digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at blogs.zdnet.com

Accessing Internet at 640 Gb/s?

blogs.zdnet.com — University of Sydney physicists have developed an optical chip that could potentially improve ‘Internet speeds to up to 100 times faster than current Australia’s networks.’ He adds that these chips could be scaled to operate at data rates approaching 640 Gb/s — the equivalent to transmitting approximately 17 complete DVDs per second!

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 13, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

327 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Scaryclouds, on 07/12/2008, -22/+4641/17th of second is still to long to wait for high definition Japanese anime tentacle porn!
  • adrames, on 07/12/2008, -12/+369Great for Austrialia, but the US needs a lot more fiber to see these speeds. Quit being a tease, Digg.
  • elstevo, on 07/13/2008, -6/+207640 Gb/s should be enough bandwidth for anybody
  • BillDoE, on 07/13/2008, -1/+173Awesome, I can hit my cap in 1 second.
  • theinsane, on 07/13/2008, -7/+164Sure, you dig him up... but he's not actually kidding.
  • lamiaconfitor, on 07/13/2008, -7/+158You are assuming we are digging him because he is 'kidding.' You have no idea how awesome Japanese tentacle porn is, do you?
  • damawa42, on 07/13/2008, -4/+130"up to 100 times faster than current"
    If 640gb/s is 100 times faster than what we/they have now, WHERE CAN I FIND 6.4GB/S INTERNETZ?!?
  • jaromdl, on 07/13/2008, -2/+114Hard drives don't go that fast...

    I still won't get 17 movies a second.
  • HomieG6189, on 07/13/2008, -2/+99I would be the happiest pirate in the world.
  • ChristBehemoth, on 07/13/2008, -2/+89Brilliant, then we can really '***** the RIAA'.
  • overt, on 07/13/2008, -2/+81Yeah, great for Australia alright. I'd go over my bandwith limit in 31 milliseconds.
  • TexanPsycho, on 07/13/2008, -5/+84And it'll be many decades before we even get a glimpse of this in use.
  • BeefBaron, on 07/13/2008, -1/+72Not so great for Australia. We're mostly using ancient copper, most broadband being 1.5mbit. 22mbit 2+ is available but a decent download quota costs a kidney or liver a month.
  • BlackCow, on 07/13/2008, -4/+72I would rather have my hardware be the bottleneck and not the internet lol.
  • vagrantwade, on 07/13/2008, -8/+72The day we have data rates of 640 gb/s, is the day the movie/music/software industries die. Unless of course by some magical force they are able to stop P2P.
  • enshoku, on 07/13/2008, -4/+67いや！あれはイカげそが怖いでしゅね！
  • jdelsman, on 07/13/2008, -1/+44AT&T's backbone.
  • atgmac, on 07/13/2008, -0/+42Making money?
  • jaromdl, on 07/13/2008, -0/+40The future is going to be awesome.
  • Amorn, on 07/13/2008, -0/+39Finally i can stream my hologram porn without lag
  • stinger666, on 07/13/2008, -0/+36You mean it's the day distribution evolves to a next level?
  • PurpleSfinx, on 07/13/2008, -1/+34...You obiously don't know much about the state of broadband here. I wouldn't expect you to, but the US has it about a million times better than us.
  • lamiaconfitor, on 07/13/2008, -0/+31Hey, they have a live action La Blue Girl. Its not all anime.
  • GOVATENT, on 07/13/2008, -0/+31At least I don't have to use telstra. I feel bad for people in Australia.
  • p3ngwin, on 07/13/2008, -2/+32mmmmm, tentacle porn something
  • FLarsen, on 07/13/2008, -2/+31It's much easier to upgrade your hardware later on than upgrading the Internet.

    "No computer will ever need more than 16kb ram." Not the exact quote, but does it ring any bells?
  • webresources, on 07/13/2008, -1/+28I believe even the harddisks can not process at those speeds yet. But, wouldn't say no if I had it.
  • chetanthaker, on 07/13/2008, -8/+35Thank God australia dont have Comcast. Else they'd be having a 1GB download cap on their plans.
  • migshark, on 07/13/2008, -0/+27I believe what it infers is that the current network, structured the way it is; would be 100 times more effective if these chips were used. I think it's relating it on a practical scale rather than the usual and impossibly applicable, theoretical scale.
  • GliTCH82, on 07/13/2008, -1/+28Congratulations, you're all well on your way to a bestiality fetish.
  • diemunkiesdie, on 07/13/2008, -1/+28I'm not entirely sure I understand how this works, I read the articles they linked to and searched on google, but I'm not sure how this can increase speeds. I thought fiber had reached 14 Tbit/s (theoretical speed when using optical amplifiers). That would mean this method (640 Gb/s) is slower. Or is it just more economical then using optical amplifiers?
  • srg13, on 07/13/2008, -0/+27Having internet faster than hard drives write is fine - don't you ever have more than one person accessing the internet at one time?

    Of course, 17 DVDs a second may be pushing it, but still, as storage technology progresses...
  • inactive, on 07/13/2008, -1/+27Keeping your head dry in the rain?
  • fLUx1337, on 07/13/2008, -0/+26No but if you could get 68GB of RAM, you could download around 0.8 of a full DVD every 1 second

    Though it would then take around 20mins at peak speeds to get it onto HDDs.

    And then around 2hrs before you would need to watch the 2nd out of 17 DVDs.

    In fact you could download a 4.7GB DVD movie on only a 8Mbits connection (1MB/sec) every 1-1.2hrs. Do we really need 640Gbits/sec at home? 1Gbit would be too much for pretty much everyone!
  • MunroCool, on 07/13/2008, -1/+26Same could be said for 20 years ago.. Did we really need to be able to transfer 17 floppy disks a second? Well we are now.
  • asdfMAXasdf, on 07/13/2008, -0/+24Telstra Currently has a plan with a 1.5mbit/s download speed and a 600 megabyte download limit...
  • diggit08, on 07/13/2008, -5/+27How long would it take for GooGle to transfer all our i.p's to viacom with this?
  • jdelsman, on 07/13/2008, -1/+23http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattribu ...
  • Swarms, on 07/13/2008, -0/+22No. He didn't.
  • Totz83, on 07/13/2008, -1/+23"The US needs a lot more fiber"
  • Wuss, on 07/13/2008, -6/+27Am I wrong in thinking that this is irrelevant?

    What's the point of having 34905834095834095 GB/s or whatever speeds if our hardware is incapable of serving/receiving data to support that rate?

    Last I checked my SATA hard drive can't write 17 DVD's worth of data in 1 second. There's multiple bottlenecks to address before anyone sees a fraction of that speed come to fruition.
  • CarStan, on 07/13/2008, -2/+22one word: Holographic-porn Live-Stream
  • longboarder543, on 07/13/2008, -0/+20surely if people had this much bandwidth, it would ONLY be used for piracy, so it should definitely be outlawed. Right?
  • jgtg32a, on 07/13/2008, -1/+20I think most ausies would cut off their own nuts to get comcast
  • Tenoq, on 07/13/2008, -0/+19No.... it's ADSL2+, so theoretically 24Mb/s and a 600MB download limit. All for the bargain price of $69.95, unless you have a bundled phone line.

    http://my.bigpond.com/internetplans/broadband/adsl ...
  • chochazel, on 07/13/2008, -0/+19Never?

    ...

    ?
  • diggymow, on 07/13/2008, -0/+19Yeah... That's how it is in Australia now.....
  • SpartanErik, on 07/13/2008, -1/+20Kudos to CUDOS!

    heh.
  • migshark, on 07/13/2008, -1/+20We have Optus, Telstra and IInet . Only IInet is better than Comcast.
  • koolgiy, on 07/13/2008, -0/+18Yeah - Comcast and AT&T would price it at $200 a month (plus that bandwidth capping they love so much)

    Probably the same in Canada too.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 336 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.