Technology

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"

Broadband is not a speed.

Distances though? I've seen similar breakthroughs in the past but it was only good for networking within the same room.

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

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

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

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

Source article is here https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/aston-university-researchers-send-data-45-million-times-faster-average-broadband

One originally linked is re-post of re-post.

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...

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.

Wow! That site sucks on mobile.

remember kids, commit arson against your local ISP, and you will only be arrested for probably 20 years.

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

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.

Faster or more bandwith?