Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet

World's Fastest Broadband Connection — 40 Gbps 416

Posted by kdawson
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Fastest Broadband Connection — 40 Gbps

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday July 12, 2007 @12:53PM (#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 @12:58PM (#19839561) Homepage Journal

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

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Teun (17872)
      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?
      • 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.)


        Without more information, I highly, highly doubt that her computer itself is equipped to handle 40Gbps of sustained traffic throughput...

        Even IF Windows needed to be installed on a machine, it's false to say that was the "hardest part" of enabling an experimental 40Gbps connection to a residence.

        And why are you claim
        • by mikkelm (1000451) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:32PM (#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.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by walt-sjc (145127)
            In rural areas, copper is cheaper

            I think the POINT of this article is that it may not be for long. Keep in mind that fiber prices are coming down and the price of copper is going up. Existing fiber and copper have relatively short length limits before repeaters too. With current tech, they have to have remote terminals / DLC's etc. all over the place to extend the reach of the CO. This new fiber tech can go 2000km without a repeater. That's huge! That shitcans all the "in the middle" equipment so it could b
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:15PM (#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 @01:18PM (#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 @01:39PM (#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.
    • by Fred_A (10934)

      Is it any surprise that Cisco is dismissing "radio" as "old fashioned" (nice choice of calling it "radio" instead of "wireless"),
      Not so long ago it was the wireless that was old fashioned with all those youngster listening to their transistor radios...

      "Bah, I'm off to see the Intarhwebs on the wireless, call me when the soup's ready."
    • by BLKMGK (34057)
      Here's one for you - what do you think would happen to that computer if she did actually find a source out there that could download at speeds anywhere near what has just been advertised for her? I once had access to a really high speed connection on a corporate LAN and was downloading from another corp a set of ISO for some software - concurrently. I didn't think much about the download until my mouse began to respond more slowly and the system started to become unresponsive. When I investigated I found th
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by janrinok (846318)

      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 aaronl (43811)
      You still use a radio to signal on copper wiring. Cisco may have been talking about wireless, but it's more likely that they were just talking about fibre optic as the way of the future rather than copper lines. You can transmit a high speed signal much further, and much faster, without amplification over fibre optic than you can over copper. It's trivial to run gigabit over a fibre cable that's miles long, but you really can't do that with traditional copper line.

      For more information, this is how things
    • by Qzukk (229616)
      Oh, she will, will she? And this content comes from where, exactly?

      Nice try, but this time the point you're trying to make is flat out wrong thanks to the internet providers pushing their own VoIP and TV services over their pipes. The content would come directly from the service provider and enjoy every last bit of bandwidth the user has between the service provider and the user.

      and a corporate giant like Cisco is buying it, it would have been purchased without Windows why, again?

      Who knows? Maybe because
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by daveschroeder (516195) *
        As I said, "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 in the meantime, "this is nothing more than a technology demonstration."

        Try reading my post next time. I understand the points they're making, but that doesn't change the fact this is an experimental demonstration and a publicity stunt for Cisco.
  • by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @12:54PM (#19839493) Homepage Journal
    Are there any servers that are able to stream 1500 HDTV channels simultaneously?
    • Are there any servers that are able to stream 1500 HDTV channels to 2 users simultaneously?

      -Rick
    • 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
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dgatwood (11270)

        I returned a consumer-grade Netgear gigabit switch and replaced it with a D-Link switch a few weeks ago because the Netgear switch was showing about 85% packet loss at 100 mbps speeds. Sadly, in my experience, Netgear just doesn't build them like they used to. Oh, and then there was the Netgear ethernet card that wouldn't start talking to the network if you disconnected and reconnected the cable. You had to shut the interface down and bring it back up. After a couple of years like that, it started dropp

    • Are there any servers that are able to stream 1500 HDTV channels simultaneously?
      Maybe the real question is, does she have 1,500 TVs on which she can simultaneously watch these programmes?
    • Forget the technical side of it all. The real question is: can any _human_ watch 1500 movies simultaneously? :P

      And at the risk of dragging it back into technology, that's assuming they give her a lot of TFTs too. Otherwise on a 1920x1200 pixel screen, we're talking 1536 pixels per movie window. Assuming they're tiled without borders, that's... hmm... closest I can get while keeping the 16/9 aspect ratio is 48 by 27 pixels per movie. Not gonna see much detail there, and that's putting it mildly :P
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12, 2007 @12:55PM (#19839503)
    "RIAA arrests 75 year old woman in sweden for file-sharing over her 40GBPS connection. Damages are estimated in the billions."
    • by Forge (2456)
      Gotta love Slashdot.

      But seriously. Can you imagine seeding on this link while all your peers are on similar bandwidth? How long would it take to download the full run of any popular series (5 to 10 seasons)?

      Somebody stop me... Please... I can't help it.

      How much is that in Libraries of Congress per blink of a human eye?

      There. I can breath again.
    • Gives a new meaning to DPS...
  • Screw the botnets... I think the spammers just found their next zombie target!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by enjerth (892959)
      And he secretly forged a master connection.

      One connection to rule them all... and in the darkness bind them.
  • Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @12:56PM (#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 @12:56PM (#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

    • Maybe I'm missing something, but how would you use a canal for a waterwheel? Canal water needs to be slow enough for a mule to pull the barge both directions. Waterwheels need the water moving fast enough to torque the wheel. That seems to be a contradiction.
    • Silicon Snake Oil (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181)

      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)

        by billcopc (196330)
        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
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jafiwam (310805)
        I agree the "demo" is a bit off from the first potential market. But it DID get it in the news right?

        So guess what, now next time I am thinking about WAN infrastructure and faced with connecting 10 locations of a printing company (which move HUGE files) I have a chance of solving the problem without 150K of equipment and services per year (which are not fast enough yet).

        Imagine business parks get a "WAN LINK" building where this fiber drops to other similar buildings. You just pay for a bit of routing and
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Shotgun (30919)
      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.

      Two examples to draw your point more fully.

      My wife's a real-estate agent. In years gone by, when you moved to a new town you wouldn't know where to lo
  • Quite unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lawaetf1 (613291) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @12:56PM (#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 teslar (706653)
      Never mind HD performance, she has to get that DvD from somewhere and I highly doubt that whoever is seeding can upload it is as fast as she can download.
      • by HTH NE1 (675604)
        So you pull from multiple seeders and you end up with the sum of their maximum seeding bandwidths.

        Of course, with that much bandwidth, why bother with local storage at all? She can just stream anything she needs, and all the real storage will be at her son's place.
  • At the moment (call me naive) I can only see two:
    • watching movies
    • downloading movies
    One or more content middle men industries (ie TV, DVDs) is looking at the brink of an economic revolution. There can't be any denying it now.
    • There are actually some uses of this connection that none of you are considering. Everyone sees the obvious "Watch TV, download movies," BUT does anyone here notice the potential for application developers? Currently a lot of us developers have moved to using the Internet for our applications, because it solves a lot of our deployment problems. However, the downside of Internet applications is that their performance is far inferior to that of desktop applications (both graphically and otherwise). We are cur

    • by sowth (748135)

      You must be stuck in the WebTV version of the internet.

      How about an interactive 3D environment with no slowdowns / weird behaviour due to latency and bandwidth limitiations? How about home users being able to be true peers on the internet (the way the network was designed to run) instead of not being allowed to run servers or worse being restricted to only the web and email--isps claiming servers and other apps use too much bandwidth. They wouldn't have this argument anymore.

      In fact email was originally

  • by TraumaTrout (914276) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:00PM (#19839593)
    Once she's downloaded every season of "Murder, She Wrote", will she ever use the connection again?
  • Grandma who can't possibly be interested in massive copyright infringement? Check.
    Ultra-high-speed connection, even if it has no bearing on its use? Check.
    Foreign and not even subject to US legislature? Check.

    If the RIAA want to outdo themselves in the "Really fucking bad lawsuit target" department they have the perfect target now...
  • Wonder where he's getting his feed, it must be on a backbone or a teleco somewhere. At that speed you're probably not going to get anything near that speed from a single source. But it would be nice to download every distro of linux from different sources in a minute :)

    I'd like to see this tech come into place for CAN's (City Area Networks).

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:04PM (#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.
    • The problem is the cost to an ISP to have a multi-gigabit core. Hardware for 10GBps cores is obscenely expensive (making the per-port costs high). Until the price of the hardware drops, the price of bandwidth will be held high.
    • by fbjon (692006)
      You're right, but this would be less of an issue with proper multicasting and things like Akamai. Just as long as there's a server cluster inside each ISP "cell" that can handle all the popular stuff, most people will be fine. I wouldn't do much with a 40Gbps connection to, say, Andorra, or any other place in particular for that matter. Intelligent distribution of content can make issues and problems with the backbone less issue-ful and problematic.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sowth (748135)

      That is why there is a need for protocols which try to connect to the closest peer on the network. Yeah, there are plenty of situations where you need something from a specific location or an item specific to you, but there are plenty of situations where many people will have a copy of what you want. The current client/server model of doing most things also causes these hangups. Having to go from your computer to a server to your next door neighbor can be very inefficient.

      Perhaps network software needs to

  • Errr, ok but..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hasbeard (982620) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:06PM (#19839673)
    is her ISP supplying her with 40 GB of bandwidth?
    • by jbeaupre (752124)
      Sure, for all of .25 seconds each month. Then she's maxed her 10 GB/mo download limit and has to wait another 30 days.
  • reaching the end of internet with blazing speed
  • Proof of concept.
  • by riffzifnab (449869) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:09PM (#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 @01:11PM (#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.
  • Sign me up! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:13PM (#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.

  • by feepness (543479) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:17PM (#19839859) Homepage

    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.
  • Do the math... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Zendar (578450)
    Can someone do the math on this? Even if there were 1500 HDTV feeds, is it possible to stream them all to this lady simultaneously with a 40Gbps connection? What about the 36GB HD DVD download? 2 seconds??
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by agallagh42 (301559)
      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.
  • Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by psbrogna (611644) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:21PM (#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.
  • So all they did was drop an OC-192 connection into this ladies home. woohoo. I've got OC-192 IN MY office..if i had money to burn i'm sure i could get the same provider to wire to my house too.
  • by sacrilicious (316896) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:22PM (#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 @01:24PM (#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 @01:29PM (#19840043)

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

  • by Dekortage (697532) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @03:01PM (#19841243) Homepage

    ...she says the Microsoft Internet is down again even with that forty jiggle-bite thingy you installed.

The only thing cheaper than hardware is talk.

Working...