Beta
×

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!

UK Research Aims For 100x Speedup In Fiber-Based Broadband

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the such-a-nice-round-number dept.

The Internet 180

Mark.JUK writes "The UK governments Minister for Science, David Willetts, has awarded £7.2 million to help support the University of Southampton's newly rebuilt Optoelectronics Research Centre (ORC) and the development ('Photonics HyperHighway') of new technologies that would be capable of making broadband internet access over fibre optic cables 100 times faster than today." What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

cancel ×

180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As a current student of the University (1)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047848)

This is excellent news

Re:As a current student of the University (2)

Alarash (746254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047924)

As of today, the fastest fiber NICs run at 100 Gbps (not a typo). I'm pretty sure the big Network Equipment Manufacturers (Cisco, Juniper, Broadcom et al.) are investing more than £7.2M in R&D to develop this too, so I'm kind of mixed. Also, most Carriers and ISP core networks still run on aggregated 10 Gbps, sometimes 40 Gbps, and none (as far as I know) run at 100 Gbps. So the "capacity crunch" they talk about is mostly due to a lack of investment from the companies...

Re:As a current student of the University (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35047998)

As of today, the fastest fiber NICs run at 100 Gbps (not a typo). I'm pretty sure the big Network Equipment Manufacturers (Cisco, Juniper, Broadcom et al.) are investing more than £7.2M in R&D to develop this too, so I'm kind of mixed. Also, most Carriers and ISP core networks still run on aggregated 10 Gbps, sometimes 40 Gbps, and none (as far as I know) run at 100 Gbps. So the "capacity crunch" they talk about is mostly due to a lack of investment from the companies...

I think L3 runs 100Gbps. The MLXe has 100Gbps line cards and aggregated 40Gbps is quite common on the backhaul networks. As most people have said, it's not the backhaul that's the issue, it's the last mile. Research into higher speeds over copper twinax is what we really need. I can't see any telco putting fibre to the door unless they are forced to, or it's a new build. Copper is going to be here for a very longtime, so let's get that sorted soon. Most Network analysts expect the traffic loads to explode in 2011/12 with double the amount of traffic in 2009/10, most of it driven by serving rich content (IPTV, streaming video etc.) so these very dense backbone are needed, but industry is already doing research in that dept.

Re:As a current student of the University (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048584)

I think you underestimate a bit the deployment of Fiber-To-The-Home (in western Europe anyway).

Re:As a current student of the University (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048606)

As most people have said, it's not the backhaul that's the issue, it's the last mile.

In the end, it's the last mile that needs to be upgraded to fibre. Copper technologies are simply not good enough, especially on regular phone lines as most of the world has no access to HFC.

However the problem you have is that no private entity is willing to do it, with the long term scope of such a project and when a government does it they get bashed relentlessly by people who have no understanding of the technologies involved.

Re:As a current student of the University (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048640)

"Research into higher speeds over copper twinax"

Hmm, that stuff is used on SFP+ "null cables", but I don't see how that helps the last mile. The price of copper can only go up at this point. Perhaps using the existing DSLAMs is the better approach?

Re:As a current student of the University (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048016)

So up to 10Tbps for the backbone if the factor is applicable to the backbone speed of 100Gbps. That's actually good news for video streaming.

And with that speed home - well, it would be a complete overkill since I'm satisfied with my 100Mbps.

But on the other hand - I do have friends that would love to transfer terabytes over (under?) the Atlantic Ocean of data on a regular basis.

Re:As a current student of the University (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048670)

I do have friends that would love to transfer terabytes over (under?) the Atlantic Ocean of data on a regular basis.

Yaay! Backup ping pong.

Holograms? (5, Insightful)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047980)

Just a few hours ago, /. had this story: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/01/29/2222246/A-Kinect-Princess-Leia-Hologram-In-Realtime. If you follow a few links, you eventually arrive at http://www.media.mit.edu/spi/M2.html, where you will find these bits of information:

The resulting image is horizontal parallax only (HPO), with video resolution in the vertical direction, and holographic resolution in the horizontal direction.

and

The Holovideo Cheops system provides six synchronized frame buffers to drive our 256Kx144 display

I infer that holographic resolution takes 1,000 times the bandwidth of conventional video. So, yeah, I think I can think of ways to use this much bandwidth at home.

Re:Holograms? (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048326)

The Holovideo Cheops system provides six synchronized frame buffers to drive our 256Kx144 display

I infer that holographic resolution takes 1,000 times the bandwidth of conventional video. So, yeah, I think I can think of ways to use this much bandwidth at home.

I observe that your calculation is wrong, and from that I infer that you don't know what infer means / how to use it correctly.

I calculate that conventional video has 1920x1080 or roughly 2M pixels vs 256Kx144 or about 36.8M pixels, or about 20 times greater bandwidth, not about 1000.

Re:Holograms? (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048482)

You may infer and calculate correctly, but the given numbers are unlikely, 144 vertical pixels? That would be more like a ribbon. It's probably more like 256K x 144K, in that case it would be a factor of 18K larger.

Re:Holograms? (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048804)

I thought that sounded a bit weird but the image in the article looked like some bizarre stretched scanline. Just so long as it wouldn't be 1000x bigger then it's fine :)

Re:As a current student of the University (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048612)

As an Alumnus of the University I'm very to happy to see this :) Good to see the ORC back up and running full steam!

Download more and more (4, Funny)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047856)

Linux iso's.

Re:Download more and more (5, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047946)

I'd rather download better quality Linux isos. I think if I could get 720p Linux isos that would be great, but not every Linux iso is available at that resolution. Some are ripped from VHS and others from TV, I usually avoid those.

Re:Download more and more (0)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048220)

Oh right, distribution of high quality video ... maybe some forces in the UK want to have fabulous backbone for many more CCTV cameras?

hit your download usage limit as fast as possible (2)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048236)

And the ISPs just want you to be able to hit your download usage limit as fast as possible.

Re:hit your download usage limit as fast as possib (0)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048374)

This is something a bit alien to me; download usage limits...

I was shocked to see that in the UK people do not have unlimited ISPs...

I can understand some traffic limits on hosting but on residential lines...
I just don't get it, either ISPs in the UK are ultra-greedy or their equipement is outdated, or both.

How do you manage to download porn? what about online games?
Yeah online games could get tricky then with download limits, who is going to refund your bandwidth when you need to download
yet another update to WoW? TF2? etc...
Playing online games in the UK seems like a very very costly hobby; shouldn't game companies refund you based on how much bandwidth
their game/updates uses?

Re:hit your download usage limit as fast as possib (1)

Jane_Dozey (759010) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048624)

What are you talking about? Nearly every single provider has unlimited download offers. They're not usually too expensive either. This is been the case for many years.

Heck, I can't remember the last time I went to someone's house and they had a limit.

Re:hit your download usage limit as fast as possib (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048634)

AFAIK download limits are mostly for 3g connections.

Re:hit your download usage limit as fast as possib (3, Informative)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048792)

There are a fair few unlimited, or at least "unlimited for practical purposes" ISPs available. Sky or Be, for example. I downloaded 200 GB one month, no problems.

The limited ones are generally the ones that use BT's backhaul from the exchange rather than doing their own (LLU), because BT charge a very high per-Mbps rate. Even then, it's enough for gaming.

Re:Download more and more (-1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048530)

Videos from HDTV are 720p.

If I had 100x my current connection, it would be 70,000 kbit/s. I would be doing exactly the same thing I'm doing now (watching television, youtube, and listening to radio). So basically: I don't need it.

>>>the fastest fiber NICs run at 100 Gbps

Wouldn't the bottleneck be the internet itself? The various servers between you and the website wouldn't be able to run that fast.

Re:Download more and more (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048364)

Video on demand like YouTube and iplayer are driving bandwidth requirements up, not pirates.

What I would like to do with 100x's the bandwidth. (2)

sixthousand (676886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047874)

Pay 100x's less.

Re:What I would like to do with 100x's the bandwid (1)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047926)

Be amazed at my whopping 100mbit connection

Re:What I would like to do with 100x's the bandwid (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048132)

I would kill for 10 X 45Kb low end DSL for what i'm paying for a 45Kb dial up at $35 a month ( phone+ISP)
The centuryel broadband is a joke, I was told by a sprint (before the buyout) in 2000 that hi-speed was coming, in 4 years.
Later it was "real soon now", By the time I get dsl, I will be pushing up worms.
Thieves and scum and you and me are paying for their fat bonus.

Socialist Gov't = Funding for Broadband Research? (-1, Offtopic)

_0rm_ (1638559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047876)

Uh... Obama? Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo? Wake up bro!

Re:Socialist Gov't = Funding for Broadband Researc (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047896)

Wrong nation dude.

The what now? (1)

tlund (42064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047902)

The current commercially available (more or less) technology does 100Gbit/s over fiber.

I tired to read the article to find out what they where really talking about .. but .. I can't find anything. Anywhere. Can anyone supply a URL for the actual original source for this "article"?

Re:The what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35047960)

There isn't a more original source. It's a widely circulated press release about a UK university replacing a research building and getting a government grant for doing research on the "Photonics HyperHighway". There's no specific technology or research result available from this project yet. They're just saying: "We got some money and if we're both lucky and work really hard, then we might make the future internet 100 times faster. That is, if the money isn't all going to end up paying for the new building. We've already come up with a cool name for teh new internets anyway."

Re:The what now? (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048150)

Hypernet? Supernet? Zoomnet? Zapnet?, Turbonet? Jetnet? Speednet?, Superdupernet? Superhyperturbozoomspeed.net? Ack!

Re:The what now? (2)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048362)

More like:
Photonic
Optimised
Resolution
Networks

or PORN for short...

Re:The what now? (1)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048458)

Superhyperturbozoomspeed.net? Nah, they've gotta go with Compuglobalhypermeganet [urbandictionary.com] .

I'd stop paying for hosting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35047906)

With about 10 times the bandwidth I have now, I'd stop paying for hosting and set up my own web-side server at home. With 100 times the bandwidth, I wouldn't do much, because most downstream applications already don't saturate the available bandwidth. Well, 3D 4K streaming perhaps. I can never imagine what I'm going to fill new hard drives with, but they're all still filling up regardless. Build it and they will come.

Porn. (3, Funny)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047908)

So much porn. I'd be downloading about one hundred times more than I do now.

Re:Porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048104)

So much porn. I'd be downloading about one hundred times more than I do now.

At my current rate (slow ADSL) I can DL enough porn everyday to watch continuously for 2 weeks on one screen 100 times that I'd only pay for another month of internet

Re:Porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048756)

The Optical HyperHighway, now with 100X porn. You wont just go blind ~ it'll freak'n melt your eyeballs!

creators estimate 1000X slowdown for mankin.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35047910)

that's how newclear power works? stop killing each other? feed our babies? do the research. see you there?

Don't need it, have enough speed. (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047920)

Lets face it, even rampart copyright infringement is not enough to fill 10Gbps to the home (yes, fiber to the home is 100Mbps here and so is cable modem, at least for downstream). Unless the UK has really, really slow fiber and has not figured out others do it better already? Who know. Who cares.

Re:Don't need it, have enough speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35047940)

You'r right, it would simply never be used.

Heck, most people cant even max out an 8mb ADSL connection - despite it being the cheapest on offer!

Re:Don't need it, have enough speed. (1)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047954)

It so will when it's 5000:1 contention. After all the speeds upped why can't the contention ratio be upped too.

Re:Don't need it, have enough speed. (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047992)

The UK has 100Mbit in some parts of the country and 50Mbit in a good chunk of the rest of it.

Re:Don't need it, have enough speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048200)

Lets face it, even rampart copyright infringement is not enough to fill 10Gbps to the home (yes, fiber to the home is 100Mbps here and so is cable modem, at least for downstream). Unless the UK has really, really slow fiber and has not figured out others do it better already? Who know. Who cares.

careful with predictions about the future and hard, immutable limits

Re:Don't need it, have enough speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048490)

someone once said: 640K ought to be enough for anybody...

backbone only (1)

tlund (42064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047922)

> What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Upgrading the speed of the fiber backbone does not mean an automatic speed increase in your broadband connection. It has nothing to do with ADSL or Cablemodems.

Re:backbone only (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048032)

> What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Upgrading the speed of the fiber backbone does not mean an automatic speed increase in your broadband connection. It has nothing to do with ADSL or Cablemodems.

Haven't you ever heard of fiber to the home? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x [wikipedia.org]

Re:backbone only (1)

tlund (42064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048204)

Sure, but in most places where there is FTTx, the actual connection into the apartment is cat5 copper cable. Sure, there are a lot of places where the actual fiber goes into your house and there is a 10 or 100Mbit FXTX converter, but it is way more common to have a switch somewhere in the basement and then cat5 to the apartments. Those cables run gigabit Ethernet fine, but nothing more.

It's the UK (2)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047944)

so shouldn't it be fibre? =^)

Re:It's the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048022)

If it weren't for the french...

With speed like that... (5, Funny)

Sam Rodgers (1343373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047948)

I would spread the good word that people can increase their endurance with huge savings on enlargment pills!

The problem is not the backbone (2)

Casandro (751346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047950)

The technologies available for backbones already are fast enough for the next decade or so. The main problem is the 'last mile'. However once everybody has fibre to their homes, there might be some bottlenecks on the backbone. I estimate this to be the case once everybody has a gigabit connection at home. Today you can, with off the shelf parts, transmit about a terabit per second over a single fibre. A typical exchange would be connected to it's neighbours with hundreds of fibres, but serve only a few thousand households.

However it is important to do basic research. Eventually we are going to need that kind of technology. Just perhaps not within the next decade.

Re:The problem is not the backbone (2)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047976)

The technologies available for backbones already are fast enough for the next decade or so....

That's a really bad attitude to have. Progression doesn't just happen it has to be worked for. Sometime it's easy sometimes its very hard. You never know until you start.

Re:The problem is not the backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048136)

Keep in mind that people are just starting to wake up to on demand entertainment movies and television, Like Netflix, Hulu, Google TV, Apple TV and the like. I would imagine as more and more people start using these services, the bandwidth requirements will absolutely skyrocket in the next few years.

There is also the old saying that "the internet is for porn" and now with High-def, and soon 3D pr0n available I would imagine bandwidth will also skyrocket. (at least in my house it will)

Without the customer base to pay for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048238)

Last mile fiber will be a rare occurance in the near future, in the US anyway. Who wants to pay $100 for speeds that let them watch moves at only slightly better resolution available at the current typical cable speeds of 8-15 Mb/sce?

Re:The problem is not the backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048668)

It will take them some years of research to make a product that is cheap enough to do the job. It'll then take the rest of that decade to get the higher ups to even look at replacing parts of the backbone. Starting now is a Good Thing.

The last mile problem over here in the UK is starting to get sorted out as well (unless you're rural). Lots of firms are starting to try and sell fiber as the silver bullet to speed issues. Combine the two and the whole infrastructure may benefit!

Re:The problem is not the backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048724)

The technologies available for backbones already are fast enough for the next decade or so.

No they aren't. Most dark fiber is already sold, so when a Carrier needs a new circuit they're having to pay to lay fresh glass which is really expensive. If we could take existing fiber and cram 100 times the data down it, we might actually be able to increase capacity for reasonable prices instead of being gouged by the regional fiber monopolies.

The main problem is the 'last mile'.

No, that's not it at all. We can send you 100 meg service over cable modem, and DSL isn't all that far behind. There's also no trouble running a point to point or dedicated fiber circuit to the home. The "last mile problem" is called that because it's really expensive to upgrade the "last mile" because there's so much of it. But that infrastructure is already enough to supply quite a bit more than is currently being served.

However once everybody has fibre to their homes, there might be some bottlenecks on the backbone

There already ARE bottlenecks on the backbones, in fact 99% of the time your slow internet is backbone or other transit bottlenecks, not the "last mile".

Today you can, with off the shelf parts, transmit about a terabit per second over a single fibre.

There's no such thing as a "single fiber". If you're talking about over a single strand, then sorry you're wrong. If you mean over a single cable, well a cable is a bundle of strands. An OC-192 is 10 gigs, the highest current defined optical carrier is an OC-768 which is just under 40 gigs. So I don't know where this magical, mystical terrabit fiber strand comes from, but I'm sure there's a lot of Tier-1 providers who will be very interested in buying one from you.

A typical exchange would be connected to it's neighbours with hundreds of fibres, but serve only a few thousand households.

Ok, that just doesn't make any sense. Exchanges are used for POTS or DSL, that's it. Fiber, cable, etc. converge in nodes which are located out in the plant, not exchanges back in the CO. You have a single cable which runs from the home and terminates on a card in the local node. Each node can handle as many subscribers as you care to put cards in it. Then the node has a single point to point circuit back to the CO or datacenter. So from the node to the home, it's one cable per subscriber, from the node to the head-end it's usually just one cable, maybe two if an ISP finds it cheaper to drop a second circuit as opposed to augmenting an existing one.
And a node can service any number of subscribers, if you run into problems with space then you just install another node right next to it (probably even in the same enclosure).

Nothing really. (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047964)

What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

That would give me >2Gbit/s actual. I could stream what like 40 blurays simultaniously? Don't need it. Can't really imagine anyone who does, really. And I'd probably still be downloading from torrents because the TV/movie execs won't offer it here, no netflix, no hulu, no TV shows or movies on iTunes.

And for most things like series I follow my computer could just download it encrypted the night before in maximum quality, then deliver the key at release time. Bandwidth is really not a problem, at least the pirates seem able to deliver so it's strange if a big company couldn't. Sure I'd still take more if I could but it's no longer a bit deal. Before this is I had 2 Mbit down and that was horrible.

Re:Nothing really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048106)

People always say that, why would anyone need X amount of bandwidth? You provide it-content will come to fill it. Content you don't even know you want yet.

agreed. In fact, 640k should be enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048188)

..for anybody. I mean, what could people possibly need more than 640k for?

Re:Nothing really. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048264)

What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Two chicks at the same time.

Re:Nothing really. (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048290)

You can't get that continuous bandwidth unless the servers you hit can spool it out at that rate,
and all the pipes between you and your host are fat and empty.
Until the whole infrastructure steps up to the high-bandwidth plate, you can expect slow and slower
downloads while netflix and other parasites sop up the free bandwidth.

Re:Nothing really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048336)

Don't need it. Can't really imagine anyone who does, really.

What about owning a dumb terminal, while renting time on the latest Pentium ThunderCougarFalconBird, then just pipe the display across the network?
Or having a usable 'virtual' hard drive, just sign up for the service and you get a new drive in your system - connected at near-SATA speed.

I could stream what like 40 blurays simultaniously?

Or maybe one holographic 3D stream....

There are few applications for that kind of bandwidth NOW; but if everyone had it, you'd bet your life that service providers would be all over it with amazing new things.
The possibilities for that kind of bandwidth are staggering and so is your close-mindedness.

wow (-1, Redundant)

agus wazza (1986116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047966)

wow that alot's money http://agushome.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048692)

I have never seen the moronic spelling of "a lot" coupled with the retarded use of the apostrophe "s". I think we've hit rock bottom, folks.

True Worldwide Roaming (1)

sirlark (1676276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047970)

I'd set up my home desktop so that I could use any device I own, or anyone else owns that I might borrow or use, to log in to my own account on my own machine at local desktop speeds...

Re:True Worldwide Roaming (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048078)

Bandwidth != latency.

Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35047982)

I'd just bust my monthly usage allowance 100 times more quickly and then my connection would be throttled.

Nobody considers the consequences. (2)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047994)

Think before you act, English people. Haven't you realized that terrorists could use bandwidth to download terrorist instructions from their Italian masterminds into their Italian terrorist sleeper cells? Italians are everywhere in England plotting dastardly attacks on America and her GREATEST freind, Joe. And in England there are no hot dogs or Bibles. Coincidence? Think about it.

Oversell it (1)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048000)

I'm Speaking as the president of your ISP.

What would I do with 100x more? (1)

mpetch (692893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048010)

Well clearly what would happen is that I'd run up my usage charges beyond my unlimited data plan (with a 20G limit) and then pay the ISP through the nose much faster than I could ever conceive of before!

Re:What would I do with 100x more? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048086)

20G in a month? You poor bastard. I used 40G yesterday.

100 times what I'm already getting? (2)

nOw2 (1531357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048030)

What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Shit man, I'd be able to watch videos off YouTube!

In nearly a year and half, my local BT exchange has been congested. "Virtual paths: red". I went from November to January last year at 300Kbits/s on an 8Mbit ADSL line. This month it's been 700Kbits/s. Yet if I wake up at 5am, I have 7.1Mbit/s and can watch two HD streams off iPlayer.

About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048038)

Now you will be able to rub one out to your favorite cam girl in 3D

*duh* (1)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048052)

>What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Download porn a 100x faster? Why is this even a question?!?

More Information (2)

oggiejnr (999258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048058)

There is slightly more information in the grant overview from EPSRC http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/I01196X/1 [epsrc.ac.uk] although it is quite light of specifics.
The proposal appears to be usual blend of new modulation techniques, all optical switching and the usual "green" nonsense which is required to get anything approved these days.

Re:More Information (1)

adamGX (795663) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048246)

EPSRC grant forms are very heavily constrained on the amount of space you have to work with on the form hence the lack of detail here.

win win for ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048066)

That will just mean that people can burn through their monthly transfer in a few minutes.

Or more realistically, it will mean that the ISPs can sell you the same product for cheaper, charge you the same amount (or even charge you a little less but not so much as to come close to cover what they're saving) and pocket the difference.

100 Gbps? (1)

Meneth (872868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048134)

What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Not much. My local network is already faster than my hard drives. However, this could be very useful for the fiber networks that make up the Internet.

Re:100 Gbps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048368)

At least dirt cheap Samsung F3 disks write/read at about 150MB/s, that's 1.5 Gbps. RAID 1+0 4 of them, and you have 3 Gbps...

How much backbone is still unused? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048174)

At one point, during the dot com boom, fiber was way overbuilt. Something like 90% of it was unlit. I wonder how much that is still true. I wonder how much fiber has been abandoned and will never be used.

One of the problems, here in Canada anyway, is that the big ISPs have a lock on the market and have no incentive to improve the service. In fact, they have a reason to keep the service crappy. Shaw, Rogers and Bell sell satellite/cable TV that they want you to buy. Good internet, where you can get streaming TV, cuts into that market.

Stories about things like improved bandwidth just put up my blood pressure 'cause it's not going to happen any time soon around here.

I won't but ISPs will (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048186)

I won't benefit from hundredfold increase. But my ISP could benefit and wouldn't have to complain that they don't have enough bandwidth to serve all the customers torrenting 24/7.

The Next Generation (1)

athe!st (1782368) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048196)

Stream 3d porn to my holodeck

Hit my monthly acceptable usage cap in under a day (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048242)

Faster connections are great, but until the ISPs sort out their infrastructure and business models to let us use it, it's completely pointless.

Unless you want to be charged per GB that is. And I certainly don't.

Re:Hit my monthly acceptable usage cap in under a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048528)

And we probably won't be able to sign up for anything less than their Ultra-Fibre Line, at $60 a month, even if we just want something basic. I would love to get a 1mbps for basic Internet use for my family (email, Facebook, banking) and not have to subscribe to a $50 a month package. But since there's too small of a margin, I doubt I'll ever be able to get that.

The world is moving forward, and the ISPs (at least in Canada) are trying to maintain the status quo with their packages.

We want I/O speed boost (1)

dogganos (901230) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048252)

...not network!!! Who needs more that 1Gbps?????

Depends what it costs (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048266)

Since my current connection is 15MBit/s and only costs me a few £'s (british pounds) a month, I can say that I'm quite content with that. If the cost of a 100x faster connection was 100x more - or even 10x more, then the answer would almost certainly be "no thanks" If it was an extra quid or two then yes, OK, I'll take it. However I'm under no illusions that having a 1GBit/s connection to my home is pretty worthless if the source is still only running at 1MBit/s.

Re:Depends what it costs (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048308)

I found UK connections to be outrageously expensive for what you get, but hey im just french...

Read my mail. (1)

Altesse (698587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048302)

> What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Read my mail.
Yes, that's what expected of us French people, since with Hadopi now in effect we'll soon have no needs for wider broadband.
  • Download game isos and DivX ? Illegal.
  • Download legal mp3s ? No need for 100 times the speed
  • Stream / download legal TV shows and movies ? Again, no need for that speed, and French private TV networks make it really expensive for what it's worth

So, with something like 2 Gbps, I guess we're expected to have instantaneous chat and mail and be happy with that.

How about give me a 100x slower net... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048316)

...and just get the hell out of the way how I choose to use it?

A television with personalized ads delivered to you 100x faster is just 100x faster television with personalized ads.

Speed? (1)

j0el (154005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048356)

Is it pedantic to point out that speed and bandwidth are different?

Doesn't matter (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048410)

With UBB in Canada coming down thanks to the CRTC, increased speed is irrelevant. Hell I have 25 Mbit now with only a 125 GB cap - I can download my whole cap in under 11 hours.

Until broadband is unmetered the raw speed is becoming irrelevant since you will be unable to use it for anything it demands.

pfft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048414)

Wake me when they have a technology that convinces telco's to actually put fiber to my home in the ground.

Wrong end (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048446)

The problem isn't the local loop, its the ISP. Figure out how to get them to feed my neighborhood with more than 2 T1s and maybe we'll be getting somewhere.

Downloading my complete steam library (1)

mrcvp (1130257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048484)

of 230 games in about half an hour.

Eh. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048498)

What would you like to do with 100 times your own current network speed?

Nothing different.

Holographic TV (1)

BlueTemplar (992862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048644)

Only 100x? I'm not sure that will be enough for decent holographic TV...

I'd hit my monthly quota 100 times faster. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048662)

I'd love to buy more games on Steam, the price is better than in most stores where I live. The trouble is, and it already happened to me before, if I see a nice 5 game pack real cheap, I'll be able to download maybe 3 games, then I'd have to wait till next month to be able to download the other 2. Otherwise I'll hit my ISP's imposed monthly quota and I'll go from 10Mbps to 300kbps for the rest of the month. And if I don't want to wait untill next month to get back to 10Mbps, I'll have to pay US$20 for one more 20GB quota. Is bandwidth really that expensive?

What I would use an advance in networking for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048726)

I want to get the sort of jobs on offer in London without having to commute there or live there. I want to cycle for twenty minutes to a cheap building in a small town, and step into a virtual office that has all the benefits to the company of having everybody together in a central London office.

Finally (1)

HamSammy (1716116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048776)

I'd have my old connection speed back and hopefully my packet loss issues would be gone. When you live in cheap college apartments with included internet, you really get what you pay for.

If your included internet is by Airwave Networks, be ready to run or open your wallet. Seriously, any latency-critical applications like online games are completely unusable for me.

What is "100 times faster than today." (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048816)

What is "100 times faster than today."?

Everyone above so far is assuming they mean the latest vaporware from Cisco / Juniper / etc. You have to realize these are businessmen and journalists. They are probably talking about fully depreciated 100 megabit FDDI or 17 megaBYTE fiber escon when they say "today". In that case, with 10gig-E links I think I would be doing ... exactly what I'm doing now?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>