Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

World's Fastest Broadband Connection — 40 Gbps

Posted by kdawson on Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:52 AM
from the no-one-needs-that-much-pr0n dept.
paulraps writes "A 75-year-old woman from Karlstad in central Sweden has been given a scorching 40 Gbps internet connection — the fastest residential connection anywhere in the world. Sigbritt Löthberg is the mother of Swedish internet guru Peter Löthberg, who is using his mother to prove that fiber networks can deliver a cost-effective, ultra-fast connection. Sigbritt, who has never owned a computer before, can now watch 1,500 HDTV channels simultaneously or download a whole high definition DVD in two seconds. Apparently 'the hardest part of the whole project was installing Windows on Sigbritt's PC.'" An article in Press Esc notes an analyst study of the increasing demand for fiber-to-the-home in Europe.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Idle: World's Fastest Net Link 'Used To Dry Laundry' 135 comments
praps writes "Last summer a 75-year-old woman from central Sweden became the envy of the IT world with her scorching 40Gbps internet connection. 1,500 simultaneous HDTV channels or a whole high definition DVD downloaded in two seconds were hers for the taking. Now Sigbritt Löthberg could soon be treated to an incredible 100 Gbps link — but it may not be put to great use. According to the head of the ultra-fast fiber connection project, Sigbritt mostly used the gear 'to dry her laundry.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday July 12 2007, @11:53AM (#19839485)
    Sigbritt will now be able to enjoy 1,500 high definition HDTV channels simultaneously. Or, if there is nothing worth watching there, she will be able to download a full high definition DVD in just two seconds.

    Oh, she will, will she? And this content comes from where, exactly?

    That's what I thought.

    She is able to "enjoy" nothing on her connection except the same internet to which we all have access. Sure, you can argue that as such bandwidth penetration becomes commonplace, services will be built to support it - like HD movie downloads or live HD IPTV. But as of now, this is nothing more than a technology demonstration, even though the article lamely begs to differ ("This is more than just a demonstration," said network boss Hafsteinn Jonsson.")

    "The most difficult part of the whole project was installing Windows on Sigbritt's PC," said Jonsson.

    Doubtful. (Why even say this? To impress upon people that a high bandwidth connection isn't "hard" to use? Wouldn't the new computer she ostensibly got, since, as the article notes, she's never owned a computer in her life, have come with Windows installed?[1])

    The secret behind Sigbritt's ultra-fast connection is a new modulation technique which allows data to be transferred directly between two routers up to 2,000 kilometres apart, with no intermediary transponders.

    Great, now all we need is fibre going to every home on earth, and the problem is solved!! Why look at wireless when we've got fibre?

    ...

    I understand the point they're trying to make: that a high speed connection that enables the kinds of things such bandwidth allows is technically feasible to a home. But the problem is the same one we've always had - namely, the "last mile" [wikipedia.org] - and this does nothing to solve that in the least.

    "I want to show that there are other methods than the old fashioned ways such as copper wires and radio, which lack the possibilities that fibre has," said Peter Löthberg, who now works at Cisco.

    Is it any surprise that Cisco is dismissing "radio" as "old fashioned" (nice choice of calling it "radio" instead of "wireless"), when high-bandwidth wireless technologies like WiMAX [wikipedia.org] and UMTS Rev 8 [wikipedia.org] are at least an option worth considering as a solution to the "last mile" problem?

    Overall, a great PR stunt.

    4.5/5 (points deducted for lying about needing to install Windows on a newly purchased PC[1])

    [1] For the real contrarians among us, yes, I'm well aware that systems can be built and purchased without Windows. But if the goal was to get a computer that will ultimately be running Windows, and a corporate giant like Cisco is buying it, it would have been purchased without Windows why, again? Exactly.

    • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday July 12 2007, @11:58AM (#19839561) Homepage Journal

      Oh, she will, will she? And this content comes from where, exactly?

      PirateBay, of course. One of Sweden's national treasures.

      • PirateBay, of course. One of Sweden's national treasures.

        At 1 HD-DVD every 2 seconds she is the PirateBay. Now that's who he should have given the connection to. I doubt her secret lutefisk recipe is going to need quite that much bandwidth.

      • by Xzzy (111297) <sether@NOSPAm.tru7h.org> on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:23PM (#19839965) Homepage
        I hope she's got terabytes worth of ram.. because now the bottleneck is her hard drive and I guarantee she'll hever see that transfer rate unless the data is thrown away as soon as it hits the application.

        My (aging) PATA based system can't even handle 2MB off the internet, which I can get from a couple websites that just so happen to be hosted at the same site my employeer peers at. 40Gb? Disk platters would fly out of the case.
        • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:29PM (#19840053) Homepage Journal

          My (aging) PATA based system can't even handle 2MB off the internet,

          My laptop can write at between 10MB/s and 30MB/s, depending on where on the disk you are writing. 30MB/s is 240Mb/s. If you built a RAID array out of laptop disks, you would need 170 of them at best, 510 at worst to be able to store the data.

          On the other hand, when your network is faster than your disk, the only things worth storing locally are things that need fast random access to (latency is still going to be bigger over the network than the disk).

          The point of a 40Gb connection is not what you can do with it, it's what you can't, and the thing you can't do is saturate it (easily). Until disks and CPUs are a few orders of magnitude faster than they are now, 40Gb/s is effectively infinite bandwidth, and that's what makes it interesting. What would you do if bandwidth were suddenly not an issue?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What made you think a standard machine could handle this type of network throughput?
      Of course it's hard to install Windows on such a specialised beast! (A *nix would have been the logic choice.)

      And why are you claiming this does not cure the Last Mile problem when this is story is all about fibre straight in the home?
        • by mikkelm (1000451) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:32PM (#19840081)
          Last mile fibre to the home is no more difficult than establishing copper to the home in a typical urban environment.

          When you're laying copper, you're running it to the CO. When you're laying fibre, you're running it to building/premises/neighbourhood access layer switches. The latter is a cheaper solution than building a fully-fledged CO. It's no significant hurdle compared to copper. Both need digging, and that's pretty much all there is to it. The ISP I work for does fibre to the home, and we have one of the best per-customer profit margins of all European ISPs. Last mile fibre to the home is -not- an insurmountable task.

          In rural areas, copper is cheaper, but in rural areas, many people still only have 56k dial-up, too, and at that kind of bandwidth and latency, satellite connections are a much better choice anyway.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:15PM (#19839831)
      Has anybody even looked at what the cost is for a 40Gbps interface card? (OC-768) There ain't no way you can call this cost effective.
    • by sqldr (838964) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:18PM (#19839871)
      Why look at wireless when we've got fibre?

      Because there simply isn't enough bandwidth in the air itself for fast wireless. When 3G came out, an engineer I drink beer with often gave me the full SP on why video telephony would never take off. Basically, because to provide a complete service in London alone would involve putting a mast on every single street corner.

      This is why GPRS is charged per packet, not for time "online" (technically, you're always online with GPRS). Each packet goes to every phone signed on that mast. Think of the multiplexing.

      This also goes some way to explaining why HDTV is a bit of a con, especially if you're using a dish rather than cable. Firstly, if you broadcast HDTV at the same bandwidth as normal TV, even with mpeg-4, it looks worse, because the artifacts are more visible. So you could use more bandwidth for a nicer looking channel? Yep.. at cost..

      For an important show, eg. a world cup soccer match, the content provider can pay the broadcaster for extra bandwidth for the 90 minute duration of the match, and it looks great. Unfortunately, if the match goes into extra time, the bandwidth lease drops, and the remaining 30 minutes of footy look like crap! I'm not joking, this actually happens.

      Sure, we can reduce the wavelength and improve the compression, and it will improve over time, but the laws of physics in the realm of wireless are somewhat more restrictive than those of physical wiring, and we're a long way off getting anywhere near the quality that we're being hyped.
      • by Dahamma (304068) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:39PM (#19840159)
        because to provide a complete service in London alone would involve putting a mast on every single street corner.

        There are already cameras on every corner, I'm sure they can handle antennas as well...

        This is why GPRS is charged per packet, not for time "online" (technically, you're always online with GPRS). Each packet goes to every phone signed on that mast. Think of the multiplexing.

        That's what the Internet is all about. IP is packet based and multiplexed. Do you think you have your own dedicated connection to slashdot servers? Also: yes, GPRS is packet based, but not necessarily charged per packet. Many people pay a flat rate for GPRS, just like Internet access.

        This is the same argument people use to claim DSL is better than cable. Well, I can't get more than 3mbps DSL with their "dedicated line". I just switched to cable for the same price and get bursts of 20Mbps, with 6+Mbps continuous.

        Basically, this really fact-free article is claiming that fiber is "cost effective" but doesn't say the slightest about the cost. I guarantee it costs thousands of dollars to install per home, and that's just the last mile, not the massive changes and upgrades that would be required to support this bandwidth that has no useful application to the home for 99.9% of the public. Download an HD-DVD in 2 seconds? To WHERE? Try copying a 30GB file between 2 PCs with GiGE on the same LAN (or even 2 HDDs on the same computer). If it takes 2 seconds, I will pay for your FTTH installation.

        Just as the OP said, this is purely a Cisco-sponsored publicity stunt.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      But not every PC in the world comes with Windows installed. There was a /. topic a day or two ago about computers in China which don't have Windows installed - legal or illegal. I have bought computers that had no software installed. It could happen in Sweden, but I don't know for sure. Just because you cannot buy one easily doesn't mean that the rest of the world suffers from the same constraints.

      You are spot on regarding capability (1,500 HDTV channels) versus availability (more data than she can ev

      • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:08PM (#19839723)
        Heh. I include a disclaimer saying just that, and someone still responds:

        [1] For the real contrarians among us, yes, I'm well aware that systems can be built and purchased without Windows. But if the goal was to get a computer that will ultimately be running Windows, and a corporate giant like Cisco is buying it, it would have been purchased without Windows why, again? Exactly.

        And no, since I'm sitting on a gigabit network on a 10Gbps backbone connected to Internet2/Abilene and BOREASNet, I don't have "network envy". This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

        Even 10Gbps PCIe NICs for computers only push about 6-7Gbps...to claim that a 40Gbps connection to an old lady's house is anything BUT a publicity stunt is laughable. Doesn't quite have the same ring as doing the same test between laboratory or corporate facilities, does it?
  • Are there any servers that are able to stream 1500 HDTV channels simultaneously?
    • is what kind of ethernet card does the system have.

      True story: a guy says, "I got a 100MB connection into my office but it's slow." Go to his office test his desktop. Yup slow. (1.5mb or so) Eventually test all the way back to the adapter. Holy smoke! 100MB at the adapter.

      Two problems:
      1. Turns out he bought the "top of the line" Netgear switch at Best Buy.
      2. Win32 NIC is configured to auto, which apparently chose the slowest possible speed.

      Today's Lesson: Windows and vanilla hardware are their own imped
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12 2007, @11:55AM (#19839503)
    "RIAA arrests 75 year old woman in sweden for file-sharing over her 40GBPS connection. Damages are estimated in the billions."
  • Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Thursday July 12 2007, @11:56AM (#19839519) Homepage
    Talk about taking a drink from a firehose... How's her NIC keep up with that throughput? How's her hard drive? Her CPU?
  • History Repeating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ckwop (707653) * <Simon.Johnson@gmail.com> on Thursday July 12 2007, @11:56AM (#19839529) Homepage

    ... that its all just a little bit of history repeating

    It isn't just Shirley Bassey who thinks history is repeating, I do too. When the first canals were built in the 18th century that connected the centre of Manchester with the local coal mines, the price of coal fell by half. It wasn't just coal, suddenly the cotton from the New World could be transported from Liverpool to Manchester in a matter of days - not in the weeks of yester-year.

    This lead to a collapse in price of a whole range of minerals and materials. It is not an exaggeration to say that the humble cannal was the back-bone of the Industrial Revolution. It supplied cheap materials, power in the form of water wheels, and allowed production of a product to move far away from sea, yet still have global reach at the same time.

    Parallels with the Internet can obviously be drawn. Rather than aiding the movement of physical commodities, the Internet aids the movement of intellectual commodities. It completes what the Industrial Revolution started. Now production of information is not tied to any location. It can be forged anywhere and transported to anywhere in a fraction of a second.

    Forget Web 2.0, AJAX or Silverlight. In a century these words will only be known by Internet Historians, who will still have no better clue that us what web 2.0 actually means ;). What will be taught in the class-room about the early Internet is how it allowed the production of value to be independent of the physical location of a business.

    Simon

    • When the first canals were built in the 18th century that connected the centre of Manchester with the local coal mines, the price of coal fell by half. It wasn't just coal, suddenly the cotton from the New World could be transported from Liverpool to Manchester in a matter of days - not in the weeks of yester-year.

      *Long, typical blogger-eze pie-in-the-sky rant snipped*

      I don't see any validity in your comparison; the article is about last-mile connectivity, and you're talking about..end-to-end delivery

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The reason bandwidth is "billed-by-the-bit", as you put it, is because it is scarce.

        The reason you think huge bandwidth to the home is unfeasible is because you're stuck in the capitalist mentality, the very monster that spawned the MAFIAA and the current US political environment. Plentiful, cheap anything is bad for business, so business steps in and makes sure that cheap thing never materializes. Bandwidth is no exception to this rule.

        The telecoms have already laid thousands of miles of wires to handle
      • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:18PM (#19839879)
        Waterwheels need the water moving fast enough to torque the wheel. That seems to be a contradiction.

        Gears. If you have a large mass of water moving, it doesn't need to be moving fast.
  • Quite unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lawaetf1 (613291) on Thursday July 12 2007, @11:56AM (#19839531)
    download a whole high definition DVD in two seconds

    Assuming she has a massive drive array to record that amount of info in two seconds. I know the statement is just to illustrate the bandwidth but the nerd in me had to point out the infeasibility of it. Preposterous!

    I'll go now.
  • by TraumaTrout (914276) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:00PM (#19839593)
    Once she's downloaded every season of "Murder, She Wrote", will she ever use the connection again?
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:04PM (#19839659)
    This really doesn't do anything to demonstrate that fast broadband can be cost effective. Even if this single demo shows that the cost of getting it to the consumer is cheap (and it probably is reasonable, Verizion is rolling out fibre to the home) that's only half the problem. Whatever amount of bandwidth you want to offer to end users, you have to have more for your upstream to your office, and more still out to the Internet, at least if you want it to mean anything. If not, you are just putting them on a fast WAN. That's great, but not the same thing as fast broadband.

    I mean in a very real way, my computer has a gigabit Internet connection. That's what it is linked at, and there's other devices it can talk to at that speed... But only very few. If it wants anything past its immediate network, it is limited to 10mbits, since that's the speed of the Internet connection. Now while my net connection really has the upstream to support that, imagine if it didn't. Suppose that the provider only had 1mbit of upstream, and it was shared among a bunch of users. Essentially my "10mbit broadband" would be useless unless I happened to be talking to someone else on their system.

    In fact I've encountered broadband that is like this. I'll be transferring data to someone that claims to have 10mbit VDSL. I've no doubt they do, but their ISP lacks the bandwidth to back it up. So despite the fact that I'm at work sitting on multiple OC-3c lines and I've verified they aren't slammed, and they allegedly have a "10mbit" connection, we are getting rates more around ISDN because their ISP's upstream is slammed.

    That's the "elephant in the closet" so to speak, of Internet access. I see plenty of people who tout fibre to the home and all these great technologies for lots of bandwidth on the last mile run. That's great and all, but really that's half or less of the problem. It doesn't do you any good to get a fast line to your house if there aren't even faster lines at every stage of upstream. That is not cheap, unfortunately. If you wanted to offer 40gbps to the home, I'd imagine you'd need trunks in the multi-terabit capacity going from your concentration point back to the home office and god only knows what as an actual Internet connection, at least if you wanted people to reliably be able to get a good portion of that 40gbps.
  • Errr, ok but..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hasbeard (982620) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:06PM (#19839673)
    is her ISP supplying her with 40 GB of bandwidth?
  • by riffzifnab (449869) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:09PM (#19839725) Journal
    Anyone have her phone number? I hear she has a wonderful personality and huge "assets". I have no shame when it comes to that kind of bandwidth.

    Or maybe I can just live in her basement, a change of scenery would do me good. Besides Mom is always nagging at me to get out of the basement and go see the world.
  • by darnoKonrad (1123209) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:11PM (#19839759)
    I only have access to 56k. Tho, that will be changing soon with the fiber coming thru this summer -- 40 bucks a month for 3Mb/s. It's insane that the United States is this far off the ball.
    • Not the entire US - just Indiana.

      (ducks)

    • by roseacres (995942) on Thursday July 12 2007, @01:17PM (#19840717)
      And then there's Tennessee. I get 26.4 on a good day. I call Bellsouth/ATT and complain. The answer - 19.2 or better meets their standard. A state legislator reads my email of complaint and says that I should know that I now have the option of selecting a different phone company if I'm not happy with ATT. Sigh!
  • Sign me up! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:13PM (#19839789) Homepage Journal

    40 Gbps? Wow, sign me up for this!

    The most difficult part of the whole project was installing Windows on Sigbritt's PC

    Meh, on second thought it doesn't sound worth the effort.

  • Sigbritt, who has never owned a computer before, can now watch 1,500 HDTV channels simultaneously or download a whole high definition DVD in two seconds. Apparently 'the hardest part of the whole project was installing Windows on Sigbritt's PC.'"
    It seems the hardest part would be setting up the 1,500 HDTVs.

    Of course if she's anything like my 71 year-old Mom it would mean she could fall asleep in from of 1,500 HDTV channels simultaneously.
  • Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by psbrogna (611644) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:21PM (#19839921)
    A Windows box with a 40 gps sec connection? Great, so now 1,000 different email worms and other forms of malware on Grandma's PC have a huge pipe. I'm sure this story will end well.
  • by sacrilicious (316896) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:22PM (#19839961) Homepage
    can now download a whole high definition DVD in two seconds

    ... and write it to where? What storage hardware is capable of writing data quickly enough to keep up?

  • by psbrogna (611644) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:24PM (#19839989)
    Yeah, but she only gets 20 Gb/s upload speed. Damn ISP's and their fancy marketing lingo.
  • by jmilne (121521) on Thursday July 12 2007, @12:29PM (#19840043)

    There's some photos [stupi.se] on Peter Lothberg's site that might be his mom playing with her new connection.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And he secretly forged a master connection.

      One connection to rule them all... and in the darkness bind them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      They obviously didn't do the math before writing the article. Considering that 40 Gigabits per second will get you a maximum of 5 Gigabytes per second (ignoring overhead), thats only 10GB in two seconds. That's enough for a single standard definition DVD movie in two seconds. Nowhere near enough for an HD-DVD.