Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Welsh Scientists Radically Increase Fiber Broadband Speeds With COTS Parts

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the believe-it-when-it-appears-in-your-home dept.

Networking 72

Mark.JUK writes "Scientists working under an EU funded (3 Million Euros) project out of Bangor University in Wales (United Kingdom) have developed a commercially-exploitable way of boosting broadband speeds over end-user fibre optic lines by using Optical Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OOFDM) technology, which splits a laser down to multiple different optical frequencies (each of which can be used to carry data), and low-cost off-the-shelf components. The scientists claim that their solution has the ability to 'increase broadband transmission by up to two thousand times the current speed and capacity' (most UK Fibre-to-the-Home or similar services currently offer less than 100 Megabits per second) and it can do this alongside a 'significant reduction in electrical power consumption.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But we won't get it because... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894165)

... BT are bloody useless!

Re:But we won't get it because... (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#41894253)

It's not incompetence in this instance; It is actually malice. BT would much rather hold on to this tech for the next 15 years, squeezing an extra few pounds per month out of you for the next tier of service, right up until you're paying more for your internet connection than you are for your mortgage.

Consider; The identical fibre with this new tech is all of a sudden 2000x times less efficient than it could be. Do you think you'll be charged 1/2000 of the current rate if it's implemented and you elect not to use it?

(I realise there is more to this, like switching overhead, backbone speed, contention etc).

Re:But we won't get it because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894353)

This is how the market works. Firms are supposed to maximize profit by minimizing the cost of inputs.

Re:But we won't get it because... (4, Informative)

TheMathemagician (2515102) | about 2 years ago | (#41894921)

It's not a perfect market though because one company (British Telecom) inherited all the copper wiring joining people's homes to the network even though it was originally publicly funded through the Post Office before BT existed as a commercial company. Now they charge you a line rental even if you use a different ISP (as if they could rent that specific piece of wire to anyone else). Some areas of the UK are cabled up and you can avoid this nonsense but I was recently informed that my flat (=apartment) could not access cable despite the fact it's on a main road in West London. The cost of physically drilling through concrete and laying cables is way way beyond the budget of small ISPs so you're stuck piggybacking on BT lines.

Re:But we won't get it because... (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#41895381)

Now they charge you a line rental even if you use a different ISP (as if they could rent that specific piece of wire to anyone else).

This part I don't actually object to - they're still on the hook for fixing the wire if it breaks, which could cost them hundreds, even thousands. Plus there's provisioning of electricity for boosters and such.

Of course, with the talk of 100mbit and up services I can't help but wonder if at that point whether the switches themselves would be the bigger chokepoint.

for our Welsh /.'ers (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#41895387)

Story submission translated to Welsh:

"Scntsts wrkng ndr n fndd (3 Mlln rs) prjct t f Bngr nvrsty n Wls (ntd Kngdm) hv dvlpd cmmrclly-xpltbl wy f bstng brdbnd spds vr nd-sr fbr ptc lns by sng ptcl rthgnl Frqncy Dvsn Mltplxng (FDM) tchnlgy, whch splts lsr dwn t mltpl dffrnt ptcl frqncs (ch f whch cn b sd t crry dt), nd lw-cst ff-th-shlf cmpnnts. Th scntsts clm tht thr sltn hs th blty t 'ncrs brdbnd trnsmssn by p t tw thsnd tms th crrnt spd nd cpcty' (mst K Fbr-t-th-Hm r smlr srvcs crrntly ffr lss thn 100 Mgbts pr scnd) nd t cn d ths lngsd 'sgnfcnt rdctn n lctrcl pwr cnsmptn.'"

I keed, I keed!
Here's the actual Welsh translation via google:

Prifysgol Bangor yng Nghymru (United Kingdom) wedi datblygu ffordd fasnachol-ecsploetio'n o roi hwb cyflymder band eang dros linellau ffibr diwedd-ddefnyddiwr optig drwy ddefnyddio Is-adran Optegol Amlder orthogonol Multiplexing (OOFDM) technoleg, sy'n rhannu'r laser i lawr i amleddau optegol lluosog gwahanol (yr un gellir ohonynt yn cael eu defnyddio i gario data), ac isel-cost oddi ar y silff cydrannau. Mae gwyddonwyr yn honni bod eu datrysiad y gallu i 'gynyddu trosglwyddo band eang o hyd at ddwy fil o weithiau y cyflymder presennol a'r gallu' (y rhan fwyaf DU Ffibr-i'r-Home-neu wasanaethau tebyg ar hyn o bryd yn cynnig llai na 100 megabit yr eiliad) ac mae'n gall wneud hyn ochr yn ochr à 'gostyngiad sylweddol yn y defnydd o bÅer trydanol.' "

Re:But we won't get it because... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41898831)

Technically they're Openreach's lines, Openreach was created by Ofcom so BT would be separated from the lines in the same way that other providers are. When I was working there we were working with the in house software to cripple it so BT didn't have better access to the hardware than other providers and the job was relatively well done. BT still had some advantages in that you could still just walk down the corridor and speak to whoever was in the exchange but for the majority of people who dealt with customer problems they still had to just ring in to Openreach's first line support.

Re:But we won't get it because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41899093)

I have a BT line which I pay Primus £8 a month for - including free eve and weekend calls (£17.75 a month from BT), was a special offer though.

Is there a way to post £ without it getting slash-mangled?

Re:But we won't get it because... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41907583)

Is there a way to post £ without it getting slash-mangled?

Use GBP instead, I've got fed up typing £ (pound sign on a UK keyboard) and seeing it coming out looking Scandinavian.

Re:But we won't get it because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41901541)

(as if they could rent that specific piece of wire to anyone else)

It's not a single continuous piece of wire, and if you're not using it then all but the very last section to your property could be rerouted to serve someone else, so yes, they could.

Re:But we won't get it because... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41895597)

No, that's a very myopic short term view. If you don't pass your savings on to your customers, you will lose customers.

Re:But we won't get it because... (2)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41896283)

Not if you have a monopoly or a de facto monopoly shared with only a handful of large competitors who all share a mutual interest of making massive profits. Then you pass the savings to customers very slowly, reluctantly giving in bit by bit in tiny incremental improvements. By the time you've passed along the full savings you've already made additional advances that garnered you 10 fold more savings than what you've passed on.

It all comes from the counter-productive mantra that it isn't good enough to maintain healthy stable profits, one must have growing profits.

Re:But we won't get it because... (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41894503)

Would you really be that interested in a 1000x increase in last mile speed, even if it meant that NONE of your actual applications (except maybe bittorrent) were going to go any faster at all? I would rather see them invest in the backbone than trying to out-do a 100mbit last mile which is probably pretty freaking hard to saturate as it is.

Just sayin'

Re:But we won't get it because... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41897541)

Ah, but no-one in Britain has a 100Mbit/s connection. I'm on 1Mbit/s, and there are many on worse connections than that here. We definitely need a drastic improvement in the last mile, and it needs to be properly future-proof otherwise it would be a mostly wasted initiative. 1Gbit/s and above, fibre to the premises.

Re:But we won't get it because... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 years ago | (#41901307)

I would be immensely interested in high-speed last mile because:

Two customers of the same ISP could transfer files at ridiculous speeds. Bittorrent and other P2P services would automatically take advantage of this, upon seeing one peer with insane bandwidth. The technically inclined would make good use of this, storing backups off-site once ample last-mile bandwidth is there.

Edge-network caching services like Akami would now mean many popular websites will be super-fast, not just slightly lower latency...

Re:But we won't get it because... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41895147)

Well, maybe. But I saw a documentary on when McDonald's started super sizing meals (no, not "Supersize me") and when you first had the store, staff, equipment, procurement, cleaning etc. delivering extra fries actually cost them very little. I imagine it's quite the same for an ISP, to take my own as an example for 22% more in cost I get 140% more bandwidth compared to the tier below mine. So if delivering super fast broadband is dirt cheap they'll want to push me to another crazy fast tier for money I didn't really intend to use on broadband. Maybe they'll turn a bigger profit selling $100/mo 1 Gbps broadband than $80/mo 100 Mbit broadband and then that's what they'll do, because people won't spend $100/mo for anything less. Even a monopoly can't price gouge beyond what people are willing to pay.

Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity limit? (3, Insightful)

shoppa (464619) | about 2 years ago | (#41894217)

I don't know if things are better in the UK, but here in the US the bottleneck for fiber-to-end-user is rarely the link from CO to end-user. The bottleneck is aggregate traffic capacity from CO to the backbones, an amount that has to be shared among all users. Giving individual end users more capacity to the CO sounds like it would make the current bottleneck even more apparent.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894289)

What is this 'fiber' you speak of? Sounds like an interesting tech.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (5, Funny)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about 2 years ago | (#41895029)

Fiber helps computer systems digest data better. This is done by helping information travel towards the end point instead of getting stuck and clogging up the system.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41950355)

fiber glass cable. uses light through cable to transfer data.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41894357)

TFA is pretty useless and doesn't indicate what sorts of fiber this works on, or why it is different from other OOFDM-related work; but is there any reason to suspect that a technology that improves fiber transmit rates wouldn't help the CO backbone link speed as well?

Given the, um, vigorous state of competition in the broadband market, it isn't clear that that will matter much; but if they have some new secret sauce that makes transmissions over fiber faster it would, naively, seem to be something that could be added to any part of the network carried over fiber.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41894551)

TFA is pretty useless and doesn't indicate what sorts of fiber this works on, or why it is different from other OOFDM-related work; but is there any reason to suspect that a technology that improves fiber transmit rates wouldn't help the CO backbone link speed as well?

Given the, um, vigorous state of competition in the broadband market, it isn't clear that that will matter much; but if they have some new secret sauce that makes transmissions over fiber faster it would, naively, seem to be something that could be added to any part of the network carried over fiber.

Maybe it won't because tossing in a router that is capable of processing 1000x more packets is NOT going to happen with "COTS" parts? Fiber is only as fast as the hardware on either end. These are little strands of glass barely wide enough to feel, if doubling/tripling/1000x'ing bandwidth were as simple as tossing a few more in the trench don't you think they would have done that already? Gracefully processing the light at either end is the hard part.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 years ago | (#41899025)

They shifted the bottle-neck. A positive multi-magnitude change in any bottle-neck is warmly welcomed.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (2)

BeanThere (28381) | about 2 years ago | (#41894377)

I suspect that if the technology is really 'commercially viable', it could also make it cheaper to upgrade backbone links too.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (1)

AlecC (512609) | about 2 years ago | (#41896575)

It would certainly help if the tale I was spun about my slow broadband was true. According to the droid I spoke to. there was no point in installing more equipment into my local exchange because they were bandwidth limited on the link from that relatively local exchange to the main backbone, and it would mean laying new fibre, which would take a long time and be very expensive. If they can suddenly speed up that link by 10x, let alone 2000x, then the cluster of villages served by that exchange will, in an internet sense, breathe a lot more easily.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894439)

This technology should actual cut the cost of bandwidth, squeezing much more data into the same lines at the same power usage, at every stage where you use fibre-optic cables.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894859)

... here in the US the bottleneck for fiber-to-end-user is rarely the link from CO to end-user...

Speak for yourself, dorkbreath. USA has millions of people with 1.5Mbps & less, & the crumbling copper over which it is trying to propagate isn't getting any better & no plans to replace it. But hey, the only thing that matters is strokin' those shareholders. Hmmm....perhaps this an indicator of the decline of capitalism...

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41896519)

Well, it means they can charge you the same for using less fiber and power.

So what they'll do is all new laid fiber to the endpoint will use this technology, inorder to save money, charge you the same, but they'll leave their 100kbps backbone, so that they can claim it's the pirates clogging the pipes.

Re:Where is end-user fiber optics the capacity lim (2)

Degats (1506137) | about 2 years ago | (#41900159)

I don't know if things are better in the UK, but here in the US the bottleneck for fiber-to-end-user is rarely the link from CO to end-user.

Currently, for most places in the UK, the bottleneck for fibre-to-end-user is the copper cable between the end-user's house and the cabinet down the street where the fibre terminates.

Already using it! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894233)

First Post!

Great, but will it be useful? (3, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 2 years ago | (#41894257)

Not sure ISPs and others would be keen in upgrading their infrastructure to make the theoretical speed really available to home users, sadly...

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (2)

Damastus the WizLiz (935648) | about 2 years ago | (#41894351)

They might consider if it it actually does prove to have power cost reductions.

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#41896337)

That doesn't mean they will actually pass the increases to customers.

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (1)

BeanThere (28381) | about 2 years ago | (#41894447)

Not sure ISPs and others would be keen in upgrading their infrastructure to make the theoretical speed really available to home users

I wonder how this [broadbandbreakfast.com] and this [techcrunch.com] happened then?

Though USA needs to do away with regional monopolies/cartels.

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 2 years ago | (#41894593)

Thanks for the input, get your point but was really just saying what others have subsequently done better - the theoretical speeds of 'broadband' are already often far in excess of the speed that you can actually download at.

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41894775)

the issue is backbone connectivity/BW limit. if this works for backbone connections as well, then end users can finally atleast get what they are actually paying for already.

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894941)

No! Nothing comes out of Wales that does not involve sheep and whellies

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41895369)

Maybe except song and brass bands! Sir Harry Secombe (dec.), Shirley Bassey, Tom Jones.

Re:Great, but will it be useful? (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41895373)

Male voice choirs - listen to one one day. Sublime!

I didn't know Wales had scientists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894385)

What do they research out west, sheep shagging?

Re:I didn't know Wales had scientists (1)

ploppy (468469) | about 2 years ago | (#41897417)

Why fancy doing some research do you?

Is Welsh Internet anything like Welsh Rabbit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894513)

as above

Re:Is Welsh Internet anything like Welsh Rabbit? (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41895021)

Rarebit, sir, rarebit.

Re:Is Welsh Internet anything like Welsh Rabbit? (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41895047)

Even though it's an "etymologizing alteration".

Not DWDM, this is something else. (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41894531)

which splits a laser down to multiple different optical frequencies

No no no thats just WDM for DWDM. Imagine a piece of glass fiber with prisms on each end and separate red, green, blue, etc lasers and detectors. They (can) operate completely independently. You can do the same thing with RF and NTSC signals... its call old fashioned analog cable TV.

OOFDM is like hyper close packed DWDM and usually made out of different tech. Some games are played to eliminate ISI and crosstalk, assuming the gear is working properly, perfectly linear, etc. Maybe a cruddy analogy would be kinda like two voice signals in one DSB carrier, or another cruddy analogy is its plain ole DSL FDM except coordinated so the FDM slices don't/can't interfere with each other and the leading O means its optical.

For RF this is "old" stuff like from the 90s. For optical this is pretty impressive and new. Same concept just a couple orders of magnitude higher frequency.

The wikipedia article is not so bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_multiplexing [wikipedia.org]

low-cost off-the-shelf components

HA HA yeah maybe thats in the grant proposal as a goal, or its low cost compared to installing another length of fiber... Its not gonna be low cost as in I could do it in my basement using parts from an old laser printer, or you'll be buying a fiber "ethernet switch" using it for $9.95. It is probably going to be lower-cost compared to any previous design, which IS cool.

Re:Not DWDM, this is something else. (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 2 years ago | (#41898173)

I suspect they are actually doing some kind of fiddling in the electrical domain and calling it FDM, while the laser is still either On Off Keying or maybe Phase Shift Keying. Since DP-QPSK transmitters and receivers still cost about as much as a luxury car they're hardly COTS.

Gareth Edwards (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41894929)

Unfortunately Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch exceeds the maximum packet size and causes the router to c*@
! n o
c a r r i e r

Re:Gareth Edwards (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41894987)

I can say that out loud though! :-) W.

Re:Gareth Edwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41896049)

I see you speak Welsh.

Re:Gareth Edwards (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41902983)

Well, at least I can pronounce the place name ;-) but of course we impose such limita..... .....tions on packet lengths that saying something out loud - or using carrier pidgeon (al.... .....beit with a broken leg after that message ;-) ) might be more reliable

Yea, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41894961)

Can you play Crysis over it?

Doesn't increase speed - increases capacity (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41895075)

The speed of light is the speed of light.
Would love to know how they made it faster :)

Yes the effect is improved throughput - ie transfer rates or download/upload speeds, but the packet speed isn't improved at all.

When we can introduce a photon into one end of a piece of fiber and have it instantaneously come out the other end, we'll have *speed* improvements.
Until then, we're only increasing capacity.

That is all. EOL

Re:Doesn't increase speed - increases capacity (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 years ago | (#41899777)

There are two ways to measure speed: 1) Bandwidth 2) Latency

Because latency is fixed by light, then there is only one type of speed. I don't see the confusion

Re:Doesn't increase speed - increases capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41900911)

It makes your transfer faster if you can cram more down the pipe at the same time. Is this complicated?

Re:Doesn't increase speed - increases capacity (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41907749)

Right, so by your logic, all internet connections run at exactly the same speed, since light travels at a constant speed in the same medium.. When someone says that a 1Gb/s connection is "a thousand times faster" than a 1Mb/s connection, they're simply wrong.

Makes you wonder what the point of so-called broadband is, doesn't it? We might as well have stuck with our 14.4 kbps modems.

Yeah but ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41895109)

But since this was done by a Welshman, nobody will be able to decipher the packets.

I kid, I kid.

Re:Yeah but ... (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41895277)

Syr, yr hyn a ddywedwch yn debygol iawn wir!

Re:Yeah but ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41895485)

LOL, took some googling, but I think I get "Sir, you're being a douche for sure".

I can't imagine why the Welsh have a reputation for being indecipherable. :-P

I met some Welsh guys on vacation once -- the younger guys I could follow, but the older guys might as well have been speaking Klingon their accents were so thick. Nice guys though.

Re:Yeah but ... (1)

jodido (1052890) | about 2 years ago | (#41896333)

My Google Translate has it as "Sir, what you say is very likely true"--quite a difference there

Re:Yeah but ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41896461)

Well, I tried to put it together from a couple of fragments, but I read "Syr, yr hyn a ddywedwch" as "Sir, you're being a douche" almost verbatim ... so maybe it's then followed with "... but are probably correct".

It's not often I get told what for in a language I don't know, so I'm a little rusty and not quite the cunning linguist I used to be. ;-)

Re:Yeah but ... (1)

ploppy (468469) | about 2 years ago | (#41897155)

Ddywedwch means "say" not douche!

"yr hyn a ddywedwch" -> What you say

"yn debygol iawn" -> very probably

"wir" -> true

Re:Yeah but ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41897997)

LOL ... I tried phonetically mapping it to English, and Ddywedwch seemed to map to the oh-so-common "douche" one sees on Slashdot.

But then, I never claimed to speak Welsh. Some days, English is enough of a chore :-P

Re:Yeah but ... (2)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41901065)

"Sir, what you say is very likely true" is indeed what was meant, and said. :-) Your phonetic approach doesn't work well with Welsh. (Try this page for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/gogleddorllewin/papurau_bro/papur_menai/newyddion/rhagfyr05.shtml [bbc.co.uk] ) Dd is not "d" ch is not "sh" ll is not "l" gallwn fynd ymlaen ... ;-)

Perhaps this will make our grandchildren happy (1)

FridayBob (619244) | about 2 years ago | (#41895973)

First of all, here in the Netherlands the roll-out of fiber to the home seems to be moving at a snail's pace. My impression is that our local telco giant, KPN, who work together with Reggefiber to install fiber optic cabling, is only interested in doing this for new neighborhoods. I once asked what it might take to change their minds and was told that, if I was to survey my neighborhood (around 1,000 homes) and gather signatures from at least 40% who would be interested in such a connection, then they would consider it (but not guarantee). Therefore, none of this wonderful news about cutting-edge optical network technology is going to do me any good anyway, even if the cost of the particular technology itself is zero.

Second, even if we all had the option to use a fiber optic connection at home, why on Earth would a telco suddenly decide to give all of its clients a 200,000% speed upgrade? From a business point of view, that makes no sense. First of all, since making any changes to a big network costs lots of money, a telco would never do that unless it was forced to increase its speeds due to the competition. Also, the end users would probably start to use more of that bandwidth -- something that the ISPs have to pay for. So, unless the international carriers start to offer significantly higher speeds for lower prices as well, I don't see this happening.

Third, there's DPI and government spying equipment to consider. The equipment necessary to do that at the speeds we have today is likely quite expensive already, and higher speeds may make it a real bottleneck. Therefore, we may see our average network speeds grow only as quickly as our ISPs are willing to increase the speed of these wretched machines.

Personally, unless I move to a different neighborhood I expect that my own bandwidth will take at least 10 years to get to 100/100Mbps and perhaps 25 before I have a 1/1 Gbps connection at my disposal.

British Bangor Research Results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41896693)

As delicious as they are ground breaking

Fiber optics ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41897863)

How finely can taffy be stretched ?

Re:Fiber optics ? (1)

ccanucs (2529272) | about 2 years ago | (#41901083)

Oh very funny....

COTS - HOWTO please? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#41897969)

throw something up on ehow at least, eh? I've got a private fiber to try this out on.

poor little me doesn't have a copy of Nature Photonics from May 2011.

2020 (1)

BarryChuckle (2562093) | about 2 years ago | (#41899247)

I thought Wales wasn't going to get the Internet until 2020: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samsmith/3619752897/ [flickr.com] (Text version here if that is easier for you: http://www.morningstarr.co.uk/forum/underworld/25573-internet-reach-wales-2020-a.html [morningstarr.co.uk] )

Re:2020 (1)

pedros (2555030) | about 2 years ago | (#41907051)

I'm suprised that the great Barry Chuckle would resort to such stereotypical rubbish.

In other news (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41907303)

There is a university in Wales.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?