all the better to misinform us with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579411)

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?

The RIAA and MPAA ain't gonna like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579437)

No how, no way.

second.kilometer? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579463)

What exactly does bits / second.kilometer mean? Does it mean that with more kilometers, it becomes slower?

Re:second.kilometer? (2, Informative)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579583)

Yep. Decoherence/absorption/dispersion happens. Packets get dropped.

Re:second.kilometer? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579589)

Electrons are people too! When you have to run a few kilometers, you'll start to slow down as well!

Re:second.kilometer? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579607)

No, it means that it takes longer to transmit information over large distances because of this [wikipedia.org] little thing, which people tend to forget about; no matter how much information you can send at one time, you'll still have some lag which you must take into account so YES, there is such a term as "bits/second/kilometer". It takes the light over 8 minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun in void. In other materials it would take even longer, because light does not have infinite speed. There is a deceleration you have to take into account.

Re:second.kilometer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579923)

and what about the first.kilometer? idiots! now we'll never get our pronz!

That faint "thump" you heard in the background (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579557)

That was MPAA chairman Dan Glickman fainting and hitting the floor 'cause nobody cared enough to catch him.

Yea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29579615)

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".

and yet (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579681)

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?

Re:and yet (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581631)

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.

Re:and yet (2, Informative)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29582657)

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 [teltarif.de] . Amazing what competition will do.

Re:and yet (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29583175)

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 (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579985)

100M Gbit/s / 300 mln users = .3Gbit/s = 333Mbit/s = 40 Mbyte/s

Conversions? (3, Funny)

theJML (911853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29579995)

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

Re:Conversions? (1)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580691)

No, this isn't the US, this is the Internet.

Re:Conversions? (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580721)

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?

Re:Conversions? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29583253)

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 (1)

Powys (1274816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580009)

I like the new metric of DVDs per second. Do you think that will catch on?

4chan (1)

scott_karana (841914) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580389)

Petabit backbones still won't be enough to keep 4chan online through all those DDoSes they suffer.

comcast will cap this at 250gb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581285)

comcast will cap this at 250gb hit your cap in less then half a day with comcast.

Gee, that's nice (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581369)

..but Comcast will still try to create excuses for continually increasing the cost of broadband while finding excuses to decrease and limit the bandwidth.

Re:Gee, that's nice (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581671)

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... (1)

DigitalCrackPipe (626884) | more than 4 years ago | (#29582041)

PETA-bit would be much better PETA's poorly chosen blog [peta.org] name. Seriously, what is wrong with those people?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...