Nokia to demonstrate a technique for terabit-speed data over optical-fiber
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
We already had 10 Tbps per fiber pair: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/231074-googles-faster-un...
[0]: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fas...
A singlemode fiber is limited to about 100 Tbps per fiber at 10 bits/s/Hz. It is not obvious to me how much bandwidth usage has to grow until it becomes more economical to deploy this new kind of fiber rather than multiple (existing) singlemode fibers. For example, for high bandwidth applications MPO connectors with 12 or 24 fibers per connectors are used.
The Nyquist rate is modulation dependent. Optical fiber can certainly achieve spectral efficiency over 2 bits/s/Hz.
Either way it's pretty cool to see the increases in trunk capacity. This is enabling for a huge range of applications.
(Edit: Bad math on bandwidth, must.have.coffee!)
It seems, reading between the lines, that they were able to make 10x bandwidth improvements over existing fiber with fancy new physical layer encoding (QAM with some statistical magic)
And it's not in a lab, they're experiments between major German cities.
Last-mile operators don't care very much about speed, but core network operators definitely do because performance is money. Replacing fiber optic equipment is damn near a trivial technical operation and business decision.
Switching my entire district from ADSL to fiber-to-the-building took a team of a dozen workers only 2 weeks, because all cabling between buildings and all street cabling is in cable tunnels where the cabling can be easily replaced with RC vehicles.
That means replacing those cables again in a few decades will be basically free, too.
For backbones, the same applies, except there the reward is even higher: They’re all in cable tunnels, where they can easily be replaced.
I think you and me have a different definition of free. There are still substantial costs in both labor and materials to replace the outside plant, even if there is existing ducting in place with free space.
As evidenced by Google Fiber’s struggles.
If that cost is eliminated, replacing fiber outside is as cheap as replacing it inside a datacenter.
Firstly, if you have existing ducts there is no need for trenching. Secondly, a lot of trencing is replaced by directional boring and, where possible, by microtrenching or plowing. Thirdly, gaining access to poles isn't usually the problem. What takes time and money is to get them into such a state that new cable can be installed. Fourthly, your largest cost is always going to be labor, regardless of what you do. Lastly, even ignoring all the other costs there is still equipment and materials, which will account for at least a fifth of the project costs.
So in summary, no almost all the cost is not in the line items you specify. A lot of money is going to get spent no matter what when you replace your outside plant.
> As evidenced by Google Fiber’s struggles.
Google is also being actively hampered by competitors that own the poles they need access to.
> If that cost is eliminated, replacing fiber outside is as cheap as replacing it inside a datacenter.
That's a bit optimistic, as the outside plant is far larger than any datacenter, not administered by a signle party nor a controlled environment.
One thing is undeniable tho. Bandwidth demand is steadily growing and there isn't a clear end in sight. And where there is demand there is progress.
There is absolutely ZERO reason for national fiber backbone to enforce data cap limits and encourage metered plans, but there it is, in Australia. Countries considered an ass of Europe like Romania roll on the floor laughing at you ($15 unmetered 1Gbit home connections).
The main problem is that the politicians made promises they cannot keep: cheap fiber to everyone at the same price, at no cost to the state since it will pay back itself.
Well, turns out it's not cheap to build out fiber to everyone, costs differ enormously between the city and the bush and there isn't enough revenue coming in to pay for it.
Since no politician will ever admit they were wrong, consumer prices can't be raised and the buildout cannot be stopped.
Desperate to save money and face, the politicians opted to switch to DSL from fiber, bought up all cable tv companies to substitute CATV for fiber, forbid any competition with the national fiber company and proceeded to squeeze every last penny out of the Internet service providers, since they couldn't touch the consumer prices.
While there are zero reasons for data caps and metered plans, the national fiber network is so expensive to use, ISPs have no other option but to use data caps and metering so as not to go out of business immediately.
The end result is very poor and very slow service on the national fiber network with customers complaining and wanting to stay on old ADSL connections, which is ironic. Unfortunately they can't since the copper network is being decommissioned, so as not to compete with the national fiber network and to bring in more money to the government owned company.
DNS.NET and Versatel (now 1&1) have their own fibre network in some areas of Berlin and they actually do FTTH if you are one of the lucky few. I live in a pretty dense and central area of Berlin and all i get is 50Mbps VDSL, because i want to avoid the cable providers that have an inferior network. For private usage it's still okay and i have access to 1Gbps at work, but i still can't wait for Vectoring to arrive.
This is one domain where Berlin is clearly lagging behind compared to most European cities. The LTE coverage is another one too. I personally don't care much, but the reliability of Telekom's network in Berlin is a total joke (Vodafone seems a bit better, O2/E-plus suck but it's cheap at least).
I have no problem with Telekom LTE though, seems to generally work fine and gives me >50Mbps in most areas, it's often faster than my 50Mbps at home.
"I want to avoid the cable providers that have an inferior network"
I live in Köln, and because of the distance to the nearest loop, I don't get the 100mbit offer from Telekom… only 18mbit vdsl at best. I went to UnityMedia cable and get 200mbit. Unity is an Evil Media Company, but I haven't noticed anything wrong with their network. So what am I missing?
In general using Cable, more people have to share the same bandwidth, especially if the provider cheaped out and only does whats necessary. You don't even get your own IPv4, you are basically sharing public IPs with other people through NAT, which makes accessing anything at your home more complicated as well.
Go go Nokia Bell, go away zdnet ;)