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!

Japan and EU Commit 18m Euro To Develop 100Gbps Internet Access

timothy posted about a year ago | from the just-lay-the-euros-end-to-end dept.

The Internet 69

Mark.JUK writes "The European Union and Japan have unveiled a joint investment of 18 million Euros that aims to build more efficient fibre optic broadband networks that are '5000 times faster than today's average European broadband ISP speed (100Gbps compared to 19.7Mbps).' The funding will go towards supporting six research projects, which range from an effort to enable fibre optic networks at more than 100Gbps (aka – STRAUSS), to investigating new ways of ensuring efficient use of energy in information networks (aka — GreenICN). Faster than 100Gbps fibre optic links already exist but the new research could potentially help to bring these closer to homes. Some ISPs already offer 1Gbps+ connections to home users; not so long ago everybody was still stuck on a 50Kbps dialup link or slower."

cancel ×

69 comments

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

Yay! (0)

Servaas (1050156) | about a year ago | (#44190441)

More bandwidth to suck my pc dry of all information!

Re:Yay! (4, Interesting)

sabri (584428) | about a year ago | (#44191545)

More bandwidth to suck my pc dry of all information!

What they are forgetting is that they ISP must have 100Tbps links then... 100G is already out there. But it is used to aggregate lots of 20Mbps links. If you have 1000000 subscribers on 100G links, you will need at least 1000000G to provide them with access, assuming 1:10 overbooking.

Invest your money in CSCO or JNPR while you still can. Shares are around $20/$25.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191745)

Why would you assume such low ratios of overbooking? Even today's DSL and cable networks have much higher overbooking than that. The problem isn't the upper tier link speeds, it is building switches with aggregate switching bandwidth to handle all these links. Upstream routing is already aggregated across many links and routers with CARP, VSRP and MPLS.

The problem that makes this stuff not scale is that internets are not built the way they are in "the fairytale of the internet" where everyone is connected to everyone else in a big mesh, they are built with very few networks providing huge fat MPLS trunks, and everyone else (most ISPs) being branches and leaves on that trunk. If it was structured according to the fairy tale, we would not have the huge engineering challenges of building those fat trunks, and instead have engineering challenges of how to propagate the ridiculous sized routing table that would emerge in such a fairytale, and the problems requiring distributed caching, owing to some network users originating over 10% of all traffic.

Re:Yay! (2, Insightful)

dj245 (732906) | about a year ago | (#44192117)

More bandwidth to suck my pc dry of all information!

What they are forgetting is that they ISP must have 100Tbps links then... 100G is already out there. But it is used to aggregate lots of 20Mbps links. If you have 1000000 subscribers on 100G links, you will need at least 1000000G to provide them with access, assuming 1:10 overbooking.

Until something faster than SATA3.0 gets a marketshare, I think it is safe to assume that only a very very tiny percentage of customers will even break 6Gbit for any length of time. 1Gbit is probably more than plenty for a household for the next 10 years.

In 2003, 512mb of ram was common and the PATA133 spec could do 133MB/s (or about 1Gbit/s) in the ideal case. Now we have 8gb or 16gb of RAM being common and a 6Gbit/s disk interface. At 100Gbit, 1TB of data is transferred in about 90 seconds. In 2023, we might have computers with 256GB of ram and a disk interface that can do 36Gbit. 4k uncompressed video is only about 3.7Gbit. I have a hard time believing that even in 2027 (15 years), 100Gbit will be all that useful for the home user.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44194069)

Hahahaha. Desktop computers are a dying market. Welcome to the mobile computing age. Btw, mobile processors are much much slower and have slower wireless instead of wired. So as of right now, 100Gbit is not even a concern. Its almost like we're going backward.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191573)

Well, stop using Windows you idiot.

Noob.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44192729)

"Noob" haha

Who even uses -that- epithet anymore?

Re:Yay! (1)

bbn (172659) | about a year ago | (#44193257)

This is not about getting 100 Gbps to your home. It is about building ISP networks with faster links. They are apparently not even trying to invent the 100 Gbps technology, they are just going to find out how it can be managed in a large network.

Re: Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200361)

well they are either ahead of the US in spying on their citizens or they put market powers ahead of spying. I've been wondering why I've had a 5mbps connection for the last ten years...

Hey (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44190445)

not so long ago everybody was still stuck on a 50Kbps dialup link or slower.

I'm still on 28.8kbps dial-up you insensitive clod!

Re:Hey (2)

KrazyDave (2559307) | about a year ago | (#44190477)

I'm still on 9600 baud you insensitive clout!

Re:Hey (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44190491)

bla bla bla 300bps you insensitive clod... was it ever slower than that?

Re:Hey (4, Funny)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year ago | (#44190499)

I'm not even on the Internet.

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44192511)

I didnt know there was a Slashdot BBS?

Re:Hey (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about a year ago | (#44193793)

I'm using an abacus with the calculations shouted down a tin-can telephone line you insensitive clod!

Re: Hey (1)

Electric Monk (171640) | about a year ago | (#44190529)

Blah, blah, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt [ietf.org]

Re: Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190819)

I wonder what the bandwidth of a homing pigeon carrying a 1TB flash drive is.

Re: Hey (1)

lloydsmart (962848) | about a year ago | (#44191307)

Bandwidth would be pretty good, but the ping would be terrible!

Re:Hey (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190585)

Bell 101 at 110 baud!

Re:Hey (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#44190611)

45.45 bps Baudot.

Re:Hey (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#44191419)

Yes, 110 and 75 baud. I don't recall anything being before that.

Re:Hey (4, Funny)

fisted (2295862) | about a year ago | (#44190501)

*smoke* *smoke* you *smoke*

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190583)

No 'Funny'? Come on people!

Re:Hey (1)

twocows (1216842) | about a year ago | (#44194653)

You joke, but once I finished with university and for about six months while I was looking for a job, I couldn't afford internet. I live in Michigan, where we have free dial-up via "Dial In Free," so that's what I used for six months in 2012 (and as a compsci graduate, no less).

For the most part, it was only bearable by using Opera with images disabled (they used to have this nice little feature where you could load an image on demand, very useful). So many sites now have image-based layouts or some fancy markup (like Gmail, but at least they have a lightweight version) that even some of the most basic sites take an hour to load unless you do some sort of selective loading. That's something I didn't have to do back in the 90s. Luckily, IRC still works just fine, and that probably kept me sane.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190515)

In the U.S., this will be rolled out as 100gbps, 250GB/mo capped.

Re:Of course (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190579)

Man, I wish I had a 250GB/mo cap. I'm still stuck with 60GB/mo, on a 25 / .5Mbps connection.

Re:Of course (2, Funny)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44190689)

Why do yanks have so crappy Internet connections? They are a superpower after all.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190919)

It's a preventative measure by RIAA & Friends to make sure nobody pirates their shit.

Re:Of course (1)

ByTor-2112 (313205) | about a year ago | (#44191063)

I really think that is part of it.

Re:Of course (1)

TheLink (130905) | about a year ago | (#44192781)

Also any faster and the NSA won't be able to keep up... ;)

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191439)

Because we're pushovers for the "free market" and the telecom companies aren't done sucking us dry.

Re:Of course (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44191535)

Never underestimate the power of a large number of undereducated, rural hicks can have on the political system.

They've been waging a war against urban areas for years. And largely winning due to the political system giving them a disproportionate vote.

Re:Of course (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#44192203)

and crappy mobile phones/networks, it is strange that a relatively well off country has such poor tech infrastructure.

Re:Of course (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44192749)

Because oligopoly [youtube.com] .

what good is all that bandwidth? (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year ago | (#44192923)

We don't need very much bandwidth to click "checkout" ten times a day (doing our part to prop up the world economy). Why do the rest of you think we need so much bandwidth, is there really that big of a demand for high defininition streaming video. I can't believe all of you are watching porn at the same time.

Re:what good is all that bandwidth? (1)

expatriot (903070) | about a year ago | (#44193687)

At least part of the "need" for fast download is to have a website with lots of graphics and images render as soon as you enter the URL. The peak information flow is very fast, then you sit there for 15 seconds thinking about what to click.

this is a very different subjective experience than waiting for 15 seconds for the site to display fully.

Most development in processors seems to be focused at shortening the delay between a key or mouse click and something happening on the display.

Re:what good is all that bandwidth? (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year ago | (#44199889)

I have enough bandwidth to render nearly any page in less than 15 seconds. but the latency from both the network and the server side processing is such that it takes quite a bit longer than that.

18 whole million euros? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190525)

That's.. what.. like a day's worth of toilet paper for Bill Gates?

$36 Mil is chump change (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#44190555)

If that's all it takes why am I still paying $60/mo for 1 mb down...?

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44190607)

If that's all it takes why am I still paying $60/mo for 1 mb down...?

Mb or MB?

That's pretty sad when in the Commune of Quebec in the Soviet Republic of Kanada you can get 60Mb down / 10Mb up for $80 a month [videotron.com] . (And according to speedtest.net, they're lowballing it, it's actually 62Mb.)

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (2)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year ago | (#44190711)

Or in Redneckistan Virginia, 50/25 (FiOS) for $45.

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (1)

grahamsaa (1287732) | about a year ago | (#44190839)

$45?!? That same plan costs me $60 in western PA! And I thought I was getting a good deal :(

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44190873)

Or in Redneckistan Virginia, 50/25 (FiOS) for $45.

Nice, but then you'd have to live in Virgina! (I kid... Apparently Viginia is quite nice, and the guy who said that was a Pakistani Muslim immigrant so the whole "redneck" thing has to be exaggerated, or at least in suburbia.)

"Martha, there's a nice young man at the gate trying too sell me FiOS... Can you bring him a bowl of that squirrel stew and my checkbook?"

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191127)

You got FiOS in Virginia? Where?

I'm stuck on ShenHell with a 2.5mbps ADSL line that maybe works 5 days a week, and they won't offer cable, even if you have a TV package.

Fuck the American internet. I'm going satellite as soon as my DSL contract runs out.

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190889)

If that's all it takes why am I still paying $60/mo for 1 mb down...?

Mb or MB?

That's pretty sad when in the Commune of Quebec in the Soviet Republic of Kanada you can get 60Mb down / 10Mb up for $80 a month [videotron.com] . (And according to speedtest.net, they're lowballing it, it's actually 62Mb.)

In Socialist Heaven Finland, I get 100Mb down / 10 Mb up for 30eur/month, which amounts to around 40 usd, and I get more or less what you'd expect from it with the protocol overhead... and below 10ms latency. I just wish they offered symmetric 100Mb/s.

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44191541)

Yeah, but then you have to put up with the government there actually helping the people and the people not going out of their way to destroy the government.

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191903)

Up to 250GB, yes. Then it's $1.50/GB beyond that, with NO limit of how much extra they can charge. So if you do 400GB per month (using something like hulu, torrents, steam, etc) then you're over $300 for that month before taxes.

Because (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190715)

The bandwidth providers and telecoms are a Cartel, no different than OPEC. They collude together to get prices fixed at exactly the price they want to optimize profits for their companies. Forget about them caring about how fast your internet is - these guys only care about squeezing every last ounce of profit out of your $60.00 a month for themselves. The subsidies they get from government through your tax dollars that are supposed to fund things like expanding their infrastructure to 100gbps go right in their pockets and no one seems to care or says a word about it. They want profit for themselves and shareholders - private and public. It's all about them, and their selfishness.

What's really happening though is now funny. Due to their greed and never giving a fuck about the consumer - Instead of properly investing all of this crazy cash they had into 100gpbs networks over the last 15 or so years, is that consumer demand is going to outstrip available bandwidth by 2018 (According TFA). Yes - their greed could quite kill their business or run it into the ground with bandwidth demand over-saturating their networks. If they don't invest this pitiful 36 Million their business model could die so they are forced to do it finally. That's not to say once they have 100gpbs available you will get any of that to use. You will most likely still be throttled at 60.00 a month at 1mb down even though there's a thousand fold that easily available.

Great times. I'm proud to be a human being.

Re:$36 Mil is chump change (1)

fazig (2909523) | about a year ago | (#44191203)

Cry me a river, assuming you're talking about 1MByte/s. I get 2mBit/s down and 128kBit/s up for 40€/mo (~$51.67/mo) in Germany, from the major ISP, Telekom.
They don't want to expand their infrastructure apparently because it is 'too expensive'. If I want any more bandwidth they politely tell me that I'd have to move or get WiMax.

Put 18m Euro more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44190565)

Put 18m Euro more, to develop Petabyte hard drives.

100Gps of Internet Access and nothing to download (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191015)

I used to get a warm and fuzzy feeling deep in my heart when I heard news about bandwidth increases. The network can never be fast enough.

But now streaming media has taken over. Now 'cloud' services are taking over. Now everything has to happen 'in the net' and not on my PC anymore. And the network can never be fast enough for any of this, but it seems like I'm paying more and more, yet owning less and less.

When I hear news like this now, all I get is a not so fuzzy feeling in my gut telling me this is the beginning of the end of my rights to own anything. 100Gbps and it will be used trick us into the believing that streaming is the answer for everything. And not in a streaming fast download sort of way, but in a locked down "you'll never download anything again" sort of way.

Re:100Gps of Internet Access and nothing to downlo (1)

ByTor-2112 (313205) | about a year ago | (#44191073)

Build your own storage array. It's not hard. ZFS!!!

All that's lacking... (2)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44191021)

Japan and EU Commit 18 million Euro...

A whole eighteen mil, huh. I guess all that's lacking is Dr. Evil's voice... :p

Faster internet speeds: Good or bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191081)

Until now they've been by default a good thing but now I'm not so sure. Faster internet speeds generally mean more services are hosted on the internet, and, given the as yet unsolved problem of all-encompassing rampant nightmarish state spying on the internet, one wonders if that's a good thing.

It feels like it's time to take a step back and come to some sort of conclusion about what we want the internet to be before we develop it or build it out any further.

A missing fact (2)

amightywind (691887) | about a year ago | (#44191241)

And I'm sure the NSA is committing $18 billion to eavesdrop on it efficiently.

18 Million? (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about a year ago | (#44191363)

color me unimpressed is that a typo? is that billion? it sure feels like it should be billion

Re:18 Million? (2)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44191555)

I'm actually rather impressed if it's only going to take them 18m to develop the access. I'm guessing that this is just the research end of it, and not the deployment. But, who knows.

Meanwhile... (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#44191405)

The American incumbent telcos have "pledged" a similar amount of money to suppress any regulation that would threaten their oligopolistic practice of wringing out their customers while providing world class shitty service.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

chrish (4714) | about a year ago | (#44194043)

They need to study the telecom oligarchs in Canada; they're doing the same thing for significantly less "investment" in lobbying!

Australian broadband. (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#44191673)

I'll be impressed if they do this at 1/2000th of the cost of the Australian NBN. Either someone didn't know the difference between million and billion (could be if the article was originally in another language given that milliarde 10^9 follows million 10^6 and the billion is long billion 10^12 in many languages), or this is a token donation which will ultimately be a waste of money and won't net anyone any speed increase.

5000 times faster (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#44191761)

5000 times more capacity / bandwidth would be more correct. Unless they intend an FTL technology.

Whenever I see this kind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44191911)

of positive stuff from the EU, I always know it's one of the smaller less corrupt nations that holds the rotating presidency. Now, Lithuania hold it:

"According to the Speedtest.net website, as of 30 October 2011 Lithuania ranks first in the world by the internet upload speed and download speed, schools and corporations ignored.[53][54] The high speeds are largely due to the fact that Lithuania has the EU's and Europe's most available FTTH network."

From wikipedia.

Coming soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44192901)

...to everywhere apart from the UK!

Not everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44193561)

"Some ISPs already offer 1Gbps+ connections to home users; not so long ago everybody was still stuck on a 50Kbps dialup link or slower."
well, in my town in italy, I'm still stuck with isdn. yeah italy sucks when it comes to internet speed.

Re: Not everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44195399)

1 gb here in norway (Altibox fiber).

US, China and Iran commit to resisting (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about a year ago | (#44195751)

In related news...

    US, Australia, China and Iran commit to resisting higher speed internet access citing concerns that they might not be able to collect all of the information that their people might generate at that speed. "I looked into his eyes and I could see a kindred soul" President Obamma says of Ahmadinejad after returning from the conference where they all quickly agreed to enact an internet speed limit.

do notwant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44196017)

I'm perfectly happy with my 1.5mbit "high speed internet" connection that the US government considers sufficient.

Besides, if 1.5mbit costs me $60/mo already, by linear extrapolation there is no way I could afford 100gbit at the rates the US Corporate Masters would charge for it.

Chicken Feed (1)

jess_wundring (450803) | about a year ago | (#44198121)

In the US, 18M Euro (23M US) is a governmental rounding error.

I mean, heck, that's not even a third of what it costs to send our president to Africa for the week.

And yet, OTOH, I can't even imagine what 100GBS would feel like. The best I can get in my neck of these American woods is 4MBS, and keeping it costs a little over $120/month, with taxes.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?