Comment I wish their technical paper were available (Score 2, Informative) 110
It's too bad that the paper isn't available online, because it would be interesting to read the source documents. Descriptions of technical papers intended for general audiences often lose quite a bit in translation. As an example, it's hard to tell what the article means by "100 times faster than existing networks," as an earlier poster pointed out (I'd guess the comparison is to gigabit ethernet, as 2.5 x 32 = 80, which is sort of like 100). Researchers always know their subject better than reviewers, so summary articles can often be unintentionally misleading.
I'd also like to point out that Bell's sponsorship probably has little to do with the type of content that can be transmitted over this medium. University researchers certainly like to partner with corporations (money is scarce in academia), but Bell likely has little to do with the research itself. Typically companies merely want to have a stake in promising new technologies. OFC/NFOEC does appear to be a conference geared towards both researchers and businesspeople, so partnerships might be closer.
One aspect of the article that I find confusing is that its examples of wireless devices are PDAs and cellphones. Wireless on those devices is most useful when it is available everywhere; I want broadband speeds anywhere I can use my phone. But the wireless network described seems to be site-local. The bandwidth improvement is wonderful, but the lead-off example is perhaps confusing.
I'd also like to point out that Bell's sponsorship probably has little to do with the type of content that can be transmitted over this medium. University researchers certainly like to partner with corporations (money is scarce in academia), but Bell likely has little to do with the research itself. Typically companies merely want to have a stake in promising new technologies. OFC/NFOEC does appear to be a conference geared towards both researchers and businesspeople, so partnerships might be closer.
One aspect of the article that I find confusing is that its examples of wireless devices are PDAs and cellphones. Wireless on those devices is most useful when it is available everywhere; I want broadband speeds anywhere I can use my phone. But the wireless network described seems to be site-local. The bandwidth improvement is wonderful, but the lead-off example is perhaps confusing.
