Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Networking Hardware

Terabit Fiber (In 2010) 182

Posted by CmdrTaco from the sign-me-up dept.
Paul Heavens writes "A Japanese company has developed technology to transmit a two-hour movie in 0.5 seconds, the world's fastest speed achieved with fibre-optic cables in the field, it says. Kansai Electric used fibre-optic cables on power-transmitting steel towers to achieve the speed of one terabit per second, which is more than 100 times faster than inter-city data transmissions currently in use, a spokesman says. The company, Japan's second-largest power supplier, has not decided when to put the technology into practical use but says it is possible that it would come in 2010 or later."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terabit Fiber (In 2010) More

Terabit Fiber (In 2010)

Comments Filter:

  • "transmit a two-hour movie in 0.5 seconds"? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:03AM (#13908815)
    You guys sure know how to bait the MPAA here, don't you?

  • Details (Score:2, Interesting)

    by romka1 ( 891990 )
    Article has little details why is putting fibre-optic cables on power-transmitting steel towers achieves such a speed ?
  • How many Volkswagon-sized, Libraries of Congress is that?

  • Maximum transmission units (Score:5, Funny)

    by totallygeek ( 263191 ) <sellis@totallygeek.com> on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:07AM (#13908834) Homepage
    could you bump your mtu to 2937498723498, I don't want to keep fragmenting these...

  • Cool, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sigmund Dali ( 925077 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:07AM (#13908835)
    I'm tired of hearing about all these advances that we will NEVER see. Our public inferstructure budgets are lame, and I'm tired of hearing about a "market-solution". No company is going to spend the massive amount of cash needed to wire even one city with this, especially when there's not much of a percieved market for faster broadband. Why doesn't the FCC get off their ass and mandate this kind of thing instead of doing nothing? Also, why in the world does is this at least 5 years away? I mean, I understand they need to research this and then set up manufacturing and distributing routes, but I just don't understand why that would take more than a year and a half, at most. Stop telling me about things I want, but will never have.

    • Re:Cool, but... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Daverd ( 641119 )
      Although I doubt this will see deployment by 2010, if it does, it will be in Tokyo or some other extremely high-density area. Why doesn't the FCC get off their ass and mandate this kind of thing? First of all, it's a Japanese company that's developing it. Second of all, America is so sparsely populated that even regular broadband is typically not economically feasible in many areas, let alone cutting edge technology. You'll get your Tb/s connection when it sees deployment in areas that make more sense first

    • Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:29AM (#13908907)
      I'm tired of hearing about all these advances that we will NEVER see.

      What do you mean? When I was a kid, fiber cable was just a novelty you read about in Popular Science. They claimed that it had the potential capacity to transmit things like War and Peace in just a few seconds.

      Well, guess what: Today, in the comfort of your own home, you can download [gutenberg.org] War and Peace in just a few seconds.

    • Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:21PM (#13909381) Homepage
      Umm... so because people are unwilling to spend that kind of money, the FCC should force them to spend that kind of money through taxes? Besides, I don't want this. I'd be happy with 100Mbit (network, 100/100) to the wall. That's not in the "never have" category, it already exists in places like South Korea, Japan, many university campuses and certain apartment blocks here (Notway). There was a time not too long ago, when the main interconnect to my city of 150000 was 2.5Gbit, that has probably changed by now. But that is 25 people maxing a 100Mbit connection. Solutions such as these make sure I don't sit there with lots of bandwidth and nowhere to go. 1Tbit isn't all that much if hundreds of million of people try to transfer something over it...

    • Re:Cool, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by btarval ( 874919 )
      I agree. Perhaps the problem is with how the infrastructure market is set up? It's all designed around the "big daddy" approach. For either DSL or Cable, you have to go through a big TelCo or a big CableCo to get access to a line. And they restrict your choices heavily to what they want to sell. Even those CLECs in the DSL biz have to go through the TelCo just to resell the same lines.

      You have NO other options for landlines.

      Since this approach hasn't worked, perhaps we need to get to the core of the pro

    • Re:Cool, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 )

      I'm tired of hearing about all these advances that we will NEVER see.

      THEN WHY ARE YOU READING SLASHDOT???

      No company is going to spend the massive amount of cash needed to wire even one city with this, especially when there's not much of a percieved market for faster broadband.

      Not with this specific technology, no. But already, companies (particularly Verizon) are starting to set-up fiber-optic networks to compete with high-speed cable. I've recently heard a FIOS network is soon to be built in a nearby cit

      • The problem is, however, that you can't start up your own ISP that provides faster services than the ones the TelCo's provide because of their monopoly of land lines. If we had companies that sold the lines exclusively, then we'd have ISPs that buy lines from them and compete with each other to provide better services. We're effectively limited to the best services the main TelCo's will provide, and frankly, those services are absolute shit compared to places like Japan, and are also shit compared to what

        • you can't start up your own ISP that provides faster services than the ones the TelCo's provide because of their monopoly of land lines.

          The telcos have a monopoly on physical access to POTS lines, but that's all. There's good reason for that, too, as the lines all have to terminate in the CO. You really don't want a buch of random companies to have physical access to do whatever they like with your phone lines.

          If you want to lay-down fiber, many local governments would be more than happy to contract right

    • I'm tired of hearing about all these advances that we will NEVER see.
      What do you mean? Using DWDM, there have been systems available to run a singlemode fiber pair at multi-terabit speeds for years. If they were able to achieve 1tbps at one wavelength, that's an impressive accomplishment, but the article doesn't say.
    • I agree totally as well. Although it really isn't feasible with the current government budget spending...

      But if the government spent 100billion dollars in order to get figer to the curb of every home in America, I'd say it is well spent.

      Basically, what the Fed have to do is build the infrastructure and then sell chunks of to private companies. Might be a while... South Korea is looking better every day.

  • that's nothing. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Enjoi ( 857482 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (iojnekns)> on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:07AM (#13908839) Homepage
    If you throw a 500GB harddrive fo the empire state building, it's not only faster moving data that this, the data is accelerating.

    Beat that, japan :)

  • Where's the beef? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:10AM (#13908844)
    That "story" is ridiculously short. What I want to know is, was that over *one* strand of fiber, or a big bundle of fibers with each at a non-record-setting speed?
    • one strand or multiple strands is a good question.
      What about this? Do we have systems that can accept around a terabyte of data in its storage? Google has an operation speed of 4 tera-ops/sec source: http://cache.technologyreview.com/articles/ 04/04/wo_garfinkel042104.0.asp [technologyreview.com] . Assuming each byte takes an average of 2 cycles (which is a very low estimate), google cant use the entire bandwidth, even with their world's largest distributed system infrastructure!
      . Are we getting to a state where we are going to f
      • I thought the estimate was much higher than this? arent they supposed to have possibly the most combined computing power of any company (excluding nsa and similar government groups), somewhere in the order of 100 000 pc's, which, at an estimate of average speed of 1.5 ghz come in somewhere round 2 or 3 gigaflops each, for a total of somewhere round 200 to 300 teraflops (admittedly this power is not tightly coupled like a supercomputer,as it does not need to be for their purposes, but you did use google as a
    • Or the size of the file. I mean, under the right circumstances my lan can transfer a two hour movie faster than that.*

      *Bitrates may vary.
    • That "story" is ridiculously short.

      hehe and I still didn't read it....suckers.
    • Perhaps a subtler question would we whether they used one wavelength or multiple wavelengths. Modern long-distance fiber optic systems can run several hundred OC-192s over one fiber pair (one strand in each direction) using dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM), and can easily exceed 1tbps.

  • "Honey, did you pick up that new movie?..." (Score:3, Funny)

    by thrillseeker ( 518224 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:10AM (#13908845)
    Ahhh ... just a second ... yep - I've got it right here.

  • I dont trust this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Psionicist ( 561330 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:14AM (#13908854)

    1) They didn't transfer 1 Tbit/s in an actual network, at least it appears that way if you RTFA. I am more impressed with Bell Labs 100 Gbit/s in actual ethernet reported a few weeks ago. As far as I know they could have measured the rate photons got from point A to point B in the cable, worthless statistics, like measuring the speed of electricity.

    2) According to other news entries like RTFA, they don't contain any info whatsoever about how the company actually conducted the test. One source, Returters IIRC, says it's "secret". Right.

  • It seems finally the cables are capable of more bandwidth than a wagon of harddrives...
    • No way, my favorite "ISP" is the US Postal Service. Every year you see large gains in bandwidth with only a nominal increase in cost.

      A few years ago it was a 30gb harddrive going back and
      forth. 4days in each direction.
      30gb/4day*24h*60m*60s = 86kps upload

      Then it moved up to a 120gb harddrive going back and forth 120gb/4days*24*60*60 = 347kps upload a 4x jump in bandwidth in only 1 year.

      Now we get up to the present a 300gb hardrdrive going priority mail, (Priority even provide the box and it's chea

      • "My current ISP verizon costs me $40 a month with a 45kps upload. In one year if used for nothing else I can send 1419gb of data. For a grand total of $480 dollars and one year of transfer time. You could add another $100 for electricity as well."

        You're buying the wrong service from verizon.
        Verizon FiOS [verizon.com]
        For that same $40/mo, up it to 2mbit/s
        Google calculator says 2 megabits per second * 1 year = 7.52375745 terabytes

        Granted, you can match that with a sizable quantity of 500gig harddrives in the mail, but tha
  • The article mentions no details of what this bad boy will actually cost. If it's too expensive, who will actually use it?
    • Of course it has no costs as it's not even made yet. The implementation was tested, but it wasn't mass produced, and it won't be for at least a few years as they say. My guess is that it will be an equivalent $40/month for Japanese subscribers...
  • And a 3 year service committment, penalties apply for early termination. Other services will be bundled on exclusive basis including phone, video which are charged on a per service subscription basis as well.

    Remember, Americans; the FCC is designed to screw you.

  • 2 hr movie in 0.5s (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gja ( 926839 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:31AM (#13908909) Homepage
    Now we humans just need a way to watch that 2 hour long movie in 0.5 seconds

  • 3 minutes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:32AM (#13908914) Homepage Journal
    Over the years, I've been tracking the waiting attention span on my downloads and those who got from me. I've ran BBSes since 1200 baud modems were $500.

    The 3 minute mark seems consistent over the years as the shortest period of time necessary to acquire something of value. Shorter times are nice but not needed.

    To download a 2 hour HiDef movie in 3 minutes, we'd need a connection speed of 222mb/s (28MB/s). I can see little need for a format beyond this at any time in the future. In fact, in 1993 I figured a preferred video resolution would be 2560x1440, not much greater than 1920x1080.

    We'll soon see posts about how corporations won't want to spend money running these fibers to the home, but this is pure bullshit. Cities prevent more cable runs, not economics.

    Municipal Wi i is a huge waste due to ever increasing wired bandwidths and the costs and latencies of government changes would never keep up with free market changes.

    Allow ISPs the freedom to run fiber. Deregulate TV and radio frequencies in exchange for more wireless frequencies. You'll see the most amazing growth of information distribution in history.

    • Re:3 minutes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dirtside ( 91468 )
      Municipal Wi i is a huge waste due to ever increasing wired bandwidths and the costs and latencies of government changes would never keep up with free market changes.
      Municipal Wifi isn't intended to compete with free-market alternatives. It's a social service; a way to make sure that everyone can get cheap Internet access. It may not be especially fast, but there's nothing preventing you from buying faster wired (or even wireless) access.
    • Wrong, wrong, wrong. Look at what has happened since the FCC deregulated in 1996. We don't have mainstream HDTV. The US is falling fast behind other countries in broadband penetration. Verizon is creating an FTTP monopoly. Under the current rules, all the fibre Verizon is laying at the moment is theirs, exclusively, and will be for a long time. This is unlike coax, which must be leased to anyone, and that's why you have Earthlink using TW's cable to sell their own broadband. It promotes choice. Rule

    • Municipal WiFi/WiMax is a huge waste due to ever increasing wired bandwidths and the costs and latencies of government changes would never keep up with free market changes.

      Municipalities are putting up WiFi/WiMax because businesses won't. If they did then local governments won't feel the need to install WiFi/WiMax. Fact is the only way some localities will only get broadband, wired or wireless, is if they put it up themselves. Don't get me wrong, I don't want taxes used to pay for any of it. It shou

    • To download a 2 hour HiDef movie in 3 minutes, we'd need a connection speed of 222mb/s (28MB/s).

      Given some reasonable buffering and some overhead to account for other uses of the Internet connection, why would you be interested in downloading a 2hr movie in less than two hours? That is assuming we're talking about some legal download service that has the entire file, not the peeps you want to download from on p2p that only have bits and pieces. Even with torrents it would be possible to form a mixed strateg

  • Fast, but maybe needed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:35AM (#13908927)
    If one thinks of streaming full size movies on demand to homes, even assuming 100% use of bandwidth (impossible) infrastructure able to transfer a two hour movie in 0.5 seconds would only support 14,400 concurrent users. By 2010, the demands per user may even be higher with the need to serve up virtual reality type applications.

    If only 10 gigabit upload service for the user was widely available, one could imagine some great solutions to the problem of offsite backups (perhaps 20 minutes per terrabyte, allowing for necessary overhead in the transfer). Could this be Google's challenge for the next decade?

  • 3Ms - 3Ts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by suitti ( 447395 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:36AM (#13908930) Homepage
    In the '60s, probably centered on the CDC 6600, an idea was promoted that a balanced' computer would have capabilities in a ratio. The 3 M's was one with 1 MIPS, 1 mbps, and 1 megabit of memory. So, it could executed 1,000,000 instructions per second, communicate to disk at 1,000,000 bits per second (100,000 bytes per second) and had 1,000,000 bits of RAM (one system had 130,000 bytes of RAM, for example).

    The box i'm using to edit this note executes on the order of 1 GIPS, with 100 mbps, and 10 gigabits of memory. That is 1,000,000 instructions per second, 100,000,000 bits per second (10,000,000 bytes per second) to disk, and has on the order of 10,000,000,000 bits of RAM (1 GB). (These numbers are rounded, and, no, i'm not terribly interested in my-box-is-faster-than-yours pissing matches - its just an example).

    So, if communications speeds will be 1,000,000,000,000 bits per second anywhere by 2010, that implies a computer with at lest 10 GIPS and 10 GB RAM - which doesn't seem that unlikely in five years.

    Oddly enough, I'm hoping to still be running this box in five years. Its only two years old, and I don't really want to get a new one. That is, i don't want to spend the money to replace it. More importantly, i don't want to do the administration involved to get a new machine up and running with my current set of capabilities. I ran my 1987 Machintosh II as my primary machine for over ten years and the hardware lasted an additional five years (and counting) to allow for transfer of data. It pisses me off that my most long-lived x86 based PC has lasted only five years. So, i've just finished migrating from the Mac to Linux, and the Mac (with OS/x) now appears to be the better choice (low administrative maintenance) again.

    With the recent announcement of low power PPC chips, perhaps Apple will abandon its move to the x86 hardware platform. Still, i've been pretty happy so far with my low-end Athlon's performance and reliability. Who knows? Perhaps i'd be happy with OS/x on AMD.

    • First, I must congratulate you on getting an anti-x86 troll past the moderators...

      I ran my 1987 Machintosh II as my primary machine for over ten years and the hardware lasted an additional five years (and counting) to allow for transfer of data. It pisses me off that my most long-lived x86 based PC has lasted only five years.

      You get what you pay for. Apple has always forced it's customers to pay for that kind of quality, even if they don't want to.

      Personally, I've had a really cheap 386/20 that lasted near

    • I never get rid of old PCs. When I get a new PC, I just put it next to, or on top of the old one - depends on the ever changing form factors. Everything is networked and headless. I work from a notebook in the living room. In a few years, I can turn the furnace off and just run the airconditioner year round even when it is -40 outside. Visitors locate my house by following the glow of the power wires...
      • When I get a new PC, I just put it next to, or on top of the old one - depends on the ever changing form factors.

        I know people who do that with old TVs. (Jeff Foxworthy reference)

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) * on Sunday October 30, 2005 @11:39AM (#13908947) Homepage Journal
    I don't understand the big deal here. Nobody runs a single strand of fiber; if you're going to be laying fiber in the streets, you put 100s (if not 1000s) of strands in there, "just in case". How is 1Tbps over 1 fiber any better than 1Tbps over 100 strands @ 10Gbps/strand (as is easily achievable today)?
    • And if anything, it's worse. performing DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplexing - this fiber most likely carries 1024 or more slower channels that add up to a total 1 Tb/sec capacity) is difficult, more difficult than taking seperate fibers and connecting them to individual machines.

  • Journalism has Crashed and Burned (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @12:02PM (#13909052) Homepage Journal
    This article, like every other one we read these days, is not reporting, it's public relations. Even the point quoted in the summary, "2 hour movie in 0.5 seconds", is useless for anything but getting a technohick to say "wow". Because no user can get that speed, even just due to RAM/CPU speeds, or will, because they certainly won't be the only user sharing the bandwidth. And because a "movie" is an undefined quantity, especially now that we're dealing not only with DVD and its incompatible competing successors, but also digital cinemas. This reporter could have spend a half hour researching (or paying a researcher) to verify and corroborate the accuracy and relevance of the quotes no doubt faxed by the power company's PR department. Instead, the reporter and their editors decided that their story was "news" solely because it's news to them. But not to nerds - to us, it's "Libraries of Congress per second", which was expectable nonsense when reporters hadn't used the Internet. Now that they use these systems as much as we do, it's obvious that what they do ain't reporting, it's typing.
    • End users won't get that speed, but even though I didn't RTFA, I assume that's not what they were talking about, anyway. Nobody seriously expects everyone to have a 1 Tbps broadband line at home in five years; it's obviously meant for big ISPs, research centres (you'd be surprised by the sheer amount of data a particle accelerator gathers/generates!) and so on. And those obviously aren't users who'll be limited by what a single standard off-the-shelf PC can do. :)
      • That's why I said "they certainly won't be the only user sharing the bandwidth". The PC bottleneck is just one of the many ways to tell the stenographer^Wreporter just repeated the marketspeak rather than tell the story. A real report would bring up the fact that power companies like this one have been making a lot of noise about Broadband Over Power Lines, with which these fibers would directly compete. But that would require a reporter.
  • Nippon Telegram and Telephone had succeeded 3Tbps transimission on single optical fiber six years ago. Then what Kansai Electric achieved? They claims terabit transmission in OUTDOOR environment is the first time in the history. See http://www.kepco.co.jp/pressre/2005/1026-1j.html [kepco.co.jp] for detailed Kansai Electric's press release, unfortunately written in Japanese.

  • Mabey by then I could get DSL in my area. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30, 2005 @12:12PM (#13909086)
    Mabey by then I could get DSL in my area.

  • oooow, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:22PM (#13909386)
    0.5 seconds? But I want it now!

  • whats the point here? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rooked_One ( 591287 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:54PM (#13909504) Journal
    I mean, we all run the same type of hard drives that can barely get over 10 megs of transfer speed a second (if you have a raptor or perhaps a raid array), so why are all these people trying to break the latest record? Where is that going to get us besides making these lines of transmit our backbones for the internet? And my second question is, how did they do this.... did they store the movie in a ramdrive of some sort and transfer it to a ramdrive, becuase its obvious its not possible with CONVENTIONAL rotary drives.
    • This will primarily be used for backbones. You have to remember though that backbones are always in need of more bandwidth. Many telecom providers are already utilizing VoIP to transfer voice thousands of miles. Also, LAN backbones could use the bandwidth to support gigabit enabled workstations and eventually, 10GbaseT enabled servers.

  • Not as fast as the Italians (Score:3, Informative)

    by MacFreek ( 581974 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @03:50PM (#13909969) Homepage Journal
    CNIT in Italy has reached up to 2.5 Tb/s; I do not know the details, but I once witnessed a presentation by one of their scientists, Gianluca Meloni. He seem to have a paper published in proceedings of ECOC 2005, called "10GHz to 2.5THz Optical Frequency Multiplication". Surely that contains more information.

    By the way -- 0.5s * 1Tb/s = 500 Gbit = 64 GByte = 58 GiByte. Pretty long movie, I'd say :-)
  • 1Tb/s? Waste of money, if you ask me. 640K/s should be enough for anybody.

  • Not useful (Score:2, Insightful)

    by salmonz ( 697297 )
    We don't even use the fibre we have available today. So what's the point?
  • D00d - like - my Quake 4 ping time will totally rock with this ...

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close