Wireless 10 gigabits/sec data transfer 93
swedub writes "Lucent Technologies announced a breakthrough technology that eventually will enable business customers and service providers to transmit up to 10 gigabits per second (Gb/s) of information between locations through the air. " They are calling it WaveStar OpticAir. Global Crossing will be doing field testing this December already. This is the first system to actually use Bell Labs dense wave division multiplexing-can I get coverage in my area? But the encryption issues will be interesting, methinks.
Re:SSH is a pain... :-( (Score:1)
Thus, the government effectively keeps strong encryption out of many US and non-US computers by increasing the pain in the butt factor. It's a clever and effective technique.
Re:That's Incredible!! (Score:1)
Wow.. brilliant technology. (Score:1)
Yeah, I heard theyre working on some strange new bizzare technology that will actually let you transmit an unlimited number of data streams in parallel over thin air.
Theyre calling it something weird like "radio" I think.
sarcasm(off);
Bowie
PROPAGANDA [themes.org]
Re:That's Incredible!! (Score:1)
Weather (Score:1)
inside (fog, etc). I wonder if that means it won't work worth crap there either
Optical isn't too different from microwave when it comes to weather problems (just ask anyone who
owns a DSS system) and they seem to be pretty successful in an outdoor situation...
Aligning that thing has got to be a problem (Score:1)
The other question is what pricing is going to be. I can guarentee its not going to be cheap since it is line of site only there will not be a HUGE demand for the things even though I can thing of a dozen or more aplications off the top of my head. Although its still got to be cheaper than digging a trench and laying fiber.
Come to think of it with that much band width the television / movie bizz has got to be excited. This has got to be cheaper than a satalite uplink and if there is a remote even within the usable range of this tech all they have to do is set up and shoot the video down it.
What is the efective range of this anyway?
Well there are alot of questions on this tech. (others have posted the ones about weather ect.) but it does look promising and has more uses than I think most people are giving it credit for asuming it doesn't go down compleatly in a rainstorm.
I'll be watching for more.
Possible usage in space communications? (Score:1)
Re:Someone check my math... (Score:1)
There are several companies out there offering OC-3 and OC-12 over laser right now, so it isn't *too* much of a surprise that we now see this level of service. Think of SONET without the fiber...but remember it may be fast, but line-of-sight isn't always easy to achieve in even moderately crowded downtown areas.
Re:Someone check my math... (Score:1)
I mean, the Abilene network is moving towards OC-48 on their backbone, and that will be shared by hundreds of universities, labs, etc. So basically, I'm not sure what the point is in point to point 10GBs...get my point?
Distance? (Score:1)
I know there is one in production in Arizona somewhere.
Joe
Re:encryption not needed (Score:1)
hahahahahahahahahahahaha...=)
Re:Visible Microwave (Score:1)
Re:Ships in port? (Score:1)
Re:Just pure crap by the way (Score:1)
switching... (Score:1)
of course, going through the air seems pretty cool, takes the fiber out of fiber optic and back into breakfast cereal... speaking of which
i had first post! now, a post with thought! (Score:1)
Useless technology (Score:1)
Lucent should try making something usefull for a change. inferno and now this... they had so much potential
So, same drawbacks as infrared? (Score:1)
or snows like infrared Ethernet does?
Re:10GB/s, weather-permitting (Score:1)
Re:Really need to know the link budget (Score:1)
>important, a TCP-like net connection is being
>used, and retransmissions will occur. Now a whole
>flock of birds, well...
The solution is simple. Crank the transmit power up to a 20-30 watts or so. Any bird that flies through the beam likely won't do so again. Ever. 20-30 watts of laser radiation will probably also break through thick fog, and create an impressive light show people can admire.
Re:10GB/s, weather-permitting (Score:1)
The say it's good for ships... [Re:Aligning...] (Score:1)
Also, it states the supported distance: A four-wavelength system with a maximum capacity of 10 Gb/s for distances up to five kilometers is expected to be commercially available in the summer of 2000. That's about three miles.
By the way - this is an original company press release. Pretty much hyped, and still quite far in the future. Let's check back in one year and see what they actually delivery, and how big the market for that product will be...
encryption not needed (Score:1)
Burst Transmissions? (Score:1)
US Navy Subs only send/receive data at certain times. (when they are on the surface)
Also, all Navy ships (or most anyway) have Stable Elements already, so adapting that signal to a tranceiver would be easy.
It sounds like the private sector wouldn't benifit as greatly as the Military might. But you gotta admit, the thought of filling up your (present) Hard Drive in a sec or 2 is a pretty awesome concept!
Forget new dangly bits, just make it cheaper. (Score:1)
What we the people need is a WLAN device that can communicate with other WLAN devices in the neighbourhood, so making the internet more independent of local telecoms authorities. With parallel routing the bandwidth could be huge.
It is still cheaper for me to buy 2 NE2000 clones and a 100m of cable than one single WLAN card. Until this changes we will never break the grip of the telcos, and will forever remain subject to the whims of the governments that they support.
Vik :v)
Re:Someone check my math... (Score:1)
No - not OC-768. What they have is 10Gbps which is OC-192.
But - what they actualy have is 4 OC-48 links.
Each OC-48 link is 2.5Gbps (really 2.488 - but close enough) and they use 4 different wavelengths of light.
I'll check your math. (Score:1)
Re:That's Incredible!! (Score:1)
Re:Ships in port? (Score:1)
Re:"Neither rain nor sleet nor snow nor hail" (Score:1)
IR Wireless (Score:1)
I imagine that there are applications where these types of things are usefull, but the installation has to be rock-solid and well engineered.
I think a better growth path is to install fiber. Lots of fiber. Everywhere. NOW !
Z
OSHA Alert! (Score:1)
Re:Someone check my math... (Score:1)
Re:"Neither rain nor sleet nor snow nor hail" (Score:1)
using multiple "colors" at the same time to create
extra bandwidth. I don't think it has anything to
do with using multiple transmitter-receiver pairs.
Although it would be a good idea to provide
redundancy.
Re:That's Incredible!! (Score:1)
Re:That's Incredible!! (Score:1)
Re:Useless? (Score:1)
Well, my Ham Radio experience tells me that radio is VERY directional, especially at high frequencies! Ever hear of EME bouncing? Basically, ya take a very short wavelength (in the low digit Gigaherz range) Yagi antenna, aim it at the moon and it maybe bounces back somewhere here on earth. I've been in the presence of conversations with folks from Agentina... all via radio waves bouncing off the moon.
Mike
Re:Useless technology (Score:1)
Just pure crap by the way (Score:1)
Re:10 Gb, cool but limited (Score:1)
microwave versus Opticair (Score:1)
Re:Weather/Air disturbances (Score:1)
Vaporware (Score:2)
Re:The author doesn't know what he's talking about (Score:2)
>offer? What if something passes in between the
>receiver and transmitter, or the weather is bad?
If a cd-rom doesn't make it, you just walk over, pick it up, and throw it again.
Weather/Air disturbances (Score:2)
Scattering lets you tap this. (Score:2)
Not really. If there is dust, smog, or rain in the air, a fair amount of the light will scatter. With proper equipment, it wouldn't be too hard to tap the beam.
Re:Scattering lets you tap this. (Score:2)
Ever go to an outdoor laser show? What you're seeing there _is_ scattered light, without the benefit of smoke generators.
The light is also being transmitted at a very specific, known frequency. Put a good quality filter on the tapper, and your signal-to-noise ratio improves considerably.
Want more signal? Place your receiver so that it's as close as it can be to looking down the beam.
You can't do laser communications over miles with a laser pointer. There is a very bright laser producing the beam, and a fair amonut of scattering.
Someone check my math... (Score:2)
"At this rate, customers will be able to transmit the data contained on 15 CD ROMs through the air in less than a second."
CD capacity is ~600M, right? 15*600 is 9000, or 9G. Isn't 10Gbps, ~1Gbyte/s? Did they confuse GBit and GByte?
On the other hand, either way it's faster than PCI, so I won't be using up all that bandwidth by myself...
Looks like mostly-indoor to me... (Score:2)
Kaa
Useless? (Score:2)
b) Not mobile? One of the big things that radio networks are good for is allowing laptop users to move through the areas of service. Lasers are directed
c) Useless for people needing the high speed link - see a
The way I see this technology working isn't too impressive. It seems to me that it would just link directly into a more conventional network for temporary use when the weather is known (or projected) to be good... The conventional net would then be divided among a large number of users... The distances it carries data can't be great, because as distance increases, the likelihood of an interruption also increases. Also, even tightly focused laser beams become diffuse eventually...
From the way the article presented it, it seems like there would be multiple nodes each feeding data to the next... but then you have to have permission to put a node down on property that you don't own...
The only real use I see for this is for very short term things where laying the lines is too much hassle and 100% uptime isn't particularly important... ie. conferences, expos, etc...
Why the comment about encryption? (Score:2)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these comments are just going to contribute to FUD. The tools to be secure are out there. Use them, for goodness sake.
Businesses still might want it (Score:2)
If it costs a few grand per box, one-time, a company with two or more buildings within line-of-sight of each other but not on contiguous land, in a region with even moderately good weather, might buy them to connect the building LANs, and fall back to a puny T1 (1.5 Mbps) on stormy days. BIG bargain.
Re:Just pure crap by the way (Score:2)
"I work for a small ISP and can say that this just wouldn't be financialy feasable."
Technology like this will eventually crush small ISPs. There is a huge economy of scale in the high-bandwidth ISP business that small ISPs will never achieve. Small ISPs are pretty small much fish in the evaporating modem pool.
Actually, methinks something like this could mutate and eventually kill ISPs altogether because the transport medium is free and unregulated.
If you get enough computer geeks with [quasi-directional] roof-top stations with/and/or localized radio LANs then you could eventually bridge the entire continent on a sub-Internet.
In a perfect fantastic world every building would just be a relaying node one big spanking public network. (Maybe free networking will become the next electric car -- suppressed but it will happen eventually.)
There would be all sorts of neat-o architecture problems too. Fun stuff for the network-design masochist and the script kiddie alike.
10GB/s, weather-permitting (Score:2)
Re:Someone check my math... (Score:2)
(Mbytes) (MBytes) (GBytes)
... yeah, but 9.52GBps does not equal 9.52Gbps
(GigaBytes) (Gigabits)
The original poster is correct, somebody is fibbing at Lucent. To transfter 1 MB at 1 Mbps, it would take 8 seconds to transfer.
This is all due to communications using standards in "bits per second" (see: Old Hayes Modems) with
PC's use of bytes (see: To sell more computers, PC makers say RAM is 64 MB when it's really 64 Mb).
Rick
Dense wave division multiplexing (Score:3)
asinus sum et eo superbio
Re:Aligning that thing has got to be a problem (Score:3)
That depends on the modulation and mixing schemes that they use. By the time the carrier reaches the output, it's been multiplexed on to one beam, so lining up several emitters shouldn't be necessary.
OTOH, the transmitting and receiving mirrors will have to be aligned very precisely. There are a few ways to do this (even ways to do this automatically). Solving this is picky but not intrinsically difficult.
Come to think of it with that much band width the television / movie bizz has got to be excited. This has got to be cheaper than a satalite uplink and if there is a remote even within the usable range of this tech all they have to do is set up and shoot the video down it.
It would probably wind up being more expensive than satellite for TV broadcasting, actually, because TV is _broadcasting_ - using one (espensive) satellite to send data to many, many homes. The cost of the satellite is amortized over the number of viewers that it serves. A laser link, OTOH, only serves one user.
Where it would be more useful is in transmission of TV data from the master station to other distributing stations, but they already have microwave links in place for this (that's what all of those towers in the countryside with dishes and ariels on them do, among other things). Lasers would give higher bandwidth, but how many cable channels do they want to transmit?
What is the efective range of this anyway?
That depends on several things, but a previous poster said single-digit kilometres (or miles, if you prefer). This sounds reasonable. Haze in the air will scatter the beam after a while even in clear weather.
10 Gb, cool but limited (Score:3)
Also, it's a line-of-sight technology. I, for one, can't imagine this being used effectively for much more than spanning roadways and other public right-of-way restrictions without the legal hassle of an easement. Maybe jumping over a small river or such, but the morning fog, or the heat rising off the rooftops would just shoot your network to hell...
Cost-wise, I doubt that this will ever be more affordable than traditional fiber. The endpoint hardware has to be at least as expensive, and the cost of fiber vs. the power needed to push light through the air is a major argument in favor of glass/plastic.
My 0.02 euro
yeah right. (Score:3)
>Request timed out.
>Request timed out.
>Request timed out.
>Request timed out.
"Oh shit, it's raining again!"
Really need to know the link budget (Score:3)
Birds are not so much a problem because if it's important, a TCP-like net connection is being used, and retransmissions will occur. Now a whole flock of birds, well...
2) Encryption? Well, it is hard to intercept because you'd have to be in the line-of-sight. Now if you're between the Tx and Rx, you'd probably have a good intercept, but you might ruin the link for the legit user. If you were behind the legit Rx, then that receiver would be blocking you, and you as well might be out of range for the link.
Still, if it's important, the user(s) that need encryption will do so as necessary on their connection(s) only.
3) No good for anything but line-of-sight (LOS)? This is still a big market for data carriers. There's bandwidth all over the place between 2 GHz up to 38 GHz for point-to-point use, and these pretty much have to be LOS-only. At around 28 GHz, there's LMDS, which is point-to-multipoint; still, it's LOS-only (in spite of what some might say).
This laser solution is clearly LOS-only, and will require proper aiming and all that at each end. And, it isn't very mobile, but Navy ships could certainly afford the required autotrack mechanism to make this useful even with gentle rocking of the ship.
Yes, I do this for a living, only at RF.
Possible applications (Score:3)
I see a couple of good applications.
1) Get the bandwidth up today while you get the trencher out to bury your fiber.
2) Replace the bandwidth today after somebody else cut through your cable trenching in their fiber
3) Use it indoors. Large convention centers could use a couple of these puppies to move lots of data around where fiber runs might not be pratical. Also think of Boeing's assembly plant. VERY large building with pretty decent sight lines without weather problems.
In general though - this is only going to be useful to a far smaller number of people than would use a traditional fibered system.
Visible Microwave (Score:4)
It sounds like they intend to use this like point to point microwave, but in areas where microwave isn't feasible. This is becoming more and more of an issue with wireless local loop technology being the current vogue.
The problems with microwaves is that they scatter. Not only do you have to worry about the beam getting to the other end but you also have to worry about all of the reflected signal that will interfere with both ends and any other microwave sites. Plus there is the bleeding of signal out the back... the antenna patterns can be fairly complex and interference analysis is a very big business. Some would argue that the wireless local loop and point to multi-point markets have yet to be adequately addressed. The engineering can get very complicated. Especially if you are talking about small-scale dense areas like campuses and office complexes.
Also, the equipment for microwave is likely to be more of a hassle. If you aren't familiar with it there is a lot more to it than you might think. Compressors to keep the waveguides empty, etc.. (Fiber makes a pretty good waveguide for light.
re: Weather. Light is highly attenuated by water droplets in the air but so are microwaves. This is all part of current reliability analysis when designing microwave links. There are known ways of limiting the affects of this and they might apply to light as well.
It would be interesting to have a reliability/attenuation comparison between microwave beams and light. If only I were a microwave engineer instead of the guy that writes some of their software... I might have more to say.