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!

Wired and Wireless At the Same High Speed

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the zoom dept.

110

Roland Piquepaille writes "The next generation of optical networks needed to satisfy our appetite for bandwidth is currently under development. And researchers from Georgia Tech have built a new architecture which delivers super-broadband wired and wireless service simultaneously. This hybrid system 'could allow dual wired/wireless transmission up to 100 times faster than current networks.' In fact, this optical-wireless network can carry as many as 32 different channels, each providing 2.5 gigabit-per-second service to your home or your office. And companies such as NEC and BellSouth are already working on such hybrid optical-wireless communications networks."

cancel ×

110 comments

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

WiMAX? (4, Interesting)

Landak (798221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14949970)

Is this going to be the successor to Intel's somewhat vapourware "WiMAX [wikipedia.org] " project - or is it this in all but name?

Re:WiMAX? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950420)

WiMAX isn't vapourware. It's just been officially approved and commercial products are starting to hit the shelves

WiMAX is for long-range communication (3, Interesting)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950436)

Wimax is for city-sized networks. I wouldn't expect this new technology to work well over long distances or in bad weather; one of the articles indicated they were using milimeter-wavelength frequencies, which puts it somewhere around 100Ghz, which is stopped by water vapor. Wimax uses much lower frequencies (with correspondingly lower data throughput) that can (to some limited extend) go around corners and penetrate fog and rain.

Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (1)

captain igor (657633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950582)

The data capacity of a wireless system actually isn't dependent on the transmission frequency (the 100GHz frequency you specced for the first technology). It's dependent on the signal to noise ratio (which can depend on where in the frequency domain you're operating), and the available bandwidth (range of frequency on which you're transmitting data). A signal with 6MHz of bandwidth (TV channel sized) can carry the same data if it's mixed to 100KHz as at 100GHz (given the same SNR).

Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (1)

captain igor (657633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950591)

On further inspection, it probably wouldn't be wise to mix a 6MHz channel to a center frequency of 100KHz. Let's say you mix it to 10MHz instead =)

Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950656)

On further inspection, it probably wouldn't be wise to mix a 6MHz channel to a center frequency of 100KHz. Let's say you mix it to 10MHz instead =)
Yes, you may have some difficulty finding sufficient bandwidth at 100Khz to fit a 6Mhz channel. What you originally said is correct, that throughput is proportional to SNR * bandwidth. However, there is less bandwidth available at lower frequencies.

Re:WiMAX is for long-range communication (1)

captain igor (657633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950600)

Upon even further inspection, I notice that you work for a networking lab, and probably already knew all that. *sigh*

Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (4, Informative)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950004)

Because the capacity of optical fiber is so high, this optical-wireless network could use wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) to carry as many as 32 different channels, each providing 2.5 gigabit-per-second service. That would allow users within buildings to subscribe to services from many different providers, each with their own content.

At first I was confused, because the article seemed to be talking about internet access. But then I noticed that Bell South was one of the sponsors. So, welcome to the future of the internet as envisioned by Bell South.

Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950058)

So, welcome to the future of the internet as envisioned by Bell South.

You mean AT&T. Or whoever buys them out.

Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950668)

Doesn't matter what you call them. All the baby bell's are buying each other back up to reform the giant monopoly. And then they'll be broken up again, and the cycle repeats. Looks like the cable companies are getting in on the act as well. But I digress...

I think (hope) what was actually intended by the abovementioned bold text was that your router would spit out signal on 32 different channels (and each computer could have its own, until you've got way too many machines connected to your home network), and each channel has the full whatever bandwidth, not the choose a single channel and then split the bandwidth between all connected machines approach we have now.

I'm not so sure I like the idea of 100ghz waves being emitted everywhere. Or the idea that the people designing these systems think that 2.5Gb/s is a hundred times faster than the 10Gb/s networks you can set up (or even the tremendously cheaper 1Gb/s network which is fast becoming a real option within the home; even still it's not 100 times faster than the much more standard 100Mbit connections or 54Mbit wireless)

Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950517)

Exactly. I was hoping I'd see the name of a company that might be able to offer some competition. So far, same 'ol same 'ol.

Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (1)

NateTech (50881) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951112)

And Bell South was just bought by AT&T...

(Cue: Empire Strikes Back Soundtrack...)

Re:Is this internet, or broadcast TV? (2, Insightful)

Kizeh (71312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951761)

Because the capacity of optical fiber is so high, this optical-wireless network

Well, except the new free space optics solution -- which isn't new per se, companies have had niche products for years -- isn't constrained in an optical fiber which would prevent interference. Instead it uses free space, and this immediately limits your bandwidth as you ultimately have to share it with people nearby you or nearby the other end of the air interface.

catch? (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950009)

So if this new technology is going to be 100 times faster on both mediums why are they planning to use wires at all?
Maybe it's because the wireless solution will suck so many frequency bands that it can't unleash it's full power unless you are living in a really remote area where other APs are quite unlikely.

Re:catch? (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950105)

From TFA:
amplified for short-range wireless transmission at frequencies of 40 to 60 gigahertz.
Anyone want to comment on how useful a 40~60 GHz signal is outside of a relatively controlled environment?

Re:catch? (5, Informative)

erick99 (743982) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950137)

Pure line-of-sight and signals at those frequencies are absorbed by all sorts of things including tree leaves (of all things). You need a really straight shot from transmitter-to-receiver. You also cannot run a great deal of power at those frequencies which can affect range. We play around with gigahertz range transceiving in ham radio and there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. I imagine they have so far tested it mostly in fairly ideal conditions(?). Erick KE3PB

Re:catch? (2, Insightful)

cciRRus (889392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950381)

Pure line-of-sight and signals at those frequencies are absorbed by all sorts of things including tree leaves (of all things).
Tree leaves are not really an issue since there is "pure" LOS, no blockages. However, the issue with such high frequency transmissions is the EM wave energy being absorbed by the water molecules present in the atmosphere. This presents a high level of signal attenuation which greatly reduces the range of the wireless tranmitter.

Imagine you get the full data rate before it rains, but when it rains, you're left with just 1/8 of the promised data rate because when it rains, the wireless signal is weakened and causes and physical layer of the network to switch to a more error-resilient physical profile (lower data rate but longer range). Irritating, isn't it?

Re:catch? (1)

eonlabs (921625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950992)

Sounds to me like the 5 mile walkie talkies that can function up to half a mile in ideal conditions. What ever happened to using more than a few percent ( 10% ) of the optical fiber laid. At least in a sheathed situation, the fiber is guarenteed to carry a significant amount of data rapidly. I'm also not sure how effective working on improving bandwidth is when the current tech is as faulty as it is. When I was in texas, I was across the street from my broad band provider, and had regular net outages several times a day.

Outside a controlled environment (2, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951152)

If you go all the way up to 60 you hit a band which is absorbed by oxygen molecules. Signals don't go very far.

Before then you're in a range that the military has used, at least experimentally, to image runways when landing in fog.

Think short ranges (1 km for sure), shorter in humid environments, and a relatively benign interference environment since there are so few natural sources in that range and it's so easy to make a small highly directional antenna.

People have only been holding off on deployments because the equipment was still loaded with unaffordable amounts of early adopter tax.

Re:catch? (1)

swale44 (630395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951829)

So we are going from a wave length of 1500 nM to about 6 mM, a large expantion. The wave guide would be 1/8 by 1/4 inches , or antenae 1/8 high. Have a good cleaning crew in a public space. It is just that I remember my father's tales of sailors chipping paint off the wave guides in WWII. It may survive dust motes but dust bunnies will kill it.

Re:catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950303)

Wired is also more secure for a lot of people. I don't want to use 128bit encryption and have to tell everyone who wants to log what the code is, and try to keep it somewhat secret since the signal will leave our property. It's just easier to limit network access to physical access which is already secured.

Re:catch? (1)

llamaxing (895844) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950541)

nbert, if I seem rude, please excuse me. I simply assume you don't know much about the various medias. The reason for both the wireless and wired media is simple. Wireless is amazing in terms of how it works through sound waves, but try sending a signal through a cement wall located between you and the access point (the antennas that pick up the wireless signal). Worse yet, TWO cement walls! Plus the sound waves will eventually become weaker as it goes further and further. With fiber, however, you can use those bad boys in ANY environment since the potential noise for other media -- including electrical magnetic signals and sound waves equal in frequency, to name a few -- do not effect it, making it useful in and through any room and at great distances without losing a hint of the signal (excluding any energy transferred into heat, for all the networking buffs... or poor termination) I hope that answers your question.

Re:catch? (1)

superflyguy (910550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950581)

um... those would be RADIO waves... not sound waves. Which sort of follow similar rules (being waves and all), but are definitely different...

Re:catch? (1)

llamaxing (895844) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950594)

wow, thanks for catching my mistake. Seriously, no sarcasm involved. Sound waves is the compression of air via vibrations; radio waves are caused through electromagnetic radiation.

Re:catch? (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950875)

um... those would be RADIO waves... not sound waves. Which sort of follow similar rules (being waves and all), but are definitely different...


I don't know, I think a wireless LAN based on sound waves might be kind of neat. At the very least it could be used to drive the local users (and/or their dogs) crazy...

Re:catch? (1)

zcat_NZ (267672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951106)

been there, done that. 75 baud data from one side of a room to the other through purely acoustic media. You could probably go a _little_ faster, but ultrasound suffers from echoes and multipath interference so the bandwidth is seriously limited.

layer? (2, Insightful)

convolvatron (176505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950010)

isn't this providing media interoperability at the wrong layer?

the framing and termination guts of the wireless transceiver aren't all that expensive. there are already perfectly good layer 2 and 3 approaches to the problem of distributing the same content over wireless and wired networks'

One thing I've wondered... (5, Insightful)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950014)

Won't more critical technologies limit how fast we can transmit data, such as switch fabrics?

To effectively use incredibly fast end-user technologies, some absolutely incredible switches and routers would need to be designed, otherwise all this is for nothing. I mean 2.5 Gb per port on a 24-port switch would require a 60 Gb backplane - way higher than anything available today.

And as someone who managed a medium-ish sized network (250+), we currently find that setting a lot of peripheral users to 10-full gives much better performance than setting them to 100-full, simply because our switching fabric - coupled with the number of users - can handle this a lot better.

So although this is possible, wouldn't it be more suited to backbones, rather than having a client-heavy network?

True, but... (4, Insightful)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950121)

Given there will be bottlenecks but I want them far away from me. I am sick of the last mile to my house being the bottleneck, move it somewhere else for a while, somewhere where it can be more easily updated.

Now, once we have a wire to my house capable of some outrageous speed go ahead and restrict it to match your network speed as long as that excess capacity is kept in reserve for future improvements. This seems to me a more sensible way of engineering the network, the most expensive upgrades (last mile) should be done right once and let the rest of the network catch up after many incremental updates.

Yes, but it doesn't work that way. (1)

woolio (927141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950832)

Ah, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

If your house isn't the bottleneck, than as soon as the "bottleneck" is removed by upgrades, then what eventually becomes your house? [Hint: it will be last to receive the upgrades] ...

Which is cheaper? 1) Install fiber to 100 existing homes [requiring digging,etc]? 2) Upgrading the line that runs between a neighborhood and another station, ONCE?

What if it isn't even fiber? What if it just means replacing a device near each customer versus replacing equipment on the main lines between subdivisions? Imagine the labor required...

And in a neighborhood of 100, what if only 20 houses are even using the service at a level where upgrades would benfit them? Is it cost-effective to upgrade the whole neighborhood? Maybe in the long run, but they have shareholders and quarterly earnings reports to worry about... Telecom companies are going to want to do things as cheaply as possible...

Besides, we likely either talking about the PHONE company or the CABLE company.... So discussing sensibility is just plain silly.

Personally, I think we're getting to the point where any increases in bandwidth are going to be largely unnecessary. There is talk of TV over DSL... Technical challenges make this largely unfeasible. Business and legal challenges make this extremely difficult. It seems like a whole lot of effort to find another way to stream crappy shows & services over a different set of wires.

Most users don't really need the full bandwith availabe in their DSL/cable modems... I think they just thing that "high-speed" internet is really fast because they are using a connection with ~50ms latency versus 200-500ms latency (dial-up modem).

I don't see how video telephony is ever going to take off really big. (Relatively few people use webcams extensively). There are social advantages to not being *visible* to the remote party (such as when one is not dressed, clean shaven, tired, etc).

Audio? Well, there is plenty of bandwith available currently for that. I think it will be long time before we see streaming "5.1" surround sound audio, and even longer before it is cheap [due to economic reasons]. I suspect even this wouldn't require much more bandwidth due to the correlation among the channels.

So why again should every house get the latest and greatest connection, **right now**? To me, I don't see any reason.

Re:Yes, but it doesn't work that way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14951220)

Captain! Sensors report a total understanding failure!

Re:Yes, but it doesn't work that way. (1)

sueb262 (961964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14952221)

okay this made me fall off my chair laughing!

Re:Yes, but it doesn't work that way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14951277)

There is talk of TV over DSL..

Already here. See imagenio [telefonicaonline.com] in Spain.

It works okay though prone to occasional 1-2 second dropouts and screen artifacts. Dozens of TV and audio channels, internet and play-on-demand over what appears to be ADSL2+ and UDP multicast through a normal ADSL/ethernet/WiFi router (rebadged ZyXEL Prestige 660HW-61). A box connected via ethernet to the router (rebadged Kreatel ?) converts the ethernet multicast to a normal video signal. The box appears to download it's executable image from the net each time it's turned on. Normal internet access through the router works well as the multicast appears to be bandwidth limited.

Limiting capacity (1)

markholmberg (631311) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951332)

I am not an engineer, but... For new areas, the price of laying in copper or optical cable is about the same (about 1500 dollars). In fiber optics, the speed could be 1Gb, in copper, about 24Mbit (currently?). Now, why would a phone company still make all the new areas with copper instead of fiber optics? Equipment might be more expensive for optics but still...

Re:One thing I've wondered... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950166)

"I mean 2.5 Gb per port on a 24-port switch would require a 60 Gb backplane - way higher than anything available today."

Really?

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6421/prod_bu lletin0900aecd8036889f.html [cisco.com]

"Full bisectional bandwidth for all ports, providing 2.8 Tbps (Cisco SFS 7012) and 5.4 Tbps (Cisco SFS 7024) of bandwidth"

Re:One thing I've wondered... (2, Informative)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950177)

There are core routers that can do over 300Gbps. Here is an example: http://www.juniper.net/products/tseries/ [juniper.net]

Re:One thing I've wondered... (3, Informative)

mplex (19482) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951930)

Here's one that does 92 TB/sec. Granted, you have to scale it up but it's a fairly impressive router with some decent software for once:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.h tml [cisco.com]

The routers/switches we use at work say they'll scale to 720GB/sec, but we'll never come close to that. Those sup720 cards are almost universal these days.

Re:One thing I've wondered... (1)

dildatron (611498) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950615)

You must not work in the storage world... We have plenty of switches with a backplane that can handle 500 Gb/s... What you speak of is nothin' for a director class switch.

Re:One thing I've wondered... (1)

mbonnett (151854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950639)

Actually network equipment vendors are getting pretty close to 60Gbps backplane speeds for individual line-cards.

Both Cisco, with it's76xx series [cisco.com] , and Force10, with it's Exxx series [force10networks.com] , currently offer line-cards with 40Gbps switching capacity.

Regards.

Re:One thing I've wondered... (1)

j. andrew rogers (774820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951261)

Won't more critical technologies limit how fast we can transmit data, such as switch fabrics? To effectively use incredibly fast end-user technologies, some absolutely incredible switches and routers would need to be designed, otherwise all this is for nothing. I mean 2.5 Gb per port on a 24-port switch would require a 60 Gb backplane - way higher than anything available today.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? The low-end managed switch fabrics have as much bandwidth as you are discussing. High-end switch fabrics can exceed that by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

You are possibly the first person I've seen in the networking industry to suggest that the switch fabric is the bottleneck for networking. There are a few real bottlenecks (typically related to CPU and bus limits e.g. computers or routers), but switch fabric bandwidth is not generally considered to be one of them.

Re:One thing I've wondered... (1)

brewpoo (789171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951805)

Switch fabric forwarding capacity is usually measured in pps not bps. They are cut-through and the size of the packet in general shouldn't matter. This is true for copy-once type switches (i.e. Nortel 8600). where the packet destination is determined and copied to the output queue only once. Some switches don't do this and packet size comes into play much more. Our switches can do 7 billion pps on the backplane, which means they top out at 10 GBps (GigaBytes ps). Compare that to a legacy router than can do 250 Mbps on the backplane (not to mention the huge forwarding latency).

Also, the backplane does not need to scale linearly, a subscription ratio is used to determine the backplane requirements.

I had considered your approach to limit client speeds but found that 10-full did not play nice with most auto-neg cards. Instead we rely on higher end PCI busses and 1000Mbps Cu interfaces for the servers. Never had a problem with SF being a bottleneck.

All I gotta say is..... (0)

platypuszero (825061) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950040)

YAY!!! Faster pr0n!!!

But... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950044)

Can it run a Beowulf Cluster of Soviet Russian... ah fuck it

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950257)

Forgot last part,

Can it run a Beowulf Cluster of Soviet Russian old people belong to us...fuck that.

Re:But... (2, Funny)

niXcamiC (835033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950740)

You insensitive clod, netcraft confirms that it can run a Beowulf Cluster of Soviet Russian old people belong to us.

2.5gbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950049)

lemme guess; the maximum speed can only be reached if there's only 1 wireless user, in other cases the wired users will alway have faster speeds than the wireless ones.

If from my guess it's clear that I have no clue as to why you'd want to split the same signal into both wireless and wired components, given that the recievers' responses will only be available on their respective mediums then I suppose you could argue that I don't get it.

Re:2.5gbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950082)

Yes if there are two wireless users, each will only have 1.25Gbps.. oh how will they survive?

my office? (4, Funny)

jjeffries (17675) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950076)

Did anyone else see the picture in that first link and think "Hey, what's that dude doing behind my desk???"

Re:my office? (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950162)

Nah, you can't see the lower strata of cable running across mine for the mountain of paper which has formed over it. I expect to create fossil fuels over time by using the heat from inefficient cabling and the pressure from a 274 page status document on my old data flowcharts.

Re:my office? (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950237)

Saw pile of switches and I thought that. But there was no pile o unix workstations... so it cant be my desk.

Also looks way too organized.

Re:my office? (1)

Heembo (916647) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950664)

Nah, I was like, "how the hell does that guy get any work done without a damn monitor?!? And why the HELL does he need an umbrella in the office?"

Not Speed - Latency (4, Insightful)

sglider (648795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950081)

I could care less how fast the speed is. 192kpbs is currently how fast the fastest multiplayer game operates. I care about latency. Fix that problem and we'll talk.

Re:Not Speed - Latency (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950196)

The speed of light isn't good enough for you?

Re:Not Speed - Latency (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950423)

Not if it's bouncing off a satellite in geosynchronous orbit!

Re:Not Speed - Latency (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951474)

Not if it's bouncing off a satellite in geosynchronous orbit!

Which no internet links the average consumer will use does, it adds a 280ms hop. The main overcomable problem is the time taken to convert light to electricity, switch, and convert back to light. Switches that use mirrors and can switch light directly will save time.

Re:Not Speed - Latency (1)

ajpr (921401) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950743)

The only way I can think of is to use an array of trapped Entangled photons, that can be switched at either end. That would remove the largest bottleneck in latency between major sites, e.g. ISP to data centre where the game servers are located. And in theory playing on the other side of the world could be as fast as playing within the same country.

Going off on a tangent, does anyone know if there's a way to detect these photons compared to non-entangled ones? I only ask because surely for SETI, it would make sense to be looking for something that can provide instant communication?

Re:Not Speed - Latency (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950788)

Ummm... as far as I know, even with entangled photons, you cannot transfer information faster than the speed of light. Now, that method may speed up the transfer by a very small amount, but most lag is created by switches and routers, not the time it takes for a signal to go through the cable (at least, as long as you are not going across an ocean or bouncing off a satellite).

VF5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950087)

screw bandwith it's fast enough as it is, bring the price down instead. And if you need to enhance stuff, just work to bring latency down, i want to play Virtua Fighter 5 online damnit

Re:VF5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950133)

screw Virtua Fighter 5.. I want to play Duke Nukem Forever online damnit

We'd better play catch up.... (2, Insightful)

kaniaro (908023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950089)

If this were to actually work and be rolled out(said with a GIANT grain of salt), what traveler in an airport with their laptop has that kind of HD space? I'm assuming if you're going to have a connection that fast, it would be to watch HD movies and things of that nature. Laptop HDs aren't cheap, and is there truly a large scale need for something like that?

Re:We'd better play catch up.... (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950224)

I new the 100Gb hard disk in my new laptop was there for a reason.

Re:We'd better play catch up.... (1)

ender06 (913978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950268)

You get the bandwidth and someone will find a use for it. Ten years ago someone would've asked why we need 50Mbit Internet connections. Besides, with perpendicular recording, and all the other stuff that is bound to come out, we'll have the space.

This is like asking why you need four video cards and 2TB space. More or less: because you can.

Re:We'd better play catch up.... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950323)

What's this "hard drive" you're speaking of, when you have access to that kind of bandwidth? (Oh, and I'm clearly in the "I want to own my own data" camp, just not in the "streaming is impossible" camp...)

WARNING! (3, Informative)

Toasty16 (586358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950119)

This article has been submitted by Roland Piquepaille [slashdot.org] , proceed to the linked articles with extreme caution!

Re:WARNING! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950144)

I clicked on your link and saw some whining about adverts. I run adblocker. Should I still give a shit about your spiteful vendetta?

Re:WARNING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950159)

Did you actually read what he had to say? It sure doesn't sound like it. If you did and you still side with Roland, then I have to question your ethics and judgement.

Re:WARNING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950218)

I skimmed it. It starts with something about what he used to do. If he's stopped, why mention it? It was rather boring so i'll admit not having read every last word. He has ads on his page, apparantly, and he doesn't always give credit to sources. Who cares? It's just another story on slashdot with some links. If i'm interested, I click the links - if I'm not, I don't. I don't do other people's boycotting for them.

Re:WARNING! (0)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950356)

This article has been submitted by Roland Piquepaille, proceed to the linked articles with extreme caution!

So?

a) Primidi.com is only linked through rel=nofollow in the article summary. This means that Google doesn't increase his pagerank.

b) There are no links to his personal website in the submission. The linked articles are not on his website; therefore, all your criticism about Blogads and whatever else is moot.

c) Everyone links their name to their personal website when submitting stories. Just because Roland found a way around Slashdot, saw the complaints, stopped, and Slashdot stopped giving him page rank, doesn't mean that you should continue to ignore his stories.

So long as you don't click on his name, it's as if "An anonymous reader" submitted the story. And if you're going to his site, caveat clickor.

Re:WARNING! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950435)

One of the links is to his ZDNET blog. He is avoiding criticism by "existing" at primidi but blogging at ZDNET, however nothing else has changed.

Re:WARNING! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14951142)

Haha I think I'm the one who posted that troll. Awesome to see that it did so well. =)

Processing that much data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950229)

Will non-supercomputer users even be able to take advantage of that much dataflow? I can't imagine even being able to write all of that out to a HD, much less the overhead required for packet management.

Re:Processing that much data (2, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950940)

Will non-supercomputer users even be able to take advantage of that much dataflow? I can't imagine even being able to write all of that out to a HD, much less the overhead required for packet management.

You are apparently not familiar with the bandwidth and data transfer requirements of Windows Vista bloatware,...

Wonald (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950234)

One link to Wonald's ZDnet blog, 6 links from there to his link farm, with up to 10 links per page to other Wonald blogs. Remind me again how much Wonald pays Slashdot for his slashverts?

Re:Wonald (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950652)

Woland, not Wonald. His name is Woland Peek-Pic-Pie... er... Woland Poke-pig-eye... um... Well, anyways, it's Woland.

Re:Wonald (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14951409)

Sorry. Woland. Woland Backstitch-Straw.

This is amazing. (1)

3rdAndLong (943085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950264)

Fark had this up before slashdot. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink =1964850> Oh, the massive bandwidth is pretty amazing, too.

And will be available... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950274)

anywhere but in America. I want a 100 Mbps data line like the Swedes get for 70 euros a month. I'd also like a cell phone that doesn't suck... but those are available in Korea, not here. America: the world's technological backwater.

Re:And will be available... (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950322)

" I want a 100 Mbps data line like the Swedes get for 70 euros a month."

For what? Are the Swedes hitting sites that come anywhere close to that kind of speed?

One word... (1)

rathehun (818491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950528)

...torrents?

Re:And will be available... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950533)

i often need to send stuff from home to work (or vice versa) or to customers/businesses, many times it would be so useful to have an upload speed as fast as my download speed, or even faster. while i use a remote admin programme daily, it's hampered by a 20KB/s upload speed, assuming i'm not SFTPing at the same time. Usually I have to upload to a dedicated server, which in turn allows reciever to download at their maximum speed.

why not have 100Mbs? or at least faster upload speeds.

Re:And will be available... (1)

russint (793669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950570)

For what? Are the Swedes hitting sites that come anywhere close to that kind of speed?
[i] transferred 1 file(s) - Total: 369,4 M byte(s) in 48,95 (7 911,96 KBps)<br>
[2] ftp://ftp.port80.se Disconnected

There are servers in Sweden too you know..

weather? (4, Interesting)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950292)

This sounds like free space optics [wikipedia.org] , which in bad weather is only reliable over short distances. This could very well be interesting technology, but my enthusiasm will remain subdued until I hear how well it performs through, say, several hundred meters of thick fog.

Re:weather? (1)

Aspirator (862748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950374)

The article refers to millimeter waves (40-60GHz), this is true line of sight stuff.
Several hundred meters if an order of magnitude more range than I would expect
it to be disigned for.

This short range is an advantage, and a disadvantage. The network would have to
be 'cellular' in nature. There would need to be several base stations per area,
even someone standing between you and the base station would block the signal.

On the other hand the re-use distance for a given channel would be fairly small,
the band is of no use for any longer range stuff, and may therefore be available.

They were not joking when they said that the cost of all these millimeter wave
transmitters and receivers was a challenge!
A key issue will be reducing the cost of the components.

I thought the most interesting phrase in the article was:
Let's skip some technical details ....

Re:weather? (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950609)

until I hear how well it performs through, say, several hundred meters of thick fog.

Probably like a sniper with a $4000 telescopic sight.
(Just think about it)

Re:weather? (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951132)

>through, say, several hundred meters of thick fog.

Millimeter wave frequencies penetrate fog splendidly but are blocked by rain. Since that's sorta the opposite of what visible light and infrared do, a line of sight system could get good reliability by having both optical and mm-wave components and some failover logic.

Re:weather? (1)

shoemakc (448730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14952367)

but my enthusiasm will remain subdued until I hear how well it performs through, say, several hundred meters of thick fog.

You're from the UK, aren't you...

-Chris

Small problem here.... (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950306)

Seems to me that one of the sponsors of this tech is Bell, and aren't they the ones that want to charge us for guaranteed latency, or lack there of? With all that bandwidth, that makes charging extra for low latency a case of banditry, doesn't it? Perhaps that is what Bell is all about anyway. On the other hand, I thought part of the reason for a tiered Internet service was to pay for all the infrastructure that is currently built? Now they are building 100x infrastructure with the money they are already overcharging from users, and only to overcharge them for content they don't want or need in the future?

Sure, I'm not Mr. Optimistic here, but just who the hell is paying for this infrastructure? Already I only want 35% of the content I have to pay for, and none of what I pay for has the latency that I would like to have. The money vs. service issue is all out of whack here. I don't care if its wireless or wired personally, if they could just get the service right in the first place, it would be nice.

Bundled cable, ISP, and VoIP... this is starting to sound like the beginnings of Cable Operators part two. I just know that they need all the bandwidth to support the DRM content that nobody wants to pay for, never mind watch. All I need is DRM'd reruns of "I love Lucy" on my telephone bill to make the world a perfect place again.

There is simply way too much HYPE in the technology sector these days. God forbid any of them think of providing good service before figuring out how to sell me 2 terabits of bandwidth to watch reruns with.

I'm not feeling very enthused about ISPs and content industries right now...

damn thats fast (1)

fftl4life (961774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950449)

can you even imagine a connection that fast? you could download whole operating systems in seconds, download an mp3 before you can snap your fingers, download the latest installment of- porn in the city: shirley and tom have a 43 sum, faster than you can say, at thanksgiving when my family is done eating they grab there twinkies and say ahhhhhhhhh

Someone ping me when... (1)

BigBuckHunter (722855) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950618)

Someone ping me when...

1: Realtec has a $19.99 add on card with technology
or
2: It automatically comes with my next motherboard purchase

Untill that time, I'm plenty fine with the 6mbits/sec that I'm currently getting from the my internet provider.

BBH

missed point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950623)

I notice in the various threads most seem to miss the point. This new tech is not being designed for exterior out in the weather use. It's for inside buidlings, where either a wired plug or a wireless solution is required on a varied ad hoc basis. If you go to the actual gatech news release it lists such things as airport lounges, business conferences, etc. When you have a fluctuating clientelle, you have a certain number of hard wired in points for day to day use for the normal employees with fixed workstations, then you have wireless for when you get a crowd and your peak users expand to a huge number-you'll be able to handle them without any additional effort or expense of additional hardware, once the original is installed, and everyone will still get jam up good throughput. Very little "slashdot effect" in other words.

And the way they do it is much cheaper than what is out there now.

Wired and not wired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950629)

I do this already: caffeine + sleeping pills. Add motion sickness pills to smooth out the ups and downs, for a more sideways effect. Don't try to phone Jesus Christ when your cat starts meowing out of the wrong end.

Woooooohoo!!! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14950840)

It will take another 40 years before that high speed network will be available in the good ol USA

Meanwhile, Japan is getting 100Mbits/sec at $30/month

2.5Gbps (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14950988)

So by 2.5Gbps, they mean down right? And upload is obviously limited to 100mbit... er... what... the internet doesn't really work that way after all?

Phooey! Wait 'til you see TOKEN-RING! (1)

aqk (844307) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951021)

IBM has promised us something even greater. They are calling it "Token-Ring".

Start buying your tokens on EBay now. You can never have too many!

Re:Phooey! Wait 'til you see TOKEN-RING! (1)

sxeraverx (962068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951909)

Or Tolkien-Ring. It's even more fantastic.

I'm hanging out for... (1)

themysteryman73 (771100) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951091)

Someone to discover a way to take advantage of duality of light and start transmitting internets wirelessly through light waves...

Re:I'm hanging out for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14951537)

I'm afraid Marconi beat you to that one by about 110 years, themysteryman73.

I wish their technical paper were available (2, Informative)

Interstices (962141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951239)

It's too bad that the paper isn't available online, because it would be interesting to read the source documents. Descriptions of technical papers intended for general audiences often lose quite a bit in translation. As an example, it's hard to tell what the article means by "100 times faster than existing networks," as an earlier poster pointed out (I'd guess the comparison is to gigabit ethernet, as 2.5 x 32 = 80, which is sort of like 100). Researchers always know their subject better than reviewers, so summary articles can often be unintentionally misleading.

I'd also like to point out that Bell's sponsorship probably has little to do with the type of content that can be transmitted over this medium. University researchers certainly like to partner with corporations (money is scarce in academia), but Bell likely has little to do with the research itself. Typically companies merely want to have a stake in promising new technologies. OFC/NFOEC does appear to be a conference geared towards both researchers and businesspeople, so partnerships might be closer.

One aspect of the article that I find confusing is that its examples of wireless devices are PDAs and cellphones. Wireless on those devices is most useful when it is available everywhere; I want broadband speeds anywhere I can use my phone. But the wireless network described seems to be site-local. The bandwidth improvement is wonderful, but the lead-off example is perhaps confusing.

The point of this? (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14951746)

I'm having a hard time seeing the point of it. Do you want to be able to unplug your computer from a wired network, and still have it communicate? Or, do you want to be able to plug your laptop into a wired network and have no interruption of data communications? While this technology would seem to accomplish a seemless switch between the two, I don't know that such a goal is something that the marketplace of ideas is looking for. It is intriguing, but I'm not sure that its something people are looking for, although it would be convenient for the ineveitable dead spots in any wireless deployment. It'd be cool for that.

Awwww... (1)

mackertm (515083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14952568)

I didn't care about the story, but it was submitted by Roland Piquepaille and I came in here to read the fighting over him, all his submissions, etc. And there's almost nothing here. Where is all the anger today? Slashdot, you disappoint me...
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>