Huawei Achieves 2Tbit/s for 2066 Miles Through Optical Fiber
Huawei successfully tested optical fiber-based 2 Tbit/s transmissions over 2066 miles.
Last week Chinese telecoms equipment vendor Huawei said that it had successfully completed a field trial using optical fiber transmission technologies on Vodafone’s live network. The company claimed it reached 2 Tbit/s transmission capabilities over 3,325 km, or 2066.059 miles. This capacity is essentially twenty times higher than current commercially deployed 100 Gbit/s (100G) systems, Huawei said.
The field trial achieved a "record-breaking" transmission distance of 1500 km (932 miles) by using a super-channel PDM-16QAM-based high spectral efficiency solution. The company then broke another record by achieving a transmission distance of 3,325 km (2066 miles) using a super-channel Nyquist PDM-QPSK-based ultra-long-haul solution.
According to Huawei, both transmissions were on a link with G.652 fibers and erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) without electrical regeneration. The company added that the link used in the trial was on Vodafone's backbone network, passing through a few cities across middle and south Germany.
"We are at the forefront of global 100G deployments, and have taken the lead in delivering key breakthroughs in technologies beyond 100G. Through collaboration with Vodafone and other leading international operators and customer-centric R&D, Huawei is always ready to build advanced optical networks for customers," said Jack Wang, president of Huawei's transport network product line.
Solution... boycott all ISP's and demand better speeds. You'll see how fast things move up. The thing is we can't live without the internet for a week so our weakness is their ultimate gain. ISP profits must be huge.
Wrong, the internet very much started in the US through DARPAnet which interconnected a number of military systems first and some universities before expanding. What Sir Tim did was come up with HTTP which increased the ability to browse the existing network more easily.
Bunch of smart people having computers in the early days and a common problem. Slow exchange of information, together they build a solution.
About a decade before Arpanet there was already the first connection from one computer to another. So even ARPANET was not the first but they helped the evolution along quite a bit.
Berners-Lee made browsing much more efficient with the protocols he developed, which led to what we consider as the World Wide Web today. Linking pages was a great aid for navigating the available information.
Solution... boycott all ISP's and demand better speeds. You'll see how fast things move up. The thing is we can't live without the internet for a week so our weakness is their ultimate gain. ISP profits must be huge.
There is a difference between enduser bandwidth and backbone bandwidth. This would be a backbone solution to get data from hundreds of users in one area to hundreds of users in another area, it would not be 100Gb/s at your home.
That being said, this is really good tech and needs to be implemented ASAP. While these new techs have a super high entry cost, the maintenance cost is quite cheap as it takes less power/cooling to run them, and less repeater stations to get stuff from point A to point B. Plus the added data density will allow backbone connections to use the same tunnels and trenches to do a whole lot more work.
The internet didn't really start in the U.S.A though. The 1st point to point network was in the U.S.A but the internet defiantly didn't start there. The internet was invented at CERN by Sir Tim Berners-Lee
good luck boycotting when you're the only one without any internet service to your house...
also doesn't help when they have monopoly on certain markets...
until there is competition or Google Fiber is rolling in, you're just gonna have to get your bass taped...without any lubes...
at least in my neighbor, there's choice between Comcast and Verizon...EVIL and LESSER EVIL...
Google really needs to deploy their fiber network nationwide...that'll scare rest of the ISP in their pants....
Wrong, the internet very much started in the US through DARPAnet which interconnected a number of military systems first and some universities before expanding. What Sir Tim did was come up with HTTP which increased the ability to browse the existing network more easily.
Bunch of smart people having computers in the early days and a common problem. Slow exchange of information, together they build a solution.
About a decade before Arpanet there was already the first connection from one computer to another. So even ARPANET was not the first but they helped the evolution along quite a bit.
Berners-Lee made browsing much more efficient with the protocols he developed, which led to what we consider as the World Wide Web today. Linking pages was a great aid for navigating the available information.
Just because someone (who happens to be british) is touted as "the creator of the world wide web" during the 2012 London Olympic games, doesn't mean he "invented the internet." These are two completely difference things you are referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee : "He made a proposal for an information management system in March 1989,[3] and he implemented the first successful communication between a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client and server via the Internet sometime around mid November."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet : In 1982, the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.
See a problem with the timeline? If they already had a protocol called Internet Protocol 7 years before Tim did his tests, how can he have created the Internet?
World wide web yes, internet no.
they don't necessarily steal it as american R&D is outsourced there due to cost/profit margins. i'm sure intel has a 4TB CPU but they are just sitting on it and milking the crowd rather than just producing and selling it
fiber went main stream back in the 90's with sprint yet there is a ton of people still paying for wire transmission. unless there is a profit margin sustained by a demand, corporate executives see no reason to implement new tech. i believe streaming will change that structure thanks in part to HD signal transmission here in the states as it's already having a huge affect on the structure of the flow of money in the money tree. HD has already killed a huge part of the audience for t.v. media networks and thus affects the advertising sales while streaming is nothing but a boom of growth and revenue in all sectors. every telecom has it's eyes on google fiber, they already know what will happen, but shareholders control their actions and when shareholders start bailing telecoms for companies doing what google is doing, then they will act, it will probably be too late if they don't have the revenue, and i am sure the big telecoms are just waiting for that before they start. there's got to be alot of consolidation for telecoms to jump on this, like the too big to fail in the banking industry.
the only thing that would change the power of innovation at this point would be regulations or deregulations by governments like how pot smoker slippery willy clintons democratic crew removed anti predatory regulations on the banking industry right after putting the entire banking industry on steroids on unqualified loan guarantees backed up by the government and FDIC. a scheme like that to increase demand and allow double/triple/quadruple dipping for any telecom such as was done for the banking industry would stagnate any change in the telecoms with out huge investment stakes by newer companies like google that grow based on demand/profit allow. netflix, hulu if they would follow googles example could become the new cable companies down the road if they would adopt and implement new tech like cable companies did back in the 70's and 80's.
fiber is more expensive than wire in almost every way, but the rewards have to be worth more than the investment before it can be implemented and that takes demand. streaming is helping to create that demand and it will be interesting to see if CBS or FOX or NBC or ABC follow googles example or go the way of the dodo as their power/cash structure collapses around them as it is doing for the last few years.
if you could actually breath the air there in a couple of years, it wouldn't be so bad.