Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Submission + - BT and Huawei Deliver Record Breaking 5.6Tbps Over a Single Optical Fibre

Mark.JUK writes: Telecoms operator BT has teamed up with Chinese tech firm Huawei to "break world speed records" in the United Kingdom by successfully transmitting data at 5.6Tbps (Terabits per second) over a single optical fibre running on its trial network between the BT Labs in Adastral Park and the BT Tower in London (England), which beats the previous record of 3Tbps that they set in 2014.

Apparently the network comprised of 28 x 200Gb/s (64GBaud/QPSK) sub-channels, bundled together to provide combined capacity, achieving some of the highest capacity and spectral efficiency ever seen.

Comment Re:Except he already decided NOT to submit the bil (Score 1) 296

I disagree. Progressive taxation simply aligns income tax more with disposable income than gross income. Ideally, there would be a straightforward way to calculate disposable income, but sadly there is not. As a percentage of disposable income, the poor are paying a disproportionately greater amount of tax than the wealthy. It also stands to reason that wealthier people are receiving greater benefit from societal structures, so it makes sense for them to make greater contributions to support those structures accordingly.

Comment Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 39

These are tenanted data centers, with customers on long-term contracts. It would take up to 3 years for contracts to expire before they could fully repurpose these facilities. Also, Verizon/Terremark owns the main interconnection point in Miami, including the Nap of The Americas peering exchange, where the vast majority of traffic to Latin America traverses through. If Microsoft were to simply repurpose that facility for internal use, they'd effectively cut off Latin America from the rest of the Internet. It's much more likely for a company in this market to be the acquirer. Someone like Equinix, Zayo, Internap, Coresite, or Cologix. 2.5B would be a lot for any one of these companies to shell out. There may also be some realty companies who specialize in leasing space for data centers like Digital Realty Trust who may be interested. Ultimately though, I think Verizon may need to break up some of these assets if no one company can pony up the entire sum.

Comment Re:lots of failing companies, small, YouTube (Score 1) 88

One big, big name is Youtube, who was burning through other people's money faster than a drunk Kennedy and getting rightfully sued every 5 minutes for copyright infringement. They had a cool idea, and a completely non-sustainable business model that was guaranteed to put them belly-up within 36 months until Google bought them. Google brought to bear their expertise in funding a free service in a way that keeps customers happy (aka the best targeted advertising available) , allowing YouTube to survive and thrive rather than burning away investors' money until investors got sick of it and'the whole thing imploded.

YouTube's business model from the beginning was to get bought by Google, and so they focused their business towards that end and succeeded. Had that not been their primary goal, they may have done things very differently. In any event, using them as an example of a smaller company that needed to be bought isn't wrong, but the assertion that they needed the good processes that came from the larger company is false. They were very efficient at exiting for maximum return for their shareholders.

Comment Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (Score 1) 466

The issue is not about ISP's being forced to peer with content providers like Netflix whether they like it or not. It's the major eyeball networks like Comcast and AT&T deliberately avoiding upgrading peering capacity, so that they can strong-arm Netflix into paid peering agreements instead. Let's not forget that Comcast is also trying to pressure Tier 1 transit providers like Level3 to pay for access to their eyeballs now, even though the miles of fiber in the ground that they operate, and thus their share of transport costs, pale in comparison. As a smaller provider, you should most certainly want to peer with any content network with a significant amount of traffic to your network, as you would have to pay for transit otherwise. There is no way you'd be paying more for cross-connects than you would for transit, and the equipment costs are irrelevant because you're doing that same traffic regardless, whether it comes through a transit or a peer. Your traffic levels aren't going to magically increase when you start peering, unless your existing transit is congested, which is something you should most definitely want to avoid.

Comment Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (Score 2) 466

Netflix does most of its heavy lifting through its own CDN boxes running FreeBSD + nginx, which it will place on ISPs' networks for free, although the ISP would be responsible for the space and power. They most certainly do have their own data centres though, with infrastructure that goes well beyond Amazon.

Comment Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (Score 2) 466

I call BS. We're at the Westin as well, and x-connects in the 19th floor meet-me room are free, while x-connects between floors are a one-time build cost. even if you don't have your own space and are leasing lines from a data centre, they're only $50-$200/mo. Powered equipment may not be permitted in the meet-me room, but there is nothing that would stop you from putting some passive DWDM muxes in there so you could even run 40-80x 10Gb-100Gb links over the same fiber. The only way I see x-connects being expensive is you're using Equinix, but that would be your own business decision, and not inherent costs to peering.

Also, 10Gb optics sourced directly from China where they're manufactured can be purchased for less than $100 for LR optics, or less than $1000 for DWDM optics, which is peanuts for a one-time cost. Sure, line cards and therefore physical interfaces are expensive, but that's why public peering exchanges like the SIX (Seattle Internet Exchange) exist so you can peer with many different networks over the same interface. If you are doing enough traffic over a link to justify private peering however, your equipment costs should be built-in to your business model, and whether it's peering or other traffic shouldn't matter.

Although I do agree with your assessment that this isn't a net neutrality issue, it most certainly is a case of large eyeball networks trying to double-dip on charging for bandwidth, and criticism of them is well deserved.

Comment Re:I'm male but... (Score 3, Insightful) 545

This. Instead of pushing young people towards a certain path, and converting highschools and earlier into trade schools, why not just give them the best, all-rounded education possible and allow them to decide for themselves what they want to do? That's not to say we shouldn't teach them the value of more practical, stable professions vs less marketable ones, but they should ultimately still make that decisions for themselves rather than be goaded into a particular direction.

Comment Re:Cloud (Score 1) 90

This may very well backfire on Microsoft in two ways:
1) Cloud environments are much less dependent on Windows than desktops, and favour open source like Linux or BSD
2) If all applications become server side, then application compatibility on the desktop is no longer relevant, making the OS that desktop runs irrelevant

Failure in Cloud is not an option for Microsoft, and the days of their lock-in are numbered.

Comment Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score 2) 519

Note that I qualified my statement to both include China's perception, and "proper".

In 1972, 1995, and in 2001, various Japanese prime ministers have issued what they considered to be a valid apology. Each time, China rejected the statement as a valid apology for one or more of three reasons: 1) the lack of the explicit mention of the word “apology,” 2) the lack of the explicit mention of China as the victim of Japanese aggression, and 3) the apology was only stated in a speech, but not written down in an official document. - See more at: http://www.tealeafnation.com/2012/12/has-japan-ever-apologized-to-china-for-its-wartime-aggression/#sthash.bIg5DWBO.dpuf

Comment Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score 2) 519

they believe their civilization has been unfairly held down for too long by hostile foreign powers and that it is finally time for their superior race/culture to take its rightful place of leadership on the world stage.

In China's case, there were the opium wars and the invasion by Japan. It doesn't help that China feels they have still never received a proper apology, and that there are Nanking deniers among Japan's right wing conservatives, including current prime minister Shinzo Abe. China has also been in place of leadership throughout most of its history (so far as Asia is concerned at least), with the last few hundred years being the exception.

Comment Re: Who cares what it is (Score 2) 301

Absolutely false. Ingress traffic is much cheaper than egress traffic. Try negotiating bandwidth pricing as an eyeball network (consumer ISP), vs as a hosting provider, and the difference in cost can be an order of magnitude. Peering is often based on equal ratios, and that applies for both egress and ingress traffic. When the traffic is balanced, the network that has more egress traffic may have to pay the other network for the difference. Therefore, ingress traffic not only costs these providers nothing, but can actually reduce their paid peering costs. As such, they will sell transit connections to eyeball networks for pennies on the Mb.

Slashdot Top Deals

RAM wasn't built in a day.

Working...