Researchers reach unseen data transmission speeds by tweaking fiber optics

[Shawn Knight]

The big picture: Internet connections have been on the rise for years, well before Covid-19 forced millions of people to stay home and pushed web traffic to new heights. Fortunately, existing infrastructure hasn't buckled under stress but looking ahead, there's no doubt that we'll need faster connections in the future to support our increasingly digital world.

Researchers from University College London (UCL) in partnership with experts from KDDI Research and Xtera have set a new data transmission rate world record.

Working together, the team was able to achieve a data transmission rate of 178 terabits a second, or 178,000,000 megabits a second. According to UCL’s press release, that’s fast enough to download Netflix’s entire catalog in less than a second.

It is a fifth faster than the previous record set by a team in Japan.

The feat took place in a UCL lab where the researchers utilized a much wider range of wavelengths compared to what is typically used in optical fiber (spectrum bandwidth of 16.8THz versus 4.5THz).

To make it happen, the team developed new Geometric Shaping (GS) constellations (patterns of signal combinations that make the best use of various properties of light) and combined multiple amplifier technologies to boost signal power over the wider data lanes.

Better yet, by upgrading amplifiers along fiber routes, existing infrastructure can be brought up to speed at a fraction of what it would cost to lay new cable.

Those interested in diving deeper are encouraged to check out the researchers' paper on the matter, "Optical Fibre Capacity Optimisation via Continuous Bandwidth Amplification and Geometric Shaping," published in the IEEE Photonics Technology Letters journal.

Image credit: Quality Stock Arts, Sharkstock

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/86463-researchers-set-data-transmission-speed-world-record.html

 

[Squid Surprise]

Makes you think that ISPs charging $100 per month for less than a GB/S connections might just be profiteering... nah... they’d never do that

 

[Uncle Al]

Makes you think that ISPs charging $100 per month for less than a GB/S connections might just be profiteering... nah... they’d never do that

ROFL .... you beat me to it!

 

[neeyik]

I fully expected this to be nothing more than a laboratory achievement, but when I saw that it was done over 40 km - well, colour me impressed.

 

[Lionvibez]

I fully expected this to be nothing more than a laboratory achievement, but when I saw that it was done over 40 km - well, colour me impressed.

This.

great in a lab but that doesn't always mean real world.

 

[Tommis]

Where do they get test files to test these speeds?..

 

[Homerlovesbeer]

Saying it's "a fifth faster" is a little clumsy......surely 20% faster is clearer?

 

[Endymio]

Makes you think that ISPs charging $100 per month for less than a GB/S connections might just be profiteering... nah... they’d never do that

Years of research from teams from one university and two private firms, plus a few tens of millions of dollars in custom-built equipment, all to establish one link for a brief period of time. And all without the overhead of a real-world corporation, in terms of sales and marketing, customer support, legal liability, etc. It's hard to translate from that to ISP pricing levels.

Subtract the entire profit margin from the gross revenues of most ISPs, and you're only talking about a 5-15% drop in overall pricing. That hardly qualifies as obscene profiteering ... especially when some years those ISPs often run in the loss column.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

“You'd be surprised how much energy is in a beam of light.”

 

[Squid Surprise]

Years of research from teams from one university and two private firms, plus a few tens of millions of dollars in custom-built equipment, all to establish one link for a brief period of time. And all without the overhead of a real-world corporation, in terms of sales and marketing, customer support, legal liability, etc. It's hard to translate from that to ISP pricing levels.

Subtract the entire profit margin from the gross revenues of most ISPs, and you're only talking about a 5-15% drop in overall pricing. That hardly qualifies as obscene profiteering ... especially when some years those ISPs often run in the loss column.

I live in Canada - and there are only 2 ISPs.... they’ve never operated at a loss since the internet began...

I’m impressed with your corporate schilling... please feel free to include some evidence of the losses of Rogers and Bell for me...

 

[Endymio]

Please feel free to include some evidence of the losses of Rogers and Bell for me...

Speaking for the US, CenturyLink ran at a loss most of last year; they've just now come out of the red. Windstream's been operating at a loss for the last two years and is approaching bankruptcy. AT&T is doing better, but they ran a loss back in the late 2000s. Their current profit margin is about 7%, hardly earth-shattering, and if you exclude their non-Internet revenues, the margin is even lower. Charter Communications has a current margin of 3.5%, significantly less than the average for most other industries. Verizon is probably doing the best, but then they benefit from a large degree of anticompetitive government regulations.

As for Canada, the reason you have "only two ISPs" (somewhat of an overstatement) is the gross level of industry regulation which exists in your nation. In any case, if you feel there's so much grossly inflated profits to be made, why not start your own ISP?

 

[Squid Surprise]

As for Canada, the reason you have "only two ISPs" (somewhat of an overstatement) is the gross level of industry regulation which exists in your nation. In any case, if you feel there's so much grossly inflated profits to be made, why not start your own ISP?

Yes... that's my point... and WHY is all this industry regulation there? So that Rogers and Bell can make profits.... It's also why I couldn't make my own ISP - even if I had the startup capital necessary to do so.

 

[Endymio]

WHY is all this industry regulation there? So that Rogers and Bell can make profits

No, in nearly every case, those regulations were passed under the rationale of "protecting consumers" and "reigning in corporate greed". But, as is true of most government actions, they have the exact opposite effect of that which is intended. As you yourself admit, the more heavily-regulated the market, the higher the bar to entry, and the less competitive it thus becomes.

 

[Evernessince]

Makes you think that ISPs charging $100 per month for less than a GB/S connections might just be profiteering... nah... they’d never do that

Na, companies in a capitalistic system would never do that. They do everything better and more efficiently. Not to mention the free market, which is always 100% correct according to some of my good investor friends on TechSpot . Can't beat that 1 choice of cable company in your area and it makes my investor friend richer! It hurts the working class and impedes competition? Who cares, the free market is always right!

Obligatory /sarcasm.

 

[Evernessince]

No, in nearly every case, those regulations were passed under the rationale of "protecting consumers" and "reigning in corporate greed". But, as is true of most government actions, they have the exact opposite effect of that which is intended. As you yourself admit, the more heavily-regulated the market, the higher the bar to entry, and the less competitive it thus becomes.

I'd easily argue that a good chunk of regulations are passed at the behest of lobbyists. Do you think companies are only trying to stop regulation? Hell no, they are trying to have laws made in their favor as well.

 

[Endymio]

I'd easily argue that a good chunk of regulations are passed at the behest of lobbyists. Do you think companies are only trying to stop regulation? Hell no, they are trying to have laws made in their favor as well.

Sure, they're always trying. But getting a majority of 535 congressmen to vote for a law, plus a President to sign it, requires either that said law be beneficial to the public at large, or, failing that, for the public to at least believe it is beneficial to them.

You've missed my point entirely if you don't realize that it is the latter case which almost always occurs. Governmental legislation in this area invariably has negative consequences, and often has an exact opposite effect to that which is intended.

Can't beat that 1 choice of cable company in your area and it makes my investor friend richer! It hurts the working class and impedes competition? Who cares, the free market is always right!

As myself and other posters have already pointed out, that single-choice cable provider is the result of government "last-mile" regulation, which makes it a crime for other firms to offer you a choice. This is the diametric opposite of a "free market". And those laws were passed with the overwhelming support of a public which believed utterly that they were being "protected" by their existence.

 

[Evernessince]

As myself and other posters have already pointed out, that single-choice cable provider is the result of government "last-mile" regulation, which makes it a crime for other firms to offer you a choice. This is the diametric opposite of a "free market". And those laws were passed with the overwhelming support of a public which believed utterly that they were being "protected" by their existence.

What others? No one else on this thread has mentioned last mile until this comment. Now you are fabricating a past event that never occurred.

Second, provide proof of the multiple claims you've made including last mile regulations. Otherwise a claim submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Endymio]

What others? No one else on this thread has mentioned last mile until this comment. Now you are fabricating past event that never occurred.

Sigh, post #12, referring to my post #11. We didn't use that specific term, but anyone who knows anything about telecom will realize it was implicit in our statements.

Second, provide proof of the multiple claims you've made including last mile regulations. Otherwise a claim submitted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I can't tell if you're just being argumentative, or if you honestly do not know that, until extremely recently, nearly every county or municipality had statutes allowing only a single cable provider to serve a household. If the latter, 15 seconds on Google will clear it up.

 

[Evernessince]

I can't tell if you're just being argumentative, or if you honestly do not know that, until extremely recently, nearly every county or municipality had statutes allowing only a single cable provider to serve a household. If the latter, 15 seconds on Google will clear it up.

You are talking about certain cities, counties, or towns that sign exclusivity deals with a cable provider. While this exists, it's definitely not "nearly every".

FYI you stated earlier:

" No, in nearly every case, those regulations were passed under the rationale of "protecting consumers" and "reigning in corporate greed" "

Which is just plain false. Those exclusivity contracts were not put in place at the behest of the public or to protect customers. They were put in place due to corrupt politicians. Once again you are trying to repaint the narrative you spun earlier.

You are trying to paint regulation in a bad light by saying good intentioned rules have been bad for the industry and then use an example of rules put in place through corporate kickbacks and lobbying. What a load of BS.

 

[Endymio]

You are talking about certain cities, counties, or towns that sign exclusivity deals with a cable provider. While this exists, it's definitely not "nearly every".

Well, that answers my earlier question. You really don't know. Gizmodo on this: "The last reliable statistic [from the FCC] shows that a mere 2-percent of American markets had a choice of cable providers." (source

Does 98% qualify as "nearly everyone"? The FCC hasn't collected new data recently, but even still it's almost certainly in the 95% range.

Also, Wired magazine: Don't Blame Big Cable: It's Local Governments That Choke Competition

Which is just plain false. Those exclusivity contracts were not put in place at the behest of the public or to protect customers. They were put in place due to corrupt politicians.

If you've ever had a college or even a high school economics class, you would have seen your textbook full of the "advantages" of public utility natural monopolies. Local governments and their citizens believe in this, unfortunately. Politicians grant these exclusive contracts not because they're "corrupt", but because they believe they're benefitting their constituents. Which is why you have zero choice in electricity, gas, water, cable, and sometimes even trash collection. The public in general believes this is to their advantage. They're wrong, by and large, but they believe it.

 

[Evernessince]

Well, that answers my earlier question. You really don't know. Here's some info.. Gizmodo, on this: " The last reliable statistic [from the FCC] shows that a mere 2-percent of American markets had a choice of cable providers. " (source

Does 98% qualify as "nearly everyone" ?

Also, Wired magazine: Don't Blame Big Cable: It's Local Governments That Choke Competition

I suppose you've never had a college or even a high school economics class. Textbooks for these used to be full of the "advantages" of public utility natural monopolies. Local governments and their citizens believe in this, unfortunately. Politicians grant these exclusive contracts not because they're "corrupt", but because they believe they're benefitting their constituents. Which is why you have zero choice in electricity, gas, water, cable, and sometimes even trash collection. The public in general believes this is to their advantage. They're wrong, by and large, but they believe it.

You missed this part

" That's from 2003 "

lol, nice try at stripping context.

Data from 2003 is totally applicable to 2020 /sarcasm.

Is all you've got is petty insults and intentionally misleading statements?

Politicians grant these exclusive contracts not because they're "corrupt", but because they believe they're benefitting their constituents. Which is why you have zero choice in electricity, gas, water, cable, and sometimes even trash collection. The public in general believes this is to their advantage. They're wrong, by and large, but they believe it.

1) You are making more assumptions here.
2) You are conflating 2003 ISP data to other utilities, which is obviously misleading for many reasons. ISPs aren't even regulated as utilities, let alone have the controls gas, electric, and water do. Not to mention your data is vastly outdated.
3) You are comparing Internet, an unregulated non-utility to utilities, which have regulatory requirements under title 2 and price controlled to an extent.

It's common for infrastructure to only have one or two providers as it's very expensive to lay water or gas pipes throughout the entire country. The solution instead is to regulate them and ensure that everyone has equal access to them, that they follow rules, and that pricing is fair. Title 2 regulation of ISPs was attempted to bring them somewhat in line with other essential services but was repealed. Of course unbundling (not talking about TV packages here) would have been preferred in addition to title 2 classification. Your suggestion that having a single set of infrastructure for these basic utilities instead of multiple companies laying electric and water pipes smacks of ignorant.

Now you are completely conflating a different topic, the pricing of gas, electric, ect, with Internet providers. Given the disclosure and pricing requirements placed on them I'd say you are flat out wrong on that as well: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php

Perhaps you should stick to trying to prove one point before jumping to another.

 

[Endymio]

Data from 2003 is totally applicable to 2020 /sarcasm.

First of all, re-read my original statement, which which contained the proviso ""until recently". Secondly, the situation has not changed dramatically. Here's some more recent remarks:

Institute for Self-Reliance, 2019: "Most Americans Have No Choice in Cable Providers". (source

CCG Consulting in 2018: "In most cities in the US the cable company is now a broadband monopoly" (source

Ars Technica, 2017: "50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all"(source

You are comparing Internet, an unregulated non-utility to utilities

Sigh. From Forbes Magazine, on " the FCC's radical 2015 decision to “reclassify” broadband Internet as a public utility " (source

Furthermore, the original comment was in reference to cable providers, which, in earlier times, were indeed classified by local governments as public utilities. Perhaps you're too young to remember that.

 

[Evernessince]

Sigh. From Forbes Magazine, on " the FCC's radical 2015 decision to “reclassify” broadband Internet as a public utility " (source

Furthermore, the original comment was in reference to cable providers, which, in earlier times, were indeed classified by local governments as public utilities. Perhaps you're too young to remember that.

I can't believe there are people who still don't know that's been repealed for 2 years now

Net Neutrality Has Officially Been Repealed. Here’s How That Could Affect You. (Published 2018)

Net Neutrality rules that required internet service providers to offer equal access to all web content are no longer in effect as of Monday.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Endymio]

I can't believe there are people who still don't know that's been replied for 2 years now

If you mean "repealed", then yes I know. Did you again miss the "until recently" portion of my initial post?

You were claiming that Internet services are not considered a utility. I demonstrated they have been until the recent past (FYI, it wasn't until a DC Appeals Court upheld Ajit Pai's decision less than a year ago that the Net Neutrality repeal was official) And, repeal aside, the FCC -- and LFAs (local franchise authorities) -- still regulate cable providers in a quasi-utility manner, requiring them to meet basic standards and, in some cases, regulating rates as well. In the past, they were regulated entirely as utilities.

Still further, if Biden is elected, at least one of his staffers has said he will adopt Bernie Sander's plan to go much further than the original FCC reclassification, and turn the US Internet into a free for all public utility: Bernie's $150B Internet Utility Plan.

 

[mailpup]

Enough off topic arguing.