Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Internet

10Gbit to the Home by 2010 286

womby writes "Nihon Keizai Shinbun report (Japanese) that NTT, Fujitsu and the Japanese Government are forming a working group to develop internet technologies that will hopefully allow homes to receve 10 gigabit internet connections by 2010.
'The Japanese government (the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Post and Telecommunication) are going to start a development plan next year that will increase the speed of the internet in Japan to 100 times faster than the current 100MB fibre internet, with partner companies it is aiming for completion by 2010.' A complete Translation is here, if my blog gets beaten into the ground try the Coral Cache Link."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10Gbit to the Home by 2010

Comments Filter:
  • Uhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xgamer04 ( 248962 ) <> on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:09PM (#10102606)
    First, we need hard drives and system buses that can get the data moving at this speed.
    • Re:Uhh... (Score:2, Insightful)

      10Gb is only 1.2GB/s which is easily transfered by hard drives and system busses now. 100Gb is where things start to get tricky though.
      • Re:Uhh... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:31PM (#10102734)
        Uh, what hard drive you do have that can do 1.2 gigabytes per second?!?! Without RAID, I've never see a HD read benchmark much above 50 MEGABYTES per second. (+/- 50%. I don't follow hard drives too closely.)

        As for bus throughput, SATA is 150 MB/sec, PCI in its various forms ranges from 133 MB/sec to 533 MB/sec. PCI-X is about 1GB/sec, and PCI Express finally breaks the 1.2 GB/sec barrier if you use the 8x or 16x variety.

        Of course, if you gave the NIC a Hypertransport bus link directly to the CPU, you could also do this now. But Hypertransport is definitely cutting edge for home users. I wouldn't call it "easy".

        Given hard drive limitations, you'd better be streaming all that data into RAM, or you'll never keep up. :)

    • Re:Uhh... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <(sdotno) (at) (> on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:14PM (#10102635)
      First, we need hard drives and system buses that can get the data moving at this speed.

      But you don't need consumer drives that fast. I suspect the plan (of the carriers) is to have your data on big storage arrays at your ISP - for better lock-in to your ISP.

      This bandwidth, if it's low latency, would make a thin/diskless client much more practical than it is today.

      • It depends on where software makers think they'll make money, but they could expand functionality such that you'll still want something faster yet.

        10Gbit is nice, but I'm not counting on a latency that would beat a 1Gbit network inside the case. 10Gbit network is still great for remote storage though.
    • by Donny Smith ( 567043 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:20PM (#10102673)
      Hard Disks - you don't need HDD for video conferencing and such.

      Buses - if you have 10 devices (3 TVs, 2 PCs, 2 video phones, 4 security cameras, 2 PlayStation 5) in your home, it shouldn't be too hard to use up that bandwidth. Any particular device alone wouldn't need to be able to use up the bandwidth, but all together, they could.

      Just imagine how much bandwidth could be consumed by four kids playing virtual-reality games on the Internet...
    • System bus: PCI-Express. 10 gigabit/second is about 4x pci-e speed, and systems are coming with 4x, 8x, and 16x slots (though most will be predominantly 1x slots (2.5 gigabit/sec, and 16x will most frequently be reserved for video cards).

      With PCIX 64 bit 133MHz you are only at about 8.5 gigabit/sec, so it is true that it won't support...

      I can guarantee that by 2010 the state of the art will have moved significantly on.
  • Mmmmm (Score:2, Funny)

    Pr0n at the speed of .... damn that was quick!
  • by master_p ( 608214 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:11PM (#10102614)
    The world's information at your fingertips!
  • the blog itself is running on a small shuttle box and the internet connection is one of the 100Mbit fibre connections mentioned in the article.

    wordpress is supposed to scale ok, I have my fingers crossed.
  • by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:12PM (#10102624)
    I'd be pleased just having 100Mbit to the home. By 2010 I might even have all my home machines upgraded to GigE...
  • Do the math (Score:5, Funny)

    by TrevorB ( 57780 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:12PM (#10102625) Homepage
    10gbps = 1.25GB/s = 2 DivX movies/s = 1 DVD-5/4s = 416 MP3s/s = Brown Trousers time for the MPAA = Roll over in grave time for RIAA
    • MP3s/s (Score:5, Funny)

      by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:38PM (#10102764)

      I love it. The NEW standard to measure bandwith.

    • 20TB / 1.25 GB/s = 4.55 days, 24 / 4.55 = 5.27, so 5.27 Libraries of congress per day.
    • Re:Do the math (Score:3, Interesting)

      by strider3700 ( 109874 )
      actually I see this being a great thing for the MPAA. In reality it will still take a minute or two to get a complete DVD but thats fast enough for me. So all the studios have to do is take their entire collection of films and make the new iTunes for movies. I'd gladdly pay $2 per movie to download some of the really old obscure crap I tend to rent for 49 cents a week on wornout vhs these days.

      The only requirements I have is I must own the downloaded copy, and it must not be tied to a specific viewe
      • "The only requirements I have is I must own the downloaded copy, and it must not be tied to a specific viewer."

        dream on, dream on...
  • by g-to-the-o-to-the-g ( 705721 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:13PM (#10102628) Homepage Journal
    I think this would change the way the internet is. With 10Gbit internet, you could almost have the entire world as one big Beowulf cluster!

    But seriously, imagine all the fun you could have downloading pr0n^H^H^H^H educational videos.

  • Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )
    NO, its a serious question. Why do we really need this sort of insane bandwidth in ones home?

    Cable today can do VOIP with video. Video on demand is across cable, today. Email even works on dialup ( well its mostly Spam now anyway so who cares ) Online games, dsl is enough.. There are rumors of going back to 'usage fees'.... overt P2P will be banned before 2010... ( if DRM and the 'media' doesn't kill general purpose computing by then ).. etc etc etc..

    We cant download movies, songs and we only need so man
    • Why? Because when I download a linux iso cd(s), I want it NOW!. Plus the insanely massive bandwidth would allow me to easily scp files between work/home/school computers.
    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john DOT lamar AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:34PM (#10102750) Homepage Journal
      Why... A beowulf cluster of this size []

      Seriously though, if the next Playstation is going to rely on distributed computing this would be the thing that makes it a reality.

      Seriously, imagine p2p networks that spring up to and combine computing power to solve any math problem.

      We can all build nukes! Forcast weather for the whole planet!

      Imagine the cool "beowulf live" distributions that spring up - boot and enjoy holographic video (rendered on demand!)

      It's not the connection speed, it's the potential to combine computer power that makes me drool.
    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by general_re ( 8883 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:37PM (#10102762) Homepage
      Why do we really need this sort of insane bandwidth in ones home?

      Put it out there, and people will find a use for it. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that because we can't imagine how someone would use it, that means that nobody will find a use for it.

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by burns210 ( 572621 )
        I think it will change the internet from a download-save-view to a streaming view as you download, but don't save internet. The speed could grossly outweight the development of harddrives. Also, the vast speed of streaming and bandwidth would make it worthless to save things that are just 1 time views...

        I imagine VOIP being completely used worldwide. I see radio streaming, in place of radio. I see video phones, as a standard use of audio-only. I see cable TV over IP.

        Cable TV over IP... That would be badas
    • Because (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jackb_guppy ( 204733 )
      DRM does not work in the current setup.

      With that massive pipe, there is no need for local hard drive or other resource (tape/DVD) to hold information. It can all be on-demand.

      With that setup you only need to see what you want see when you need it. AND PAID for it on per-use bases.

      We are getting to what VNC was originally designed for... Central Processing centers with only remote display devices.

      So nice plasam TV, with a keyboard, camera, mic and speakers (phone & music) attached. Add to it point
      • Forgot -

        Some one patent this before they do.

        When the office got it first HP Laser Jet 1 printer, we thought about adding a scanner and phone line to it, with a tape recorder for storage encase of printer while a fax came in.

        Boy did we miss the money train!
    • High Definition Video/Broadcast over IP

      Could be the future technology for Playboy channel

    • Seriously - why not build out the bandwidth first, and then let people find new and interesting ways to use it?
      • Cable today can do postage-stamp-sized video with one other party. It cannot do true conference-calling at high quality.
      • Video-on-demand services are not sent over TCP/IP, they're part of the existing special-purpose digital cable infrastructure.
      • I'll give you the email point, but server-side email solutions (IMAP, gmail) seem to be growing more and more common. Likewise, iDisk-style "Internet disks" could always use more network capacity.
      • Online FPSes with 32 players or so are acceptable over current broa
    • I want multiple feeds of high definition video. In raw form, that's 1.5 Gbps per stream. Compressed to "network feed quality", that's 45 Mbps per stream.
    • I've heard this before!

      "Why would anyone need more than 640k of memory?"

      The reason we need it is so that we don't have to wait. Until file transfers of any size are instant and without delay, we will always need better and faster connections.

      But this is in Japan only, so it's kinda moot.

    • Why do we really need this sort of insane bandwidth in ones home?

      IMO, the cut-off point is around 100Mbps.
      Most consumers won't be willing to pay extra for more than that.
      Sure, they'll want more, but if it's a choice between $50 a month for 100Mbps, or $75 a month for 10Gbps, most are going to go with 100Mbps.

      Can we use even 100Mbps? Yes.
      A four person household, streaming four different hi-def videos at the same time would do it.

      -- less is better

    • by nmk ( 781777 )
      Well, there's one thing that comes to mind immediately, distributed processing. I realize that there will probably be numerous technical hurdles to overcome apart from the infrastructure hurdles. However, with this kind of bandwidth, perhaps your home computer will be able to use some sort of P2P network to become part of some realtime distributed processing cluster. These days most consumer level distributed processing projects (SETI@home, Folding@home) use a batch processing model. In the future, with re
  • Scary (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vilim ( 615798 ) <> on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:16PM (#10102647) Homepage

    This has the potential to make the internet a worse place than it is today. Currently, a 56k or cable modem when it is a zombie in a 14 year olds bot army cannot do much damage alone. The "1337" 14 year old must accumulate a huge number before he can make any real difference.

    With 10 gigabit, the kiddie just has to get a few bots to cause a server to die, or if they are persitant enough to accumulate a huge amount of bots, they can do huge amounts of damage to the internet

    Barring the advent of far more massive media, who, besides universities and governments would really need a 10 gigabit internet connection anyways?

    • Barring the advent of far more massive media, who, besides universities and governments would really need a 10 gigabit internet connection anyways?

      I predict that by 2010 there will be 10Gbit conections to the internet available... but they will be so large and expensive that only the ten richest kings in europe will have one...
    • Re:Scary (Score:3, Interesting)

      by general_re ( 8883 )
      With 10 gigabit, the kiddie just has to get a few bots to cause a server to die, or if they are persitant enough to accumulate a huge amount of bots, they can do huge amounts of damage to the internet

      Well, wait a minute. You're assuming that institutions won't also see their bandwidth rise, but why assume that? If 10 Gb connections are going to be available and affordable to me, won't universities and businesses have access to commensurately larger pipes as well? If I can afford 10 Gb, what's to stop

    • Re: Scary (Score:3, Insightful)

      by m1kesm1th ( 305697 )
      If you think about it more carefully. The architecture of the internet is likely to mirror the rise in home network speeds. If every user has a 10 Gigabit connection, then it is likely to be capped, at least until servers can handle the greater loads. A lot of what you wrote sounded like fear, uncertainty, doubt.

      People said similar things about adoption of adsl use and its growing popularity. It didn't suddenly make the internet a series of dead servers.

      A determined person can always cause havok on the in
    • sounds like the isp's may finally have to get their shit together and learn what egress filtering is.
  • Excellent (Score:3, Funny)

    by Neologic ( 48268 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:16PM (#10102649)
    Then we can have the bandwidth to play Doom 3 multiplayer with more than a few people!
  • by dmayle ( 200765 ) * on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:16PM (#10102652) Homepage Journal

    that will hopefully allow homes to receve 10 gigabit internet

    Okay, already, I'll learn Japanese. See you guys in six years... ;)

  • by Quixote ( 154172 )
    Harrumph... I get 14.5 Gbits to my house in a month! (if I stay dialled in continuosly, that is.. ;-) )
  • checklist (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:22PM (#10102681)
    *) japanese for dummies book... check
    *) japanese dictionary... check
    *) laptop.... check
    *) slacwkare 10... check
    *) gigabit interface... check
    *) plane-ticket... check

    woohoo tentacle pr0n here I COME!
  • can you imagine what this would do for servers ? Not to speak the backbone infrastructure.

    I guess this stuff will be either for broadcast (TV-over-IP), for P2P to the provider (i.e. one or 2 hops away) or just sit there waiting for the bottleneck to unstop.
  • What it's really for (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:25PM (#10102698) Homepage
    We'll need this to support the distribution of pirated movies over "file-sharing" networks with inefficient protocols.

    "file-sharing" systems pumping around MP3 files are already using orders of magnitude more bandwidth than they should. The RIAA only generates a few gigabytes of new content per week, expressed as MP3 files. If it just went out on a netnews binary group, the bandwidth consumption would be trivial. No file would traverse any link more than once. No frantic inter-node polling.

    The consumer electronics industry could just buy out the music industry and throw all the content into the public domain. The entire music industry isn't that big; it's about the size of Compaq when HP acquired it. Content could be viewed as a loss leader for the hardware.

    Apple seems to be headed in that direction.

    • The consumer electronics industry could just buy out the music industry and throw all the content into the public domain. The entire music industry isn't that big; it's about the size of Compaq when HP acquired it. Content could be viewed as a loss leader for the hardware.

      I've been saying the same thing, but for the telecommunications industry. Buy out the music industry, and sell lots and lots of bandwidth. It makes no sense how the larger electronics/telecom industry lets itself be lead around by the

    • Your numbers are a little off on the amount of music the RIAA releases per week. I just added up all mp3s released in one week last month on a server I have access to and it came out to a total of 66.83GB. Still not that huge compared to the huge amount of data already available on the internet though.
  • by NoMercy ( 105420 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:31PM (#10102735)
    Though not a major factor in everyones lives, I'd personally like to see the latency dealt with as well, things may be getting faster but it seems latency is largely ignored, there's not much hope for global telecommuiting if they don't address the latency as well *mumbles about that 10ms lag on adsl lines*
    • Take a stopwatch and try to see what 1/100 of a second is before complaining. BTW, but you do know that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, right ?
    • NTT seem to be doing ok with latency

      orac: womby# ping
      PING ( 56(84) bytes of data.
      64 bytes from icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=3.44 ms
      64 bytes from icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=2.88 ms
      64 bytes from icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=4.42 ms
      64 bytes from icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=3.38 ms
      64 bytes from icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=3.25 ms
    • by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday August 29, 2004 @03:09PM (#10103714) Homepage
      Your packets can't travel faster than the speed of light, so you'll always have some inherent latency even after the switching is finally all optical.

      The minimum possible latency when chatting or gaming with someone on the opposite side of the planet will always be greater than 133ms (40000km circumference / 300000 km/s speed of light *1000ms/s).


  • I'm still on a 56K modem, you insensitive clod!

    But seriously, to all the people saying "bleh! What are we ever going to need that kind of bandwidth for?", just remember: no one should need more than 640KB of memory.

    Face it, people are constantly doing things which require more and more bandwidth. People will start wanting to stream HDTV-quality movies over the net from their favourite P2P ne...uh... I mean MPAA sanctioned distribution channel. They'll want online games with thousands and thousands of

  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @12:41PM (#10102781) Homepage Journal
    Each human eye has about 4K x 3K retinal receptors triggering the optic nerve at about 40Hz. Assigning 2x2 32bit pixels to each, at 60Hz, is 2*8K*6K*60*4 bytes per person, per second. That's under 24GBps, with hifi audio channels and metadata, it's still under 25GBps per person, before our senses can't tell the difference from more data. 2:1 compression means 12.5GBps, or 100Gbps - only 10x more than these plans. The end of multimedia data networking might be just over the horizon, at least for one person at a time.
    • Sure, if you assume that sending video streams is the only, or even the most important, thing to do with a broadband connection, which is unlikely.
      • Even if it's not the most important, it's the biggest consumer of bandwidth. That 25GBps includes over 1GBps of metadata, which seems generous. This model is to determine the highest threshold beyond which marginal returns on investment drop precipitously to negligibility. Just sending the rendered sensory input from a "dumb" terminal to a smart server network is the least efficient consumption of data, so it's the extreme case for capacity. One could argue that the requirement is actually double, to simula
    • by spektr ( 466069 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @01:29PM (#10103110)
      Nah - the HiFi-freaks will still swear that those unrecognizable things above 10 TBps *DO* make a difference. And a 100 TBps pipe still can't beat vinyl. I predict a celluloid-revival for 2009. People will trash their DVDs and enjoy the smooth gradients that only celluloid can deliver.
      • Maybe, but they're really talking about the grid, vs. continuous reproduction media. They're right, but wavelet encoding and other technologies, like perhaps Bessier codecs, will keep the nostalgists at bay for longer. At least their complaints are keeping us honest :).
  • right... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Altanar ( 56809 )
    Maybe by 2010 I'll be able to get something other than a 56k connection... Cable and DSL isn't even remotely available here. You know it's bad when local paper celebrates the coming of dsl to a town that's 50 miles away.
  • By 2010 *IN JAPAN*

    Yay. Great.

    Lemme know when it hits the US.
  • apt-get update
    apt-get dist-upgrade
    12 years from now ...[6 years to implmentation and assume they use it atleast 6 years after that...]
    Its Another point is the movie and entertainment. Streaming video from home computer to home computer at 3000x2000 resolution. Video conferences so that there will be 16 of said streams needed, [30" flatpanels are going to be cheap.] Consider the idea that there are 4 family members sharing the connection too.

    IPV6 is doing something on latency, the thing their design is goin
  • Story that REALLY needed the '... in Japan' subject.

    See here [] if you don't find this funny (search for 'in japan').
  • Upload? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dragon218 ( 139996 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @02:04PM (#10103341) Homepage
    But the upload speed will still be around 128Kb/s.
  • Think about the bandwidth required for a hologram. A typical hologram can resolve 5000 lines per millimeter. A 10 by 10 cm holographic plate therefore contains 250 billion "pixels", times (presumably) 32-bit color resolution per pixel means you could easily get a terabyte per frame. I think our only hope for storing this much data is a holographic hard drive or a quantum-type hard drive.

    Bah... call me when I can upload my conciousness into a computer net. Or when they figure out what my conciousness *is*
  • There are comments all over this article about how hard it is to keep up with a 10 Gbit connection.

    Am I the only person in the world who shares an internet connection between multiple computers? Do you honestly think that I can't use up 10 Gbit when routing it across seven computers which are heavily used by a mixture of people demanding low latency and high through-put?
  • This kind of speed will be used for streaming radio and TV. We need A/D converters which run that fast! More realistic, we need multicast enabled routers able to handle this shit.
  • Its really about what other stuff you can get to the home. Excellent phone service, HDTV streams, videoconferencing, telecommuting, etc. I'm sure the **AAs are craping their pants however...
  • by Vlion ( 653369 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @02:49PM (#10103594) Journal
    In a research project near my university, a professor wants to be able to store roughly 30 GB/s.
    He is sampling some states in the nervous system.
    O'course, he a bio prof, but that gives you some idea about scientific computation.

    Now, let's think video.
    Say in 10 years professional movie makers film in voxels, not pixels. That takes an incredible amount of storage.

    Or say gaming- instead of relying on mega-servers to handle your rpg, you can run a 256-player game from your home machine without blinking.

    I would wager only bus limitations prevent one from doing that with a modern 2 CPU system. :-)
  • You have a 10 gigabit per second connection to the central office. Your neighbor does too. So do most of your neighbors. Yet you all have a line that runs all the way to the CO before it can connect with anything else?

    At this time, we've got network speeds at home (Gigabit ethernet) that can rival a small internet backbone over a distance of a few hundred meters. Now, suppose you and 16-ish neighbors were to buy a 24-port gigabit hub. You can all hook into that hub and have faster-than-lightning access t
  • by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @03:09PM (#10103713)
    ...that RealPlayer will still be Buffering 0%... 10%... 20%...

Trap full -- please empty.