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!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Alcatel-Lucent's XG-FAST Pushes 10,000Mbps Over Copper Phone Lines

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the exhaust-your-uverse-cap-in-half-a-second dept.

Networking 149

Mark.JUK (1222360) writes The Bell Labs R&D division of telecoms giant Alcatel-Lucent has today claimed to set a new world record after they successfully pushed "ultra-broadband" speeds of 10,000 Megabits per second (Mbps) down a traditional copper telephone line using XG-FAST technology, which is an extension of G.fast (ITU G.9700).

G.fast is a hybrid-fiber technology, which is designed to deliver Internet speeds of up to 1000Mbps over runs of copper cable (up to around 250 meters via 106MHz+ radio spectrum). The idea is that a fiber optic cable is taken closer to homes and then G.fast works to deliver the last few meters of service, which saves money because the operator doesn't have to dig up your garden to lay new cables. XG-FAST works in a similar way but via an even shorter run of copper and using frequencies of up to 500MHz. For example, XG-FAST delivered its top speed of 10,000Mbps by bonding two copper lines together over just 30 meters of cable.

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

Frosty Piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415715)

Down your cables goes the frosty piss!

I usually... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415723)

I usually big up my barden to pant the roses.

However this begs the question.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415727)

What is the latency?

Re:However this begs the question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415767)

What is the latency?

How is that the question, and in what way is it being begged?

Re:However this begs the question.... (4, Informative)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47415841)

To what, the DSLAM? A few microseconds. To the IP drain? The same as before. Also, this does not beg the question.

Re:However this begs the question.... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47416875)

To the IP drain? The same as before.

So 20 milliseconds? Like in other DSL technologies.

Re:However this begs the question.... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47416995)

20ms? That's pretty good. My mom had a 80ms ping to her first hop, during off hours. At peak hours, it was near 100ms.

Re:However this begs the question.... (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47417061)

20 milliseconds to what? Google? That's going to be dependent entirely on the ISPs transport network and peering locations, and the access technology won't affect it at all (assuming it's not congested).
The latency from the customer to the broadband gateway router in the ISPs office is going to be similar to a LAN.

big up your garden? (2)

pr0nbot (313417) | about 4 months ago | (#47415729)

All my telco worker friends grumble about being forced to praise their customers' horticultural skills on their site visits.

Re:big up your garden? (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 4 months ago | (#47415781)

All the honeys stop by and praise my edging, and people can't stop talking about the D's on my lawnmower.

Re:big up your garden? (5, Funny)

dmomo (256005) | about 4 months ago | (#47415855)

Big ups to my garden, big ups to my hoe.
What the dill w/ my weeds and my dill-yo?
Gotta keep the green flowing round my grill-yo.

My lyrics is tight.
My rhymes on target.
I drop fatter beets
Than a farmer's market.

Re:big up your garden? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47417043)

Dad, never--ever--do that again.

Re:big up your garden? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#47417401)

oh shit.....I fell out of my chair laughing. That hurt.

Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415785)

Buy the book BANNED by Costco!

Buy the book that Google can't seem to find in their search engine!

America!

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/

"Dinesh D’Souza, in response to the news of Costco removing his latest book, America: Imagine A World Without Her, from its shelves, made the following statement on July 8.

                                Today, I was stunned to learn that Costco had pulled my latest book, America: Imagine A World Without Her, from all of its stores. This was despite the fact that the book had sold very well at the chain and that my movie of the same name was releasing on over 1,000 screens the very next day. Today, I am disappointed to learn that this news has been confirmed by Costco. This action confirms the suspicions of all freedom-loving Americans and is a direct attack on my livelihood which I take very seriously.

                                In a free society, Costco is free to ban my book, but their customers are also free to shop at other stores which don’t censor books. In the book and the movie, I talk about the shaming of Americans and a culture of intimidation and censorship that has been spearheaded by the President himself. It’s one thing for Costco executives to pal around with President Obama and donate almost exclusively to Democrats. But to turn their company into a tool for suppressing dissent against the government is another matter.

                                I urge all Americans to watch our film in their nearest theater and buy the book from an establishment that honors freedom of speech. Once they do that, they will understand why the President and his allies are so afraid of this message and determined to keep it from reaching the American people."

Or is it actually true that you people are too lazy to read anything that is longer than a blog post?

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1, Offtopic)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47415907)

Imagine a world without derptards.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416003)

#1 best seller on Amazon, but of course you mouth breathers are all happy and fun with effective censorship from the Obama donors at Costco.

Does it give none of you pause that they would rather you not know anything about this book?

Maybe it's just me, but when the state tells me I cannot read a book, that book is something that I will want very much to read.

But you all just keep doing as you are told. We know you will.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416233)

It is just you. The state hasn't told anyone what they can and cannot read. You're confusing people ignoring your bullshit with censorship.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416301)

You people aren't very smart are you?

Look I am trying to make this simple but not using words that have too many syllables. Do try and keep up.

I didn't say it was actual censorship, just that is is a close thing to censorship as it is not the state making this choice, but it is an organization that is working with state agents in a cooperative manner. You understand this don't you? Costco is a big Democrat supporter and donor. They are effectively doing this thing directly for the state.

You people are such sheep. Anything is good for you as long as it supports your socialist agenda, we know this. Don't try and hide it.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#47417463)

What the hell dude? What is it you want? You can read anything at all pretty much so what else do you want? Force people to read it? Crazy people like you pushing it makes people want to ignore it. You're the best and most effective censor of all.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0)

PIBM (588930) | about 4 months ago | (#47417553)

If you really think we should read your book please provide a torrent source. Shall we find it interesting, many people who would have skipped it will purchase it from amazon or whichever seller is left.

Else, I'm pretty sure it's worthless.

Thank you for your time :)

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47416681)

Bell peppers are a very popular vegetable. I really like bell peppers. Costco has banned them however, bell peppers cannot be obtained at costco. So I shop elsewhere for my bell peppers.

Your book looks like emotional junk, I won't be purchasing it from anywhere.

Re: Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416719)

My brother-in-law wrote a book that is a #1 seller on Amazon, too!

The caveat there is that it's a #1 seller - in its category.

He was surprised to make #1 seller!

It turns out, as a marketing trick, Amazon parses the subject of the book down to such a fine degree that they can build a very esoteric and specific category for a given book, such that that book is one of a handful in that "category" and then it's very easy to be the #1 seller...

D'souza has a terrible reputation in the political science and history circles... I think he was just exposed in some personal scandal too, IIRC.

Also, who cares if Costco banned a book sale? Maybe they don't agree with him or dislike the subject matter, that's their prerogative as a business, right? Isn't that the free market? Businesses make choices, then succeed or fail based on consumer response to those choices?

I don't think a lot of people head to Costco to fill their reading lists. You're kind of just making yourself sound silly by ranting and using words like "libtard" - in my humble opinion, if you really want people to take your politics seriously, don't use trite monikers coined by *-wing talk show hosts. Parrots really only deserve yummy treats for learning new words, they don't deserve to be taken seriously for the things they say.

Re: Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47417133)

Idiot. Look at the box office results. You fucksticks may not want to believe it but this content is packing theaters and it's quite well recieved.

And one more fucking time. I am not even talking about the content. This is de fecto censorship by the state in all but actual name.

You assholes love tyranny as long as it's directed at those you disagree with.

How about this. We get a real conservative in office and start doing this shit to you progressive assholes. That's my plan.

Fuck you.

Re: Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47417199)

Oh and afer a number of you libtard shitstains (you don't like being called names huh? Well you stop first asshole) have made assertions of this book being full of lies we have yet to see a single actual factual reference to any one of these lies.

How can this possibly be?

You know what I hate more than fascists? Stupid fucking clueless dickless asshole fascists. That's what you are.

Re: Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#47417547)

Make up your mind, are they liberals or fascists? Your rant seams like the ravings of an assylum escapee. Missed your meds again, didn't you?

Re: Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47417827)

Leaving aside the rant... and just taking a look at the political positions of US "liberals", one sees that there is no difference between the term "liberal" and "fascist", so there is no "make up your mind needed". Liberals, in the context of the US political system, are (and have been for at least a century) fascists in their politics.

Re: Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#47417519)

A real conservative (which the fucking Bushs were NOT) doesn't grow government to oppress people. They get that shit out of the way. I don't think you're a real conservative either, just a fucking nut. Go howl at the moon some more.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415959)

Despite your OT rant, D'Souza is so full of horseshit that if nobody ever read his book or watched his movie, that would be just fine. He's only interested in making money by stirring up controversy and feeding people's prejudices. I'm sure Christ would be proud to have him as a follower.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416035)

He's a colossal waste of space-time and makes me nauseous just to hear him talk.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416167)

Of course you present no evidence to back up your claim, until you do, your baseless assertion that this work is full of lies, makes me think you are afraid that the truth will be seen by too many people.

Go on, prove me wrong.

On and by the way, I wasn't even saying anything about wether or not this is a good book or not, my entire point was that this act is effectively state censorship, which it is.

And still not one of you libtard assholes has the courage and intelligence to stand up and say that you are against censorship.

We know, you assholes love you some socialism and being intellectually honest is just not important when it is your push for socialism that is being attacked.

Fuck all of you.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416083)

"D'Souza is so full of horseshit "

Really? I'd be interested to hear what it is you believe is a lie in his work. Go on, do tell.

Re:Buy the book BANNED by Costco! (Sqore:100000) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416015)

you people are too lazy

Yupper, that's /. Also, just 1st and last sentence is all we care 'bout.

CAP = 'nipple' - I can't make things like this up :)!

Up to 250m? (4, Insightful)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 4 months ago | (#47415797)

So in real life, around 20m, give or take 12m.

Re:Up to 250m? (1, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 4 months ago | (#47416043)

No, probably around 100-200m is the more realistic outcome. Which is enough for an average residential building. In a taller building where this range isn't enough, there's usually some sort of a panel mid way where you can insert repeaters to strengthen the signal for much cheaper than having to rip out walls.

Notably this is exactly how VDSL is being currently used. I now use one at home, 100/10 connection over a standard copper pair to DSLAM in the basement which in turn is connected to the central ISP network via fiber that was laid a few years ago in the neighbourhood. No need to rip out walls, and this thing has more speed and range than student network at student apartment I had back in early 2000s (when I moved in, that apartment had amazing speed of 10mbps half duplex ethernet in star topology which was super awesome since I moved from analogue modem at home). Modem reports that connection speed is around 85000kbps down and 10000kbps up. I live several tens of meters of copper wire from the DSLAM and run one ~10m extension from the wall socket the modem.

Essentially what we need right now is the way to utilize standard copper twisted pair intended for POTS service (usually CAT3 around where I live) that exists in most of the older buildings to support last mile speeds that are offered by pulling fibre to the apartment building, because VDSL for last mile is becoming too slow to carry speeds that are becoming more common (350mbps cable and 1gbps over ethernet).

Re:Up to 250m? (3, Insightful)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47417039)

So all they need to do is park a $30k box within 100m-200m of the customer, and they have to power, cool, and maintain batteries in this box. Sounds like a great idea. Why would anyone want to use a $100 fiber port with a 40km-80km range and is back in a central datacenter, when they could spend $500+/port for a 100m-200m range and installed out in the field?!

30 meters, bonded? yeah, that'll sell (4, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | about 4 months ago | (#47416209)

as soon as you get out of the shade of the equipment cabinet, it's dead, Jim. yeah, that'll work. dig up the shrubs to put a 2 cubic meter cabinet and power stand next to the house. oh, yeah, I'm going to pester the phone company for this now.

plus 106+ MHz impacts aviation radio with interference. if the cabinet blocking your dryer vent doesn't get you, the 737 in your living room will.

Re:Up to 250m? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47416597)

Also heavily dependent on the quality of your line, not just the length. If it is old and crappy, gets damp every time it rains and is only holding on by a thread this isn't going to help you convince the phone company to replace it for you. I don't know if the US is any better but in the UK British Telecom will just tell you it works for voice so sod off.

30m (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#47415829)

That is going to barely make it from the pole to the house. Tack on how much the gear will cost and this is cheaper than pulling fiber? Pull the fiber and be done with it 2 strands of single mode from the 70's would still get me any speed available today, sure it might need C/DWDM to do it but it's doable with standard gear.

Re:30m (5, Informative)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47415881)

This is a good way to get high speeds into multi-tenant buildings. You bring fiber into the wire closet and then run this over the existing copper to the offices, apartments, suites throughout the building.

Re:30m (3, Informative)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#47415991)

30m is pretty short run, 10ge will do 100m over 6a or 7. For office buildings it's normally pretty easy to get new cable in place not so much with apartment complexes.

Re:30m (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47416279)

The other concern is, what if only 1 or 2 tenants in the 10 story office building are interested in anything higher than 50mb/s service. Why run fiber through the whole building for those two customers, when you can just upgrade your equipment in the wire closet and be done in an afternoon?

Re:30m (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#47417103)

Your 10 story office building would be out of reach of this, 3.9m is your average commercial building floor to floor distance and I've yet to see one with the primary dmarc in the middle floor :)

In the case of only 1 or 2 clients pulling only one or two pairs might be the correct thing.

Re:30m (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47417209)

Because you don't want to be sending someone to the same apartment every month, each time someone wants to upgrade. Why would I want to buy 1lb of peanuts for $3 when I can purchase 2oz for $1? It's not like I'm going to eat a pound of peanuts right now.

You need to think further out than the immediate if you want to make good long term decisions.

Re:30m (3, Informative)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 4 months ago | (#47416067)

Verizon does exactly that with FiOS in some MDU installs. They run fiber to the wire closet, and the runs to the units are VDSL2.

Re:30m (1)

Nukenbar (215420) | about 4 months ago | (#47417715)

maybe some, but they ran fiber right to my room in a 100 person apt building in NYC in about 2010.

Re:30m (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 months ago | (#47415891)

Yeah, not counting the existing line length inside the walls too. How just how do they plan on powering the fiber-to-POTS line converters? I'm guessing the fiber transceiver feeds off voltage from the existing POTS line running in parallel to box out in the easement someplace?

Re:30m (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 4 months ago | (#47415983)

Details like that are only important to the ISP if they actually intend to deliver the advertised speed.

Meanwhile, in DSL-land (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#47415837)

The rest of us still do local caching proxies and QoS hackery to make the most of our 2-3 Mbps.

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47415899)

This is the future of DSL land. Every year the twisted-pair based providers build more fiber extending their DSL aggregation modules closer to the customer. Eventually they will all become FTTH providers, but somewhere in-between they are high speed DSL over short copper lines that go to a DSLAM at the end of the street.

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about 4 months ago | (#47415949)

Interestingly, we don't know if the speed is synchronous.

Perhaps the upload is .6Mbps?

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47416265)

Synchronous != Symmetrical. The article does mention that the XG-FAST technology is symmetrical, although the service provided by the Telco probably would not be.

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#47416359)

You'd think that's some kind of manifest destiny, but where I live the telco (VZ) has already stated that the fiber rollout is over with. They population density doesn't warrant the investment of the equipment needed to extend the fiber.

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47417231)

It's true a lot of FTTH early adopters didn't find the business model as attractive as they thought. But every year the price of the FTTH PON equipent comes down, and the price of ADSL and copper is going up.
It's inevitable that we will all have FTTH at some point. It's debatable whether the existing ILEC will survive long enough to build all the way to the home, but I think the healthier ones will.

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416101)

My 6 meg down is pretty solid, of course I am less than 9 kilo feet from the pop and its all fiber to my ISP's noc so...

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 4 months ago | (#47416755)

The DSL provider in my area (Anchorage AK) is so ass backwards that there are large pockets of the city where you can't get more than around 792k.

Re:Meanwhile, in DSL-land (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 4 months ago | (#47417639)

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. No seriously, I'm with you on the 3mbps/sec DSL situation and am wondering what software/hardware you use for this. I see this as being quite handy on Patch Tuesday and similar. I have half-ideas as to how to make it work, but I'm interested to hear about your tried-and-true setup.

Ali G wrote the summary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415861)

Glad I don't have to "big up" my garden.

You'ze can like call me Ali-G. Boo-yah-kah-sha!

Big up you'selves.

Verizon and AT&T will have it next year (2)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#47415865)

Because you know they upgrade their networks right away

Re:Verizon and AT&T will have it next year (1)

ogdenk (712300) | about 4 months ago | (#47415901)

Nah, they'll do their best to bury this tech so they can justify giving their pet video streaming services priority and throttling others in the name of fighting network congestion even though their network was largely built with public funds.

Re:Verizon and AT&T will have it next year (1)

Michael Casavant (2876793) | about 4 months ago | (#47416575)

Exactly! How else could they charge for a fast lane if the connection is horrendously slow?

Re:Verizon and AT&T will have it next year (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 4 months ago | (#47417069)

They will but none of their customers will.

They could just run the damn fiber optic cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415925)

Most people's homes have phone wiring from the 80s -- too slow to handle modern DSL anyway.

Meaning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415927)

It's entirely useless.

Savings? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47415935)

Even in areas where all the cabling is buried(which definitely isn't all of them) how much do you save by putting some fancy and expensive widget within a couple hundred meters of every customer's location? Aside from the joys of managing a zillion touchy network devices out on the poles in all winds and weathers, you'd better hope that there's no secondary market for such gear or people will be harvesting them faster than you can install them...

Re:Savings? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#47416429)

If you can connect a hundred meters, in many neighborhoods you may be able to connect a dozen homes to one box. From there, it would be fiber. Laying fiber along a right of way is quite a lot easier and cheaper than dealing with individual homeowners and trenching in yards under driveways, fences, etc.

Any opportunity for competition to cable is welcome, so I hope they can get this or similar tech to market. Sounds like they've got a way to go.

Re:Savings? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47417249)

For the same price of one of those boxes that can supply "dozens" of houses with 1gb DSL, you could get a fiber box that supports thousands of houses with 1gb/1gb fiber, uses less power, and is all located in the CO, instead of out in the field.

My ISP went from 7 racks of DSL equipment in the CO plus cabinets in the field to 1/2 rack of fiber equipment with NOTHING in the field.

Re:Savings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416547)

They've been managing all those zillions of devices for decades in the form of line concentrators and multiplexors. This is hardly new.

Re:Savings? (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 4 months ago | (#47416785)

The obvious usage, in my eyes, would be multi-tenant buildings. Stuff like office space or even apartment and condo buildings. That's a very big chunk of potential customers, considering it's where the majority of housing growth seems to be heading.

Okay. Bidirectionally? (2)

Chas (5144) | about 4 months ago | (#47415945)

Or are we going to have to put up with an idiotically asynchronous connection like we already do with DSL (768K) now?

Re:Okay. Bidirectionally? (1)

no_go (96797) | about 4 months ago | (#47416135)

Or are we going to have to put up with an idiotically asynchronous connection like we already do with DSL (768K) now?

You probably mean Asymmetric.

I would think consumer and small business Internet access will keep on being asymmetric for the most part, whatever the technology.
Most users on those markets are consumers and not producers of data, which means more downloads than uploads.

Combine that with bandwidth being ALWAY scarce, you will have Engineers , network architects, product managers
and management designing their products taking that into account.

The market need for a symmetrical or a reverse ratio of uploads to downloads on the consumer segment is minuscule.

Re:Okay. Bidirectionally? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 4 months ago | (#47417663)

I'm not aware of asymetric Ethernet standard, for instance. Fiber to the home is basically last mile Ethernet, and in some markets where residential ISP just sell DSL service without bothering to limit speeds (and where caps are unheard of) you are really able to get a symmetric connection. Other providers may artifically limit the connection to an asymmetrical one like 100/10, 100/30 or 100/50.

Why I vote Democrat (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47415961)

Why I vote Democrat

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s okay if our federal government borrows $85 Billion every single month.

I vote Democrat because I care about the children but saddling them with trillions of dollars of debt to pay for my bloated leftist government is okay.

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s better to pay billions of dollars to people who hate us rather than drill for our own oil, because it might upset some endangered beetle or gopher.

I vote Democrat because I believe it is okay if liberal activist judges rewrite the Constitution to suit some fringe kooks, who would otherwise never get their agenda past the voters.

I vote Democrat because I believe that corporate America should not be allowed to make profits for themselves or their shareholders. They need to break even and give the rest to the federal government for redistribution.

I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted, so long as we keep all of the murderers on death row alive.

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s okay if my Nobel Peace Prize winning President uses drones to assassinate people, as long as we don’t use torture.

I vote Democrat because I believe people, who can’t accurately tell us if it will rain on Friday, can predict the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Chevy Volt.

I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is not as important as preventing people from being offended.

I vote Democrat because I believe the oil companies’ profit of 3% on a gallon of gas is obscene, but the federal government taxing that same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t obscene.

I vote Democrat because I believe a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental authority .. but sex education, condom distribution and multiculturalism are all values-neutral.

I vote Democrat because I agonize over threats to the natural environment from CO2, acid rain and toxic waste .. but I am totally oblivious of the threats to our social environment from pornography, promiscuity and family dissolution.

I vote Democrat because I believe lazy, uneducated stoners should have just as big a say in running our country as entrepreneurs who risk everything and work 70 hours per week.

I vote Democrat because I don’t like guns .. so no one else should be allowed to own one.

I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy.

I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between judicial leniency and surging crime rates.

I vote Democrat because I believe you don’t need an ID to vote but you do to buy beer.

I vote Democrat because I believe marriage is obsolete, except for homosexuals.

I vote Democrat because I think AIDS is spread by insufficient funding.

I vote Democrat because I think “fairness” is far more important than freedom.

I vote Democrat because I think an “equal outcome” is far more important than equal opportunity.

I vote democrat because I would rather hide in a class room while others fight for my freedom.

I vote democrat because I’m not smart enough to own a gun and I need someone else to protect me.

I vote democrat because I would rather have free stuff than freedom.

And lastly, I vote Democrat because I’m convinced that government programs are the solution to the human condition, NOT freedom.

Re:Why I vote Democrat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416099)

Aaaaaaaaand nobody gives a shit

Big a tree ... (0)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about 4 months ago | (#47415967)

... to move it away from my pole to the garden.

Unreliable and perfect for snooping. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416109)

This is just a maintenance nightmare! The short RF stub of copper will be deadly trap for privacy, and unreliability.

Great for dense cities... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416115)

which didn't need much help anyway.

If you are not living on top of the next guy, you are still SOL.

Why not use Gbps? (4, Insightful)

alzoron (210577) | about 4 months ago | (#47416117)

Other than just wanting to sound super awesome is there any reason why they aren't using Gbps instead of Mbps? It's sort of like saying a new car has a top speed of a bazillion picometers per second.

Why not use Gbps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416583)

Well 10 Gbps doesn't sound so amazing, now does it?

Re:Why not use Gbps? (2)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 4 months ago | (#47416809)

Probably because internet speeds are still largely measured Mbps. For anyone who's not familiar with data speeds, sticking to that measurement gives them an idea of exactly how much extra speed they're talking about.

Re:Why not use Gbps? (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 4 months ago | (#47417019)

Maybe to disambiguate from 10GigE, which is a different beast altogether from 10G over unshielded telco twisted pairs.

how many well-thrown baseballs is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416173)

And how many well-thrown baseballs is that exactly?
 

Speed Is Useless (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 4 months ago | (#47416199)

At this point, I can't even use the speeds that the ISP claims to provide because all of the content sources that I attempt to use can't seem to saturate my existing bandwidth. This is especially noticeable with video streaming services which seem to be unable to keep up despite the fact that the advertised bandwidth of my connection far exceeds the required bandwidth of the video. I get more stuttering videos now than I did in 1998 despite the fact that I have 2,000 times more bandwidth now than I did then. So what difference does it make if I get 10Gbps over my current 30Mbps?

Re:Speed Is Useless (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#47416371)

The difference is not internet service, but "cable TV". If you can employ an existing infrastructure to deliver TV channel packages, then there is finally a path for competition in many places where coaxial has it locked up.

Re:Speed Is Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416487)

You can exceed your data cap in 30 seconds instead of 3 hours.

Re:Speed Is Useless (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 4 months ago | (#47416897)

Either your internet speed is much faster than most other areas (like fiber or something), or you're getting your Mbps mixed up with MBps. I deal with this a lot, where someone will complain about only being able to download at 2MBps when they're paying for 20Mbps or whatever, and wondering where the other 18 went. Also, the main reason you probably had better experience 15 years ago is just due to how buffering has changed. Back in 1998, things had to be heavily buffered, so when you did get to start a video, it was smooth due to having a huge chunk of it already downloaded. You also weren't competing with millions of people for your youtube video either.

Wait.... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 months ago | (#47416249)

I thought I read somewhere that it was 10,000,000 kbps, or was it 10gbps?

Re:Wait.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416289)

10Gbps.

10,000 Mbps = 10 Gbps (1)

Moskit (32486) | about 4 months ago | (#47416283)

Metric conversion for those who prefer simpler numbers.

Oh, and that's a furload of Libraries of Congress per time period.

Don't have a garden (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 4 months ago | (#47416315)

Does a balcony count?

Once I would have been excited (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 4 months ago | (#47416333)

Technologically exciting, realistically irrelevant. It has become abundantly clear that the telcos do not want to upgrade their networks no matter how much the cost of doing so drops.

Useless (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 4 months ago | (#47416365)

Range too short, higher frequency and therefore more sensitive to interference, and I doubt that is symmetrical (upload speed might be ridiculously low). Simply take the fiber to the home (FTTH) and period.

I hate it as much as anyone but.. (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 4 months ago | (#47416377)

.. there's shit tons of fiber where I live, only it's under the streets but doesn't reach premises. No incentive or obligation to hook it up to cramped four-story 19th century buildings, where most of the flats are rented.
Simply put no one will pay for doing whatever complicated digging and stuff to do in the building just so I can upgrade speed. And oh, you often have a succession of building less than five meter wide, in a one-way street.

Regular DSL speed is high. VDSL is perfectly useless : needs to be less than 1km away from the central.
The DSL qualifies as "high bandwith" and is nice, only the upload speed is 1Mbps. That's frustrating and slow, but upgrading such connections is considered a low priority. Not enough flats in the building makes it low priority for fiber deployment as well.
Whatever, I'd be happy with anything that increases the upload speed by 100x.

Suggested Tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416407)

WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong - as this is the first 500MHz, the top part which contains public safety frequencies and lower parts government stations. We didn't need those, right???

Not really news? (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 4 months ago | (#47416517)

The 10GBASE-T IEEE 802.3an standard supports 10Gbps Ethernet up to 100 meters over shielded CAT6 or 55m over unshielded CAT6 twisted pair.

Re:Not really news? (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 4 months ago | (#47416637)

One is CAT6, the other is a POTS wire.

Terrible article. (2)

wiggles (30088) | about 4 months ago | (#47416625)

The much better Ars Technica summary article [arstechnica.com] says that yes, 30m for 10Gbps, but 1Gbps over 70m. Gigabit DSL would be a game changer.

Re:Terrible article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47416777)

The vast majority of America lives more than 5000 feet from their nearest IP-DSLAM or VRAD.

DSL is great for high-density housing like apartments or condos. Not so much for the rest of America, including suburban subdivisions where there arent' even enough homes within 250m of the VRAD to fill the cabinet.

Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47417259)

Could they work on getting +100mbits over 2KM instead(1.2 mile).

fiber or bust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47417453)

well its nice , because they now have to compete with the cheaper huawei. And also are laying off a lot ot people

That's actually 1250 MB/s. (1)

azav (469988) | about 4 months ago | (#47417809)

Why we are now measuring thing in units we never use, bits, is pretty beyond me.

We use bytes, K bytes, M bytes, G bytes and T bytes.

Using bits with a lower case b is a byte / 8 and can be useless and misleading to the average viewer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?