this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
457 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

68813 readers
5166 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 145 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

xfinity will advertise 100 Tbps lines with the abysmal 1.5 TB/mo data cap anyway

"you can drive this super sport car for $ per month - but only for 10 miles"

[–] [email protected] 96 points 1 year ago (2 children)

100Tbps downloads speeds (5Mbps upload)

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aren't fiber lines typically symmetrical? At least that's how I've usually seen them advertised.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You underestimate the fuckery that ISPs will go through to offer the least amount of services for the most possible money.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don’t be silly son, the free market will signal there is opportunity and prices will drop and quality will go up.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

All fed to you on the not updated data line that caps at 800 MBps

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 year ago (5 children)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you know how fast you were going?

Faster than broadband...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Faster than "[...] the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway"?

(Quoted: Tanenbaum, 1981)

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (7 children)

And 1.2 million times less likely to be available to the public

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago

Cool I'll be able to download CoD in just a few hours.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

With data caps, you can now go over your limit 1.2 billion times faster!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's compared to the average broaband speed in the UK, so it's not quite as exciting as it might sound ...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

So it’s barely faster than my phones internet when I’m traveling through nature.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember the early 90's when fiber connection was being developed in research centers.

Researchers had found a way to transmit all of a country's phone calls' bandwidth through a simple fiber cable. Then, they wondered: what could we use this for?

This was a few years before the explosion of the internet...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With further refinement and scaling, internet providers could ramp up standard speeds without overhauling current fiber optic infrastructures.

Don't worry. They'll find some way to use this to justify massive rate increases.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

We must make ISPs a public service owned by the people. Who can argue that internet isn't essential to being a regular member of society? These companies rob us and use their monopolies to manipulate us.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wow! That site sucks on mobile.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

PopSci in general has seen better days. I tried subscribing again to their physical magazines and it's just a mess... There were more full page cigarette ads than interesting articles.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I'm highly suspicious about group dispersion over long distances. Today's infrastructure was developed for a certain range of frequencies. Broading it right away wouldn't be applicable that easy - we would need to introduce error correction which compromises the speed multiplier.

Too lazy to get the original paper though

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

First of all some corrections:

By constructing a device called an optical processor, however, researchers could access the never-before-used E- and S-bands.

It's called an amplifier not processor, the Aston University page has it correct. And at least the S-band has seen plenty of use in ordinary CWDM systems, just not amplified. We have at least 20 operational S-band links at 1470 and 1490 nm in our backbone right now. The E-band maybe less so, because the optical absorption peak of water in conventional fiber sits somewhere in the middle of it. You could use it with low water peak fiber, but for most people it hasn't been attractive trying to rent spans of only the correct type of fiber.

the E-band, which sits adjacent to the C-band in the electromagnetic spectrum

No, it does not, the S-band is between them. It goes O-band, E-band, S-band, C-band, L-band, for "original" and "extended" on the left side, and "conventional", flanked by "short" and "long" on the right side.

Now to the actual meat: This is a cool material science achievement. However in my professional opinion this is not going to matter much for conventional terrestrial data networks. We already have the option of adding more spectrum to current C-band deployments in our networks, by using filters and additional L-band amplifiers. But I am not aware of any network around ours (AS559) that actually did so. Because fundamentally the question is this:

Which is cheaper:

  • renting a second pair of fiber in an existing cable, and deploying the usual C-band equipment on the second pair,
  • keeping just one pair, and deploying filters and the more expensive, rarer L-band equipment, or
  • keeping just one pair, and using the available C-band spectrum more efficiently with incremental upgrades to new optics?

Currently, for us, there is enough spectrum still open in the C-band. And our hardware supplier is only just starting to introduce some L-band equipment. I'm currently leaning towards renting another pair being cheaper if we ever get there, but that really depends on where the big buying volume of the market will move.

Now let's say people do end up extending to the L-band. Even then I'm not so sure that extending into the E- and S- bands as the next further step is going to be even equally attractive, for the simple reason that attenuation is much lower at the C-band and L-band wavelengths.

Maybe for subsea cables the economics shake out differently, but the way I understand their primary engineering constraint is getting enough power for amplifiers to the middle of the ocean, so maybe more amps, and higher attenuation, is not their favourite thing to develop towards either. This is hearsay though, I am not very familiar with their world.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More bandwidth. The physical Bit already travels at the speed of light inside the cables

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

My docter said i needed more fiber.

load more comments
view more: next ›