PDA

View Full Version : Fastest Internet Ever?



Pages : [1] 2

hk_mp5kpdw
03-04-2008, 01:07 PM
From the IGN (http://gear.ign.com/articles/856/856113p1.html) website:

Researchers Achieve Record Breaking Internet Speeds
The fastest internet ever?
by Scott Lowe

February 29, 2008 - French researchers at Bell Labs announced today that they have managed to create a connection capable of transferring data at speeds of 16.4 terabytes-per-second. The firm claims that a connection was made over the span of 2,550 kilometers, roughly 1,584 miles, at a capacity of 41.8 petabits a second, per kilometer. The connection broke world records for capacity by distance through the use of 164 wavelength-division multiplexed channels, each modulating 100Gbps. In layman's terms, wavelength-division multiplexing technology essentially combines multiple optical signals into one optical fiber by organizing the laser light wavelengths into separate, distinguishable colors.

The significance of building a connection as prodigious as 16.4Tbps is important in terms of making strides towards the development of a 100Gbps Ethernet connection. By exploiting the increased fiber bandwidth made available by Bell Labs' recent innovations in wavelenght-division multiplexing, developers will be able to cope with the growing demands for greater capacity in internet backbones. As of press time, details on any projected public implementation remain unknown.

Drooling yet? Suck it Verizon Fios!

mike_g
03-04-2008, 01:15 PM
Nice. Now they just need to make it run all the way up to my house.

Elysia
03-04-2008, 01:21 PM
16.4 TB per second and a capacity of 5.2 Petabytes! Nice. I don't see why they insist on using evil bits per second, though. We don't even measure speed in bits!

twomers
03-04-2008, 01:23 PM
Does anyone need that much porno ;)

Elysia
03-04-2008, 01:25 PM
Hey, downloading video from the Internet (non-porno) takes a long time too. Especially HD.

twomers
03-04-2008, 01:27 PM
Wait... I don't get it.

Elysia
03-04-2008, 01:30 PM
Downloading over 840 GB of data or more, most if it video (non-porn), does not happen over one day...
Pfft, everyone associates bandwidth with porn :)

mike_g
03-04-2008, 01:35 PM
5.3 Tbytes per second. Nice. I don't see why they insist on using evil bits per second, though. We don't even measure speed in bits!
Thats because internet communication is serial, it has always been measured in bits. Also, with more and more internal computer components working via serial bus now in a way it makes sense to measure that throughput in bits too, although somehow i cant see that taking off.

twomers
03-04-2008, 01:35 PM
I dunno. I need a citation for that, Elysia! You can't make these ludicrous statements without any citations. Pff. Non-porno internet use. Hah!

Elysia
03-04-2008, 01:37 PM
Thats because internet communication is serial, it has always been measured in bits. Also, with more and more internal computer components working via serial bus now in a way it makes sense to measure that throughput in bits too, although somehow i cant see that taking off.
Quite, but seeing as you just divide by 8, I don't see why they won't measure in bytes.


I dunno. I need a citation for that, Elysia! You can't make these ludicrous statements without any citations. Pff. Non-porno internet use. Hah!
Ooh, the dirty secrets we hide :p
But I can assure you there's so much more to find out there than porn!

twomers
03-04-2008, 01:39 PM
>> I don't see why they insist on using evil bits per second, though.
It makes it seem faster... It's only 0.6625 TB/s otherwise. That's not nearly as impressive. You miss an order of magnitude.

Elysia
03-04-2008, 01:45 PM
Of course it does make it seem faster. It's a marketing scheme. But I don't see the need for it in a scientific article, or whatever to call it.

SlyMaelstrom
03-04-2008, 02:41 PM
The article makes a blooper as it claims in the beginning that it is measuring "terabytes-per-second" only later to claim it is 164 channels of 100Gbps totaling a mear 16.4Tbps. This article is a joke... I thought finally I would be able to transfer my entire catalog of por.... music to my friend in a reasonable amount of time which I estimate is approximately 200TB of por... data.

Let's put it this way. Let's say a very good quality video is approximately 10MB for each minute of video. That would say (if I did my math right, which it is entirely possible that I didn't) that one minute at the maximum transfer speed on this band would yield about 46 days worth of video. In three hours, you would have nearly 23 years worth of video. In half of a day, you can download enough video to last you your entire life. That's overkill, just a bit, I think.

Elysia
03-04-2008, 02:42 PM
Ah, but it's amazing the actually were able to put so many lines besides each other. Imagine the interference.
It's just a new speed record, not a new speed technology...
Unless it's pure optic, then it would actually be easier... I think it's purely optic.

robwhit
03-04-2008, 02:48 PM
I thought optical broadband was done years ago.

Elysia
03-04-2008, 02:50 PM
Yeah, I just thought of that. Speeds of 100 mbps would probably not be possible without optic.
Hmmm. So what limits the amount of wires they can bunt together then, I wonder? Hardware?

robwhit
03-04-2008, 02:53 PM
Speeds of 100 mbps would probably not be possible without optic.http://www.google.com/search?q=Gigabit+ethernet

mike_g
03-04-2008, 02:57 PM
Yeah they just probably made one fatter that ran more channels or something. At the end of the day tho, from what I have heard, the internet backbones generally arent where the bottlenecks are anyway.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
Speeds of 100 mbps would probably not be possible without optic.
Lol thats been around for ages and can run on bog standard cat5 ethernet cables :p

Mario F.
03-04-2008, 03:05 PM
I'm just a little worried here...

Whose bandwidth did they steal to do this "miraculous" achievement?

Elysia
03-04-2008, 03:11 PM
Lol thats been around for ages and can run on bog standard cat5 ethernet cables :p

Shrug.
I never did keep am eye out for networking technology.
But 100 mbps with electric wires should create some interference. I think. I'm not really into the details of cables like that. I don't even know how much electric current is running through those things.

robwhit
03-04-2008, 03:12 PM
The optical fibers are lines owned by companies, and they can be connected with different TX/RX equipment on each end, I think.

Mario F.
03-04-2008, 03:13 PM
2 thousand kilometers of it?

mike_g
03-04-2008, 03:16 PM
Shrug.
I never did keep am eye out for networking technology.
No worries sorry if i came across a bit 133t. Sometimes I just get a bit overexcited, lol


But 100 mbps with electric wires should create some interference.
Yeah, thats why they twist the wires and insulate them. That reduces crosstalk.

CornedBee
03-04-2008, 03:16 PM
Raw data transfer is measured in bits because the physical layer doesn't give a damn of how you group the things. If you're going to use 9-bit-bytes and 27-bit-words, the physical layer won't notice the difference. (Except for the long periods of nothing because your computers crash.)

matsp
03-04-2008, 03:18 PM
Shrug.
I never did keep am eye out for networking technology.
But 100 mbps with electric wires should create some interference. I think. I'm not really into the details of cables like that. I don't even know how much electric current is running through those things.

They use twisted pairs and differential signalling, both of which reduce interference and reduces the chances of outside noice interfering with the signal.

--
Mats

GanglyLamb
03-04-2008, 04:50 PM
To me and probably alot of people in Belgium, speed does not matter that much. What counts is the amount of traffic you are allowed/month.

I currently have an internet connection for 50€/month, that gives me 18Gig of download and upload together. Just 3 houres ago I had to purchase another 1Gig extra for (1.02€) because we exceeded that limit (and our isp puts you straight onto smallband - which is the equivalent of an old school dialup line). Now (3 hours later) the meter is telling me I have already used 200MB of this extra traffic (and we have been carefull with what we do, as in dont watch any youtube, listen to radio...).... and I still have 5 days left before the meter is resetted.

In short, speed is not any of my issues, traffic is. (and since the broadband market in belgium is being held by 2 large companies that own the distribution network, there wont be any change soon, there is just not enough compition going on:().

To give an idea of the situation here:

http://telenet.be/219/0/1/en/residential/internet.html
and
http://www.belgacom.be/private/en/jsp/dynamic/product.jsp?dcrName=hbs_adsl_plus_only&detailPage=hbs_adsl_res_price

I wish I lived in the Netherlands, Finland,Sweden or Norway :p (at least concerning internet access).

SlyMaelstrom
03-04-2008, 07:50 PM
To me and probably alot of people in Belgium, speed does not matter that much. What counts is the amount of traffic you are allowed/month.I can see why...

I have heard about your situation with bandwidth limits, though.

BobMcGee123
03-04-2008, 08:22 PM
whats a terabit

robwhit
03-04-2008, 08:30 PM
it's a kind of tortilla chip.

abh!shek
03-04-2008, 08:44 PM
To me and probably alot of people in Belgium, speed does not matter that much. What counts is the amount of traffic you are allowed/month.

I currently have an internet connection for 50/month, that gives me 18Gig of download and upload together. Just 3 houres ago I had to purchase another 1Gig extra for (1.02) because we exceeded that limit (and our isp puts you straight onto smallband - which is the equivalent of an old school dialup line). Now (3 hours later) the meter is telling me I have already used 200MB of this extra traffic (and we have been carefull with what we do, as in dont watch any youtube, listen to radio...).... and I still have 5 days left before the meter is resetted.

In short, speed is not any of my issues, traffic is. (and since the broadband market in belgium is being held by 2 large companies that own the distribution network, there wont be any change soon, there is just not enough compition going on:().

To give an idea of the situation here:

http://telenet.be/219/0/1/en/residential/internet.html
and
http://www.belgacom.be/private/en/jsp/dynamic/product.jsp?dcrName=hbs_adsl_plus_only&detailPage=hbs_adsl_res_price

I wish I lived in the Netherlands, Finland,Sweden or Norway :p (at least concerning internet access).

How much is 50 in terms of US $ ??

When it comes to allowed traffic, my ISP is the worst. Just 1 GB per month for an equivalent of $6. :(

I can't download the P stuff :(

whiteflags
03-04-2008, 08:50 PM
>> How much is 50€ in terms of US $ ??

About $76. It's a good price, considering how expensive cable TV is. But Americans still have substantially cheaper options, going by what GanglyLamb said.

robwhit
03-04-2008, 10:37 PM
2 thousand kilometers of it?Yeah, why not?

They could have also looped their own line so that the effective length was longer. But I'm not really sure how they do it.

maxorator
03-05-2008, 01:47 AM
To me and probably alot of people in Belgium, speed does not matter that much. What counts is the amount of traffic you are allowed/month.
Poor you. But none of Estonian ISPs have a bandwidth limit. ;)

vart
03-05-2008, 02:16 AM
Let's say a very good quality video is approximately 10MB for each minute of video.
The Blue-Ray disk contains about 30-40G data for a film - say 120min video
so we get 250M per min ~ 33Mbs

I'd like to have 100Mbit Internet connection... 1Gbit is preffered

So I fill ISP will need these TBit lines to provide this...

zacs7
03-05-2008, 03:52 AM
Argh, makes me feel very 'behind' living in Australia. A vast majority of Australia is barely on ADSL, IDSN is widely used... Not to mention I get a whole 12GB to spend over 30 days including upload :'(

We're not just jibbed with speed, also with bandwidth. The government has promised to upgrade us to "world class broadband" (In fact he used that to get into office). However, I don't know what "world class is", nor where he's going to pull the few billion dollars it'll cost to install.

Neo1
03-05-2008, 04:06 AM
Argh, makes me feel very 'behind' living in Australia. A vast majority of Australia is barely on ADSL, IDSN is widely used... Not to mention I get a whole 12GB to spend over 30 days including upload :'(

We're not just jibbed with speed, also with bandwidth. The government has promised to upgrade us to "world class broadband" (In fact he used that to get into office). However, I don't know what "world class is", nor where he's going to pull the few billion dollars it'll cost to install.

That reply reminded me that somewhere in the world, someone is always worse off than you are. I thought that my connection was bad, i'm on a 4/1 Mbit line, which isn't much where i'm from...

zacs7
03-05-2008, 04:40 AM
Yes... In fact a few years ago when I was in high school we had 1Mbit IDSN for 1500+ students with a few hundred PCs, 8 servers, the works.

It's okay, now they upgraded to 2Mb ADSL. They charge every student 10c/MB and they pay 7c.

Elysia
03-05-2008, 04:47 AM
They use twisted pairs and differential signalling, both of which reduce interference and reduces the chances of outside noice interfering with the signal.

Yeah, they have to use some sort of shielding to get rid of interference.

It's a shame about all these bandwidth limits. For this, it's about 39 per month (yes, it's a tad expensive compared to others, but it's the only choice out in the middle of nowhere), but bandwidth is free. I can download however much I want without a single complaint from the ISP. And who knows how much bandwidth I've spent? :D

PING
03-05-2008, 07:58 AM
Yeah, I just thought of that. Speeds of 100 mbps would probably not be possible without optic.
Hmmm. So what limits the amount of wires they can bunt together then, I wonder? Hardware?

That is very much possible, i get those speeds on my LAN everyday with normal cat5 connection wires and i am sure that there are no optical wires in the network.

I envy all you people because i pay about $25 a month for a 128 kbps connection with no download cap which really sucks. Most of the plans offered by local isps have a cap of around 1GB per month with speeds upto 2 mbps :| just tell me if that makes any sense to you.

Elysia
03-05-2008, 08:08 AM
Doesn't make any sense. Does that make you happy? :)
I get 8 Mbps/1Mbps w/ no cap. Which is pretty lousy compared to other offerings, but it's the best offered right here.

PING
03-05-2008, 08:26 AM
I get 8 Mbps/1Mbps w/ no cap. Which is pretty lousy compared to other offerings, but it's the best offered right here.

And you call that lousy ? :P

Elysia
03-05-2008, 08:33 AM
Yes! Seeing as there's even 100 MBps (though you won't reach that, of course) for ~36€, among others. No cap of course.
Or how about 24/1 MBps for €27?
Like I said, crap.

Neo1
03-05-2008, 08:44 AM
Yes! Seeing as there's even 100 MBps (though you won't reach that, of course) for ~36, among others. No cap of course.
Or how about 24/1 MBps for 27?
Like I said, crap.

You are in Norway, amirite?

SlyMaelstrom
03-05-2008, 09:09 AM
The Blue-Ray disk contains about 30-40G data for a film - say 120min video
so we get 250M per min ~ 33MbsSource : http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338
* I've removed posting the data here because it stretches the post to annoying widths.

First, when I said "very good quality", I didn't mean Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Personally, I'd call DVD quality "very good"... but who am I to judge? Regardless, the numbers I've posted (which are from what I understand pretty accurate) seem to show that a Blu-Ray movie can range anywhere from ~300MB/min to ~150MB/min, the average seemingly being closer to about 215MB/min. So... even multiplying all of my data by 21.5... you're still downloading a life-time worth (90 or so years) of video (Blu-Ray quality, mind you) in about 20 days. Even if you divided the download speed by 35... you're still downloading 90 or so years of Blu-Ray video in under 2 years. Think about downloading 45 minutes of Blu-Ray video in one minute... this goes well beyond streaming HD video. Which, I suppose is something that will be in high demand in the near future. This is a good step towards completely doing away with tangible disk media.

Elysia
03-05-2008, 10:00 AM
You are in Norway, amirite?
Nope. Close, but no cookie :D


Source : http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338
* I've removed posting the data here because it stretches the post to annoying widths.

First, when I said "very good quality", I didn't mean Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Personally, I'd call DVD quality "very good"... but who am I to judge? Regardless, the numbers I've posted (which are from what I understand pretty accurate) seem to show that a Blu-Ray movie can range anywhere from ~300MB/min to ~150MB/min, the average seemingly being closer to about 215MB/min. So... even multiplying all of my data by 21.5... you're still downloading a life-time worth (90 or so years) of video (Blu-Ray quality, mind you) in about 20 days. Even if you divided the download speed by 35... you're still downloading 90 or so years of Blu-Ray video in under 2 years. Think about downloading 45 minutes of Blu-Ray video in one minute... this goes well beyond streaming HD video. Which, I suppose is something that will be in high demand in the near future. This is a good step towards completely doing away with tangible disk media.
Of course, the movie is compressed more than it needs to be, usually. So you could lower it a slightly and get good compression, enough to stream, but still, we're a long way from streaming that.

vart
03-05-2008, 11:01 AM
Think about downloading 45 minutes of Blu-Ray video in one minute...
You are trying to pretend that all this bandwidth is going solely to your comp...

Just in the same home I live - there are at least 5 home-networks (in 16 flats) according to the visible WAN access points with good quality of the signal.

And I suppose all others use Internet in some way on one computer or network without WAN access.

There are generally 2 underliyng providers - Telephone company and Cabel TV. So I suppose 5-10 flats in this building use the same cabel for their Internet access as I am.

And I'm not living in the desert, so it is not only building using same network... So if I want to get 1Gbit channel - I do not feel - 16Tbit channel used by High level provider will be too much...

SlyMaelstrom
03-05-2008, 11:02 AM
we're a long way from streaming that.Well, of course... everything I've said to this point has been about bringing a 16.4Tbps connection directly to the home (and assumes hardware that can even support that throughput). It's all hypothetical at this point. However, we're not far from streaming (fairly) high quality media or at least downloading it in a relatively short amount of time. As long as it's less time than it takes to go to the video store.

abachler
03-05-2008, 12:08 PM
Does anyone need that much porno ;)

Too much porn is like too much money :D

CornedBee
03-05-2008, 12:11 PM
Too much porn is like too much money :D

Everyone will want to relieve you of it?

abachler
03-05-2008, 12:44 PM
When you have lots of porn, its easier to make more porn :)