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!

German Cable ISP First To Deliver 4700Mbps Internet Connection

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the slightly-faster-than-my-new-dsl-connection dept.

The Internet 121

Mark.JUK writes "It's enough to make grown IT workers cry. German cable operator Kabel Deutschland claims to have become the first provider to successfully achieve a real-world internet connection speed of 4700Mbps (Megabits per second) after they hooked up to a local school's test account in the city of Schwerin. The ISP, which usually delivers more modest speeds of up to 100Mbps to home subscribers, used its upgraded 862MHz network, channel bonding, and the EuroDocsis 3.0 standard to achieve the stated performance. But don't expect to get this kind of speed tomorrow; right now there's no demand for it among home users, and you probably couldn't afford the bandwidth anyway." ("No demand at its current price," at least.)

cancel ×

121 comments

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

40,960 Mbps has already been done. (1)

Internal Modem (1281796) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165481)

Not the first:
A 75 year old woman was first. [thelocal.se]

Re:40,960 Mbps has already been done. (4, Funny)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165541)

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of backup tapes.

Re:40,960 Mbps has already been done. (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165855)

I hear the latency is pretty high, though.

Re:40,960 Mbps has already been done. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40167195)

But don't expect to get this kind of speed tomorrow; right now there's no demand for it among home users, and you probably couldn't afford the bandwidth anyway.

Never underestimate the amount of freaky porn on the Internet.

Re:40,960 Mbps has already been done. (3, Interesting)

Rainbowdash (2645097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165951)

Yup, we Swedes will always be strong in the "internet scene." A friend of mine just got his 1GBPS connection :( And he pays half my price :

Re:40,960 Mbps has already been done. (1, Redundant)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166199)

GOOD FOR YOU!

Re:40,960 Mbps has already been done. (3, Informative)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166297)

Translation: Since I will lose the argument vis-a-vis USA vs. The Way Everyone Else Provides Internet, I will shut down the conversation preemptively by spouting something meaningless yet somehow jingoistic. Good for you.

Re:40,960 Mbps has already been done. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169003)

Well, not quite everyone else. Internet service also sucks pretty badly up here in Canada.

That 5-year-old article was posted here back then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165955)

That is a 5-year-old article you linked to (as its says, "Published: 12 Jul 07"). I remember it when it actually happened and the first time a link to the article at thelocal.se was posted at Slashdot.

That connection was purely done as a pr demo (stunt), as the article says.

Still, the article has been amended. In the original article she said that she had no idea what to do with the internet or the speed, but the heat generated by the equipment was useful for drying her laundry.

Wow, I'm amazed... not. (5, Informative)

imagined.by (2589739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165487)

They used 12 modems and thus 12 seperate channels which means in reality, they only transmitted about 400mbit per "subscriber" (cable).

While this is nifty, Kabel Deutschland subscribers' bandwith is often shared, which means at peak time you don't even get 30 of the promised 100mbit. In addition to that, they slow you down after a 10gb quota/day. And in addition to that, they often throttle certain protocols, namely torrent.

This is one of the worst ISP in Germany who just made a totally useless world record.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165601)

These 'ISP record' attempts are doubly pointless(in addition to the fact that they never indicate the slightest enthusiasm to actually offer something even approaching that speed, at any reasonable price, to any of their customers) because they typically are markedly slower than the already-standard high-speed interconnects that tie more central sites together.

If you are going to play pure speed-racer games, it really makes more sense to just have a set of categories based on medium(eg. 1km legacy POTS copper, 1km legacy coax, 1km single-mode fiber, 10km of each, etc.) There are real engineering challenges, and nontrivial advances, in the ability to shove more data over a link of a given nastiness; but 'records' based on unrealistic location stunts are just pointless(Telco B could just pull some fiber to a convenient school tomorrow and pull off a 'first-to-deliver 10,000mbps internet connection! and Telco C could just pull a few more strands and deliver twice that, and so on).

If you want to boast about how cool an ISP you are, you need speed, breadth, and price. If you want to boast about your super-sneaky transmission methods, just tell us about the medium, the distance, and the bitrate; but this nonsense is a pure stunt.

Sad trend (0)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165621)

Unfortunately, this is true worldwide
For example I pay 1399 INR for a 4mbps ADSL connection in India (25$ approx).
However, monthly quota is 30GB, after which you get throttled to 256kbps

Some countries have 200-300GB quotas as the norm, while people like us are at 30GB.

The 20$ plan from the same ISP gives you around 10GB/month quota.
I expect the problem to get worse in the future.

Re:Sad trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165735)

Canada: 25$CAD for a 2Mbps connection with a download+upload combined cap of 35GB per month. And the ISP has a monopoly in the region, there's no alternative.

Re:Sad trend (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166019)

Look at the bright side - the US FCC chief wants to charge users by usage with no throttling and no cap, so if, for instance, your kid downloads 100GB of data, you may be paying a variable rate of, say $1000. Making internet access into something like a 2 dollar a minute 1-900 number terrifies me more than bandwidth caps.

Re:Sad trend (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165921)

Prices here in Norway:
Uncapped 5 Mbps ADSL: Around $50
Uncapped 60/60 fiber: Around $90

Okay quite a bit more than you're paying but Norway is in general an extremely expensive country overall, an average full time salary is $75k so by our standards it's cheap. And I once downloaded a 500GB torrent, it really is uncapped. And this country has a population density of 13/km^2 as opposed to India with 368/km^2, delivering broadband there should be much much cheaper. I honestly wouldn't worry it seems mostly like a US problem, all of Europe is constantly upgrading. For example here's from an article I recently read on Britain:

BT said that 7 million premises are now on its fibre network, and this year that number will grow to 10 million. The ultimate target is two-thirds of the UK by the end of 2014.

Oh and they'll also triple top speed from 100 Mbps to 300 Mbps. Any new apartment block or any new housing field is wired with fiber and it's being retrofitted to a lot of old housing too. It's not a question of whether it's the future, but how long it'll take.

Re:Sad trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166889)

The more I hear things about Norway, the more my desire to move there grows.

Some of the best democoders are from Norway, Netherlands, etc. Seems like a nice corner of the planet.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (2)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165629)

Even if it had been one modem and line, being able to use multiple channels for downstream and upstream traffic was pretty much the point of DOCSIS 3.0. Assuming the network itself has the bandwidth, getting higher speeds is really just a matter of using more lanes - for 4700 Mbps down, I think that'd be around 90. It'd be cool and all, but raising the max bandwidth of a DOCSIS 3.0 device doesn't really take much other than network capacity and a modem that will use that many channels - channel bonding isn't new.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (3, Interesting)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165655)

subscribers' bandwith is often shared

All ISPs are shared at some level. I'm assuming you mean the node bandwidth is shared/over-subscribed?

They used 12 modems and thus 12 seperate channels

Many modems can bond up to 8 virtual channels on the down stream. As far as we know, it could have been anywhere from 1-8 8mhz channels per modem. Even with a single 8mhz channel, DOCSIS3 can bond 8 virtual CDMA channels for a combined bandwidth of 8X50Mb/s=~400Mb/s (EuroDocsis). DOCSIS3 has no limitation on how many channels may be bonded, but I'm not sure of any modem that supports more than 8 right now.

Still cheaper/simpler to use fiber, but cable can manage some crazy high speeds if you throw enough tech/money at it.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165821)

While this is nifty, Kabel Deutschland subscribers' bandwith is often shared, which means at peak time you don't even get 30 of the promised 100mbit.

Still better than what I am pulling down during peak times here in Wisconsin. I pay for 25 Mbit and the only time I ever seem to be able to get it is when I'm running Charter's speed test on their web site at the behest of the CS people when I call to complain (how convenient, am I right?). Any other time, my 25 Mbit connection tops out at 12, and that's off-peak. Between 5PM-9PM, I'm lucky to pull down 3 Mbit and usually have

The last Charter tech that came out to my house (and I have them out at least once a year for service issues) told me to my face that my node was way over-saturated (due to the high volume of apartment communities in this area, there are 300 units in my complex alone and there are a dozen complexes along this street) but Charter doesn't upgrade their shit until enough people start dropping the service to make it worth their while. I guess QoS means jack shit to them...I know, surprise, surprise. Still, it's irritating because my only other choice is shit-tier DSL and from what other residents have told me, the phone lines in this building are piss-poor, too.

God what I would give for some real competition in this area. I imagine our Charter issues would evaporate virtually overnight...

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (2)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165915)

I lived in an apartment with shitty wiring, makes for some very frustrating DSL experience. Since I was at the perimeter of the complex and near the junction box the tech was able to work some voodoo magic and get my 3Mbps connection to work at at least 2...
I have always wondered why an apartment wouldn't pay for a fast connection then resell to the residents (or use it as a perk). Mine had close to 300 units, they could have made a killing by just slightly undercutting DSL/Cable internet fees.
-nB

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (1)

JustSomeProgrammer (1881750) | more than 2 years ago | (#40167431)

I actually lived in a new apartment building for a while. I moved in on the first day it was available to move in. They actually wired the apartments specifically for internet. Fiber to each apartment, nice switch panel that allowed a router in one room to provide internet to the entire apt etc. It was pretty nice. I moved... mostly because it was in New Jersey and living in Manhattan is so much cooler.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 2 years ago | (#40167199)

That sounds like the sort of thing you'd forward along to the town hall. The utilities might not care about you, but they do care about upsetting the government.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168289)

Stop on over here in Wisconsin. I get my 30Mb all the time from Charter, even during peak. Local ISP has 50/50 uncapped fiber for $90. Soon they'll have 100Mb+ symmetrical uncapped. No announcements on new tier speeds or pricing yet. BTW, they have a sub 15ms ping to Chicago and they use L3 as their upstream.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (1)

EdgePenguin (2646733) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169157)

That is capitalism for you; everything is margins, and margins are dependent on costs. Aside from well known premium brands that can charge high price (e.g. Apple) everyone makes money by trying to provide the absolute worst serivce that won't make you jump ship and take another supplier.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (2)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166041)

4700mbps = 587.5MBps
10GB = 10240MB

10240MB / 587.5MBps = 17.4s

17.4 seconds a day. you could use that magical connection for seventeen seconds a day.

sounds like the worst superpower on earth. can you imagine if the flash could run really fast for 17 seconds per day? superman could fly for seventeen seconds per day? it's like the megalixer you never use in a video game cause "what if i need it for the next fight?!"

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166221)

So? You downloaded 10 Gig of content in 17 seconds; now go read / watch it / do whatever which should take a lot longer than 17s.

Re:Wow, I'm amazed... not. (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166161)

I don't get quota but 10gb a day and then slow is better than some.

Personally it should be 2-3gb an hour and then slow for an hour. That will cut on torrents but still allow multiple streaming movies.

Of course torrents can handle the slow downs.

I'm so glad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165489)

" internet connection speed of 4700Mbps (Megabits per second)"

If they had not defined Mbps for me, I wouldn't have known what it meant.

Re:I'm so glad (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165733)

Well being that most consumer/business workstations only have gigabit network adapters. 4700Mbs is more then we can handle. Unless you have some expensive routers/switches that will give network connection to say 100 system (for normal internet use) (5 high end servers that are taking a huge load)

Most professional networks that take an average business load have a Gigabit router, and they are hosting a heck a lot of data off that router.

Re:I'm so glad (2, Informative)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165953)

I will tell you from my time working in a company that designed Ethernet PHYs and MACs, that most high end desktops and consumer gear can only maintain a 1Gpbs link, but can accommodate no where near that much BW. The best PCs can only sustain ~500Mbps throughput. Most on-board LAN and sub $100 PCIe LAN cards fall closer to 200Mbps. This is because they do not support DMA and are using Polled IO and the host OS for the LAN stack, much like the old winmodems did.
-nB

Re:I'm so glad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166355)

Some of your info is horribly outdated, the rest is flat out wrong.
~500Mbps real world throughput was what you could get with decent PCI 32bit/33MHz NICs. A decade ago.
To my knowledge, there never was a GbE NIC that didn't use DMA in desktop equipment.
Nowadays even a $15 PCIe x1 NIC or the crappy realtek on a $60 mainboard get ~850Mbit/s without jumbo frames and happily saturate the line with 9000 MTU.
Try it.

Re:I'm so glad (2)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166441)

PCIe x1 has the same throughput as PCI32/33, so you're going to see the same issues. I have TWO NICs in my system (three if you count the LOM).
The PCIe x1 NIC gives me 500Mbps, the PCIe x4 one with TCP offload gives me 950Mbps on the same workload (server they are connected to has a TCP Offload NIC as well.
The LOM NIC uses a single PCIe lane, so again it's slow.

Sorry to disagree with you, but with a IEEE compliant 1518 byte frame on a normal NIC you're going to have crap performance. Yes you can use jumbo frames if your app supports it and you will see vast improvements, but a TCP offload engine on the NIC will do even better.
-nB

Re:I'm so glad (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168559)

PCIe x1 has the same throughput as PCI32/33

PCIE 1.0 1x-lane is 250MB/s up and down and is dedicated between the chipset and device. Peak bandwidth ~500MB with very little overhead
PCI32/33 is 133MB/s up or down and has a shared interrupt style TDMA to the chipset. Peak bandwidth ~133MB minus a decent amount of overhead

Re:I'm so glad (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168697)

Go look at my post http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2886193&cid=40168401 [slashdot.org]
The data on my NIC, according to Intel's documentation, is that it takes up about 1mm^2 of the 45nm based chip. I don't know how many transistor you can pack into 1mm^2 on a 45nm process, but I don't expect it to be too complex. The whole-sale value of my NIC was listed about $5. You need to purchase some decent NICs.

Re:I'm so glad (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166689)

I will tell you from my time working in a company that designed Ethernet PHYs and MACs, that most high end desktops and consumer gear can only maintain a 1Gpbs link, but can accommodate no where near that much BW. The best PCs can only sustain ~500Mbps throughput. Most on-board LAN and sub $100 PCIe LAN cards fall closer to 200Mbps. This is because they do not support DMA and are using Polled IO and the host OS for the LAN stack, much like the old winmodems did.
-nB

I find your statement about lack of DMA and low throughput very hard to believe. I worked at Marvell Germany until September 2007 as a device driver developer and *all* of the then-current Marvell Gig chips (Yukon-II) *easily* managed 900+ MBits/sec, the Windows driver actually peaking at 980 megabits/sec. This was both for onboard controllers (e.g. Asus Mobos) as well as Ethernet cards, for all operating systems supported (Windows*, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, Aix and HP/UX).
Furthermore, *all* the drivers used DMA; only the Linux and Windows drivers offered the option of polled operation to *increase* throughput (no, not a typo, although it's counter-intuitive).
Note, however, the above numbers apply to proper Ethernet speed testing, using an in-memory data generator for the transmit side and a corresponding receive program on the receive-side, avoiding any reads or writes to a disk. Otherwise you'd just be testing the disk read and write speeds, which was a common mistake made by testers, and could well account for your low cited speeds.
Meaningful throughput tests may be performed by tools such as ttcp.

--Gerald

Re:I'm so glad (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168401)

Anecdote: My PC is 5 years old, cost around $600 from Best Buy, has an integrated Intel NIC, and IPerf can do about 1.5Gb/s(up+down at the same time) for ~10% cpu(almost a full core). You should see SMB2.0 transfer a sustained 116MB/s at 1.5% cpu load from my harddrive.

Modest? 100Mbit? (4, Funny)

Camaro (13996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165511)

It brings a tear to my eye to see the "modest" and "100Mbit" used in the same sentence. Yes, I realize that compared to 4700Mbit it is but I just got upgraded to 5Mbit so I still think you're insensitive clods!

And yeah, I'm sure I could find a use for 4700Mbit.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165639)

And yeah, I'm sure I could find a use for 4700Mbit.

Are you sure? When I first got a 10Mbps connection I couldn't use it to the max because my old computer couldn't handle it. Now I have a 30Mbps connection but I very seldom max it.
I guess you could stripe a few disks to at least be able to store data at that speed but storing data is not exactly the same as using it.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165935)

Most rust-bucket harddrives can handle ~100MB/s which is ~800Mb/s, which is quite a bit faster than 30Mb. No striping required. My SSD can handle ~550MB/s which is 4400Mb/s, which is almost the entire 4700Mb/s connection that they have. now finding useful data that you can push at those speeds is quite hard.

When I first got a 10Mbps connection I couldn't use it to the max because my old computer couldn't handle it

Must have been really old. Not only can I peg my 100Mb internet connection with little effort of Steam/Blizzard/Cloud/etc, but I can easily peg my 1Gb ethernet by grabbing a single file to SMB copy on my 5 y/o computer.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166251)

My SSD can write at 1400MB/s, so I'm all set. Where do I sign up, and can you bond 3 of these together?

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166127)

I have 100Mbit download and I often max out. Its not that hard either. A torrent can get it very fast, what is it, about 10MB per second?

Try downloading a ubuntu right after release, or pretty much any other big opensource pack. Steam updates only a bit slower, but still pretty fast. Same for some other services. Or having multiple downloads running at the same time. Things like updating wow probably get full capacity very fast as well.

And that all is without the things with really good services, like pirating. I still stand that many pirates are it because of a service problem. And those pirates provide one hell of a service. They are so much better at providing fast and stable downloads, for free.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165665)

Where do you live?? A trailer park in New Mexico?

As a former Qwest customer service specialist, I can advise you that you are being completely ripped off. Please agree to a 3 year term for a lower price that is still a rip off.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168873)

Please get off your high horse.

I live in Germany, about ten miles from a major city, and my DSL is incapable of going above a 384/96 connection despite my paying for a 2 mbps connection. Some areas just don't have the population density to make ISPs care.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165681)

Hell I'd be happy with 100Mbps. I'm in on e of the better connected cities in the US and I can only affordably get 12/6 ADSL. I could get 20/10, DOCIS but the cable company is known to be not good (Comcast).
What I want shouldn't be hard to do:
no BW caps, 20/20, metered usage on bulk BW rates. My Colo ISP provides this to me, and I pay $0.04/TB of BW. For residential I'd happily pay 25% more... Hell I'd be willing to bay several times that more, say $1.00/TB. Now, to be fair I also pay for a peering point at my ISP which would be analogous to a service subscription at a home internet account, I pay $25/mo for that. Why can't residential ISPs catch up with the DCs?
-nB

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168273)

yeah - Comcast is OK if you get Cable and internet, and I can get 20/10 DOCIS as well but I had issues with their fees - for instance, if you just want internet they tack on a $10 fee, and I refuse to get their cable service ever again. I had a lot of issues with their network being oversaturated between about 3PM and 9PM at night and getting horrible ping and data rates, as well, but that was before they added a significant fiber upgrade to the area. When I switched they also wanted $10 more for basic TV HD channels as well, which I get for free from DISH. Oh, and everything their marketing says satellite can't do like remote access and on demand programming? I can do every one, so they lie in their advertising too, so I have no respect for them - they're money grubbing, dirty advertising company. I can't say if they've fixed their service reputation since rebranding as XFinity (my parents get it, and they seem happy with it). In contrast, DISH has been nothing but joy to work with for pay TV - can update programming online, got relatively free equipment for HD (had to pay for a $4 service for 6 months to get it installed free, so technically it was $24), - they even threw in a free year of Starz to celebrate their 30th birthday - the best I got from Comcast as a 10 year subscriber was a few free HBO weekends and frequent price hikes as they absorbed more and more cable providers (actually, I went through 3 in the first year I subscribed to cable, with the third being Comcast, and yes it came with a price hike both times).

Incidentally, I would have stuck with Comcast internet because my DSL options were terrible - Qwest literally had no lines in the area so I went with a Rhapsody network provider despite knowing Rhapsody was a sinking ship (I got burned on Northpoint and it was obvious at that point Rhapsody was doomed as well, so I went with a provider that gave a free modem with 2 year subscription). Rhapsody lasted 8 months and the company ditched my contract since the alternate provider they moved to didn't have service in my area, which also happened to be enough time for Qwest to address their saturation problem, so I went with their service next. Qwest was purchased by Century Link, a company with a mediocre reputation (62% favorable on Broadband Reports), but I think Qwest's was worse. I really hope they replace the infernal ActionTec modems because I would switch in a heartbeat if I could (the ActionTec PPPoE modem provides no local loopback, so I can't see any servers on my local network using my domain name or IP, but I can see them from machines outside my network - Qwest said that was intentional, and I told them that was an asinine decision that made no sense and probably made by a PHB). If Clear didn't have such a horrible reputation I may have tried WiMax, but they do, so I haven't.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168735)

12/6? Luxury! I have 10/0.7. The upstream is so anemic that it can barely acknowledge the data coming in. One machine seeding at 50 KB/s cuts everybody else's download speed in half.

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165779)

5Mbit is the slowest I can get in my part of Germany. I am so glad I don't live in Florida anymore ;)

Unlimited, no cap, no bullshit + phone service for 20 Euro / Month

Re:Modest? 100Mbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166451)

Just a few weeks ago I learned my ISP (Shaw Cable) offers a 250Mbps connection in my area.

I live in a fairly small city (~35,000 people) in South Central Saskatchewan Canada.

I also found out we are the only Community in Saskatchewan that Shaw offers this to.

At $120/month, I can dump my digital cable and upgrade to this Internet package and it would still be cheaper than what I am currently paying.

On reading the future (2)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165517)

I have a 200Mbps connection at home, and for now it's fine for, well, everything. But it's really hard to tell what kind of speeds will be useful in the future. Let's imagine a virtual tailor service... Assume that you could go online, image yourself with a high res 3D webcam, and order custom clothes, complete with a virtual mirror to try them on. I'm guessing my 200Mbps connection would fall short at that point.

This is the kind of chicken and egg problem we have with broadband right now. The next generation of online services can't be profitable because the infrastructure isn't there, and at the same time there is "no demand" for really high speed connections, since there are no services that need them.

But at least one can stay positive and hope for cool sci-fi tech, right? ;)

Re:On reading the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165599)

200Mbps? Where do you live and what does it cost? Is it symmetrical?

And yes, I am jealous.

Re:On reading the future (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165741)

His sig says "Finland".

This doesn't surprise me. Most of the fastest speeds I ever see on torrents are Scandinavian countries. No, I don't know why that is, or how Nokia ended up making most of the world's telephones. Maybe they have an extra Telecommunications chromosome.

Re:On reading the future (1)

rolfc (842110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165795)

It's because we pull a fiber in to the living room. I have 100 Mbps that way. 200 SEK/month

Re:On reading the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40167103)

It must be a friend of Peter's mom: Sigbritt, 75, has world's fastest broadband [thelocal.se]

Something Scandanavians seem to desire is high-powered space heaters and clothes dryers and someone to exchange their HDTV video with during the long winter nights.

Scandinavians had the experience and know-how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168131)

GSM was a shared European project. However two Norwegian researchers wrote the standard (competition), the Swedes and Finns made the best network and handset hardware (Ericsson/Nokia). The Swedes and Ericsson developed a lot of technology we take for granted like Bluetooth etc.

It helped that Scandinavia had a wireless phone network using the NMT standard prior to GSM.

Re:On reading the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165945)

He has a ".fi" email address so I'm guessing Finland. I live in Estonia and I have 100mbit/20mbit connection with no capping or throttling and I can max it out every time I want to (and I do regularly). There are several ISP-s here that offer similar services and these connections are available in almost all towns however usually in the areas with more apartment buildings. Estonia is quite poor though with only $16k nominal GDP per capita so I think it makes sense that those connections don't reach absolutely everywhere. Our richer neighbors Swedes and Finns have much better connections and coverage.

Re:On reading the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165963)

Oh and it's I think quite reasonable 24€/month ($30).

Re:On reading the future (1)

Goateee (1415809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168993)

Have had 1000/100 available in my last three apartments. 55$/month currently, basic cable and phone included. A benefit of living in sweden :D

Re:On reading the future (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165727)

I'll re-iterate the AC on this one.
Where do you live?

I am (possibly) looking to move in the future, and my choice of location is dictated by the following criteria:
*Sane legal system (I'm in the US now, so we'll use the due process portion as our comparison of sane).
*Reasonable weather.
*Cheap and fast BW to the home.
*English as a recognized language (Let's face it, I'm a [stereotypical] Yank, and never did well learning a foreign language) .

I've actually been looking at the Isle of Man or Iceland, the latter fails the weather test, but seems to excel on the other parts, Isle of man has a scotch distillery, but I am a Speyside fan...
-nB

Re:On reading the future (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169017)

Like some pointed out, Finland.

Unfortunately moving here is not a trivial process, and the language is a huge hurdle. But I do love it, personally. Still, there are a lot of other good options too. :)

Re:On reading the future (1)

NumLuck (1632865) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165859)

Let's imagine a virtual tailor service... Assume that you could go online, image yourself with a high res 3D webcam, and order custom clothes, complete with a virtual mirror to try them on. I'm guessing my 200Mbps connection would fall short at that point.

Bad example: in the future, when 200Mbps connections are affordable for everyone, no one would require a tailor since everybody will pass their time in their basement, in underwear, enjoying their connection...

Re:On reading the future (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166167)

I'm pretty sure the virtual tailor service thing could be done quite easily with less than 200 Mbps.

Take lots of photos from different angles but in the standard "relaxed standing" pose used when doing 3D modeling. Use this data to create a 3D model of the user and to create and map textures. Take a few extra shots/some extra video in certain poses or with certain movements to determine rigging data. Send the data to the tailor.

The bandwidth needed wouldn't be very much at all, in total I'm guessing you could get pretty damn good results without transferring more than 20-30 MB of data.

Re:On reading the future (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169045)

I'm pretty sure the virtual tailor service thing could be done quite easily with less than 200 Mbps.

For a simple implementation: Definitely. For photo-realistic real time images mirroring you posing in real time? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't claim to be an expert on these things. :)

Re:On reading the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168387)

Until last year I've worked for a company that does offer exactly this as a service.
Body scanning, measuring your body size, virtual 3D try on and ordering of custom made clothes. Even the cloth cutting is optimized to waste as little cloth as possible for your measures. All in a nicely integrated process.

It works offline, though. The problem here is not the bandwith, I'm pretty sure your 200Mbps would be more than enough for that.
But you need the right hardware for taking precise measurements. We've used calibrated laser scanners for that. We've also tried an array of kinects, but for really good results the calibration is important, so the hardware is the big hurdle. Simply using your webcam wouldn't give you good enough results for custom fit clothes.

I really couldn't care less about speed (2)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165531)

What's the point if all they are going to do is cap your usage.

Re:I really couldn't care less about speed (1)

TraumaFox (1667643) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165559)

So you can reach that cap faster. Zoom!

Re:I really couldn't care less about speed (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165575)

"Well, we got our 2 minutes of browsing time today, but at least it was fast!"

Re:I really couldn't care less about speed (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165593)

It really is getting ridiculous. The speed is pretty much the least important number.

And real home consumer lever plans are already getting so bad such that you can use up your cap in an hour or 2 if you actually use the speed advertised.

Re:I really couldn't care less about speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166135)

That's true for my UMTS data plan. I could use up my 5 GB cap in 1.5 h. But I consider the 21€/month to be a fair price.

Re:I really couldn't care less about speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166921)

I told my ISP that and none of the first, or second level tech support could understand why.

They called me and told me I used 400GB one month, they're implementing 250GB caps for "heavy users" on everything but 20Mbps plans. And implementing $10 / GB over that. On my business line. And I'm a web developer.

I said, "If I use that at capacity, I'll hit the cap in a week and owe you $2000 per month (rough estimate, I had figured it out at the time) so I'm obviously not going to be doing business with you anymore."

They said "Call Bell (the only other ISP above 5Mbps in the province) then. They'll do the same thing.

Needless to say, I went back to 20Mbps (from 100Mbps.) My bill dropped ~$80 per month too, and the speed difference isn't all that noticeable most of the time.

I fucking hate Canadian telecomms.

Wait, what? (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165589)

4700 Mbit/s = 4.7 Gbit/s, how's that a record? The Gathering here in Norway had a 200 Gbit/s Internet Connection, topping Dreamhack in Sweden's 120 Gbit/s. Maybe it's some silly 4.7 Gbit over cable, but that's like the wold's fastest subcompact. And for all of us that have fiber to the home, yeah we know it's just what equipment you put on both ends. The cable itself could probably pull 100 Gbit/s with the right equipment.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165785)

With the assumption that they are using single-mode fiber, you will cap out at roughly 40Gbps to the home. If it's multimode, you could pull 100, but the max lengths are so much shorter, I'm not sure that is what they are using. Also, I suspect that FTTH uses the same link aggregation that DSL uses. A block's worth of homes all wire to a cabinet, from there to a switch, and a single (hopefully with redundant pairs) link back to the CO. That last link is important because it represents the maximum all the connected devices can add up to. I am positive this link is oversubscribed (which to be honest is likely just fine in this setting).
That last link is likely OC12 ATM, so 622Mbps shared amongst everyone (this is what ATT does for my DSL service BTW.)

from Wikipedia:

OC-12 / STM-4

OC-12 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 622.08 Mbit/s (payload: 601.344 Mbit/s; overhead: 20.736 Mbit/s).

OC-12 lines are commonly used by ISPs as Wide area network (WAN) connections. While a large ISP would not use an OC-12 as a backbone (main link), it would for smaller, regional or local connections. This connection speed is also often used by mid-sized (below Tier 2) internet customers, such as web hosting companies or smaller ISPs buying service from larger ones.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166079)

With the assumption that they are using single-mode fiber, you will cap out at roughly 40Gbps to the home.

They've done 111 Gbps on a single channel in the lab, but yes "only" 40 Gbps is more likely but I can live with that. Normally I can reach 5-6 MB/s actual transfer rates on my 60 Mbps fiber so it can't be that oversubscribed, I suspect the backbone hookup is far more than a OC-12. I could get 400 Mbps for about $1000/month, 1000 Mbps is available at "call us" prices so it's technically possible to get something ridiculously fast already.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166185)

60Mbps Fiber == 6MBps ethernet. (Fiber uses 10bit encoding, not 8 bit) You are not oversubscribed at all, I envy you.
-nB

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40167791)

Your equation is right but your reasoning is wrong. The various ethernet standards use different encodings, but all of them transfer more than 8 bits for every "useful" octet carried over the wire. However, ethernet speeds are always quoted in "useful" bits; the actual data transfer rate is in reality a little higher than the advertised rate.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166115)

Sure it's cable, they're using Docsis 3.0 which is a cable standard.

You can imagine where it goes from here... (2)

StormDawg (69193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165635)

He fixes the cable?

Re:You can imagine where it goes from here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166253)

Cloitus?

depressing .. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165773)

Here in the 3rd world (UK) I'm currently getting about 1-2 Mb/s. I live close to Canary Wharf but somehow, the infrastructure is stuck in the past century.
Meanwhile, I can get a much better bandwidth in my house in Zambia. And if I have problems with the ISP in Zambia, I can just switch to 4G, which is publicly available at a humane price.
In contrast, in the UK, they haven't even rolled out 4 G.
I'm stunned by how much a country like the UK lags in infrastructure - truly pathetic.

Re:depressing .. (1, Informative)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166027)

Which infrastructure?
I'm in the US and we routinely bash our countries' performance on internet infrastructure. But if you look at it as a whole:
We have:
*reliable power service
*reliable road service
*reliable rail service (commercial, not passenger)
*reliable POTS service
*reliable medical transport and care (I didn't say good, just reliable)
*reliable garbage service
*reliable food delivery
*reliable fuel
*reliable government (to a point, and again, not good always, bur reliable, there are no coups every other week)
*reliable water service
*many more things (police, fire, parks, schools, etc.)
Many of these we simply take for granted, but face it they are there for us. In many countries these basics are not there with the reliability that we enjoy. 4G and cellular have excelled in Africa, specifically because of the absence of POTS and power.
-nB

Re:depressing .. (5, Insightful)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166543)

Well, almost all of the things your listed were built by our grandparents. Since our grandparents didn't build fiber-to-the-house infrastructure, apparently it is not possible for us to even attempt to do so.

And a lot of those things, such as roads, garbage service, water supply, rail, and power, were built by our governments using tax money - which is absolutely forbidden in today's climate of economic religious fundamentalism which demands that all infrastructure creation and related services must be done by entrepreneurs - who have shown they cannot do what the governments of our grandparents did for less than an infinitely growing multiple of what the grandparents paid. Governments build and maintain for the lowest possible cost for the maximum possible return, while our new privatization model demands lowest tolerable service levels for a maximum, and ever-growing per quarter, return on investment. We will never have fiber to the house - with the exception of the very wealthy, of course.

Re:depressing .. (1)

ehlo (578765) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166905)

Wish I had mod points to mod you up. What is going on in this country?!

Re:depressing .. (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 2 years ago | (#40167303)

The gradual migration from workers to lawmakers and the subsequent legislation of their greed has left us in a terrible state... Whatever happened to doing a job because you knew it needed to be done???

Re:depressing .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168067)

you really think that Germany doesn't have all of those? or Finland? or Sweden?

Even your bus service sucks.

4G or WiMAX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168211)

There is no real 4G deployed in Zambia or even the US... Zambia's using WiMAX...

They're rolling out some real 4G across Europe now, TeliaSonera has working installations in major cities.

100Mbps? I'd settle for 10! (1)

lymang (207777) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165843)

I'd like to see 10Mbps at my house, to be honest. Charter makes all kinds of claims but we had to give them up due to down-time and horrible network performance. So we're stuck with Verizon DSL, which is at best 3Mbps. 100Mbps, I dunno what I'd DO with that bandwidth. Well, I guess I'd find something.

Re:100Mbps? I'd settle for 10! (1)

Life2Death (801594) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165995)

Weird, I have 100Mbps Charter at my home and get an average of 85Mbps to the fastest place I can test.

What that means in reality is downloading at 5-10MB/sec

Shaw in Canada (1)

sputnikid (191152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165847)

I am currently with Shaw Cable in Canada and have a 250 Mbps connection with 1TB of download cap per month for $110 CAD.

Re:Shaw in Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166171)

I am currently with Shaw Cable in Canada and have a 250 Mbps connection with 1TB of download cap per month for $110 CAD.

Yeah, but you have to have a router/firewall to support it and c'mon, you're not going to get 250mbit. If you're really lucky, you might hit 100mbit but 75mbit is more realistic.

Re:Shaw in Canada (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166313)

I am currently with Shaw Cable in Canada and have a 250 Mbps connection with 1TB of download cap per month for $110 CAD.

Man, would I enjoy using a time machine for the purpose of reading sentences like this to geeks 20 years ago...

What is the point? (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166081)

Most sites will throttle data to a single user anyway.

It is useful for torrents and other aggregated downloads, but not from a single site usage.

Re:What is the point? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40167365)

It's not just throttling, chances are their servers don't have something that can handle 4Gbps reliably since their connection likely isn't that large, if they are only serving webpages there is little need (say even a 1MB page) you'd need to get ~500 hits per second to need that bandwidth (43M a day) chances are you don't. People that would go nuts for this: distributed nightly backups, HD content uncompressed I think is pretty close to this size (not talking BR but straight from the cameera streaming) one connection per building kind of setups etc. I can see ISPs adding a box to an apartment building and then selling 250MBps to ~20 apartments rather than having to manage the boxes somewhere else/per flat hookup etc).

Wow, at speeds like that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166255)

it's all the scheisse porn you can eat!

sort of beyond home users (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166511)

Of course, the average home hard drive can't write that fast, nor can any home wireless connection or a 1 gigabit ethernet. It definitely sounds business only.

Something wrong mit deine cable? (1)

somarilnos (2532726) | more than 2 years ago | (#40166945)

If things go wrong with the connection, will they send Karl Hungus to fix it?

That's why they send him. He's an expert.

:-D.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166969)

Drool...

agreed at current price (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40167175)

Make it $50-100 and you'll see some demand :-)

Forget residential, what about businesses? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40167765)

We have a lot of issues with crappy connections to remote offices that would pay mega bucks for this kind of bandwidth. The main office in the big city has a nice fat 100 mbps connection, but their remote offices are stuck on 6 mpbs down and a measly 1.5 up - which means any time the try to transmit data back to the mothership, they're waiting 10 minutes for a single record to update. It sucks.

Has the available hardware caught up yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40167767)

The max speed I can get on the off-shelf routers here in 1 Gigabits per sec. It seems 10 Gigabits per second is some distance away from becoming commonplace. In that case how would such speeds be useful to the end user ?

Re:Has the available hardware caught up yet? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168915)

Saying an off-the-shelf router can handle 1Gb/s is like saying a smart car can handle 180mph because the speedometer goes that high. Just because they have 1Gb interfaces does not mean the low grade cpu can process and route packets that fast.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?