World's Fastest Internet Arrives in Tokyo

[zakaron]

This is kinda funny seeing that internet connection speeds are now faster than my LAN speeds. And I have all gigabit switches in place. I'd have to do link aggregation & NIC teaming to take advantage of that kind of speed. Things have come a long way since dial-up!

 

[juan83]

Tokyo rules!! 2gbits is fairly as fast as my HDD (and even more too), f*ck HDD prices!! this means that i could connect to a "cloud drive" and play games directly on the "cloud drive" and never worried about fragmentation issues

 

[Shaun o]

Nice speed!
Shame it will have a usage allowance and a cap on it.

 

[punahou1]

Just curious - are you not limited to the speed of the remote server that you are connecting to? Seems like overkill for home use in accessing a majority of the websites out there at this juncture. Once everyone catches up this will be terrific.

 

[Fierce Guppy]

fffffffu...Jiminy Cricket. At a slightly cheaper price it is 133 times faster than what I have and most likely will be capped a great deal higher than 60GB a month.
I guess the most positive spin I can put on this is that a great deal of my online activity is fairly low bandwidth like web surfing and BF3 multiplayer so I prolly wouldn't notice too much difference. Where 2Gbps would really shine is for ultra HD streaming and cloud based OSes. That's the future.

 

[SteelCity1981]

256 megabyte transfer rate per second is pretty past.

 

[Unolocogringo]

This is what happens when the population is more dense; you don't have to lay nearly as much physical infrastructure, and it's far cheaper. In Tokyo, they can lay a mile of fiber and reach a thousand customers; in the US, you'd have to lay at least a mile per customer in many areas.

The population density argument is bullshit in some states. I'm from Finland and we have better and cheaper internet and full cell coverage, so there shouldn't be any technical problems for getting it in states that have higher population density than Finland such as Colorado. You have 80% urbanization rate which results that 80% of US population should get real high speed internet unless someone has screwed it up. As for last 20% they should get basic mobile service, and "US goverment defined high speed internet" over copper.

I think you have that backwards. 20% is highly populated the other 80% is sparsely populated. This goes for most of the US.
Where I live in Georgia, I can not see my neighbors houses. they are located too far apart. We have 40 houses on 3 1/2 miles of street. 24 of those are in a subdivision on 1/4 of a mile section of the road. The rest of us have large lots and are fairly well spaced out. My lot is 9 acres. My next door neighbor has 7.2 and the neighbor across the street has 24 acres .We have some of the smaller lots. The next street down the road from us is almost two miles long. Encompasses 800 acres and has 3 homes.
We are considered rural but I have been in areas where you see a sign in Montana, 168 miles to next gas station. with just a few farms in that stretch of highway.

 

[ipwn3r456]

I don't think it's hard for the U.S. to change it's entire infrastructure to fiber. It's just cost some money. The U.S. is still relying on it's DSL infrastructure, some cable, it's just getting outdated. I don't even feel like U.S. is a very technological country anymore, they can't even manage their communication systems. Japan is already taken many big steps ahead of us. *sigh*

 

[Unolocogringo]

I don't think it's hard for the U.S. to change it's entire infrastructure to fiber. It's just cost some money. The U.S. is still relying on it's DSL infrastructure, some cable, it's just getting outdated. I don't even feel like U.S. is a very technological country anymore, they can't even manage their communication systems. Japan is already taken many big steps ahead of us. *sigh*

Depends on where you live.
Cable does not exist on my street. Satellite is not available either. The signal is blocked by trees on the mountains. If we had those cut down, maybe.
My ONLY choice is one service provider. DSL 6 mbps for $50 per month.
5 years ago it was 1.5 mbps for $70 per month.

The cable company advised us that if everyone on our street signed a 2 year premium contract ($120 month) they would run cable down our street but we would have to pay for the line coming to our home from the street. Internet service would be an additional $70 per month .

 

[stoogie]

And in Tasmania, Australia we pay $90(AUD) a month for 200gb adsl1 1500/256 1.5mbps

 

[InvalidError]

This is kinda funny seeing that internet connection speeds are now faster than my LAN speeds. And I have all gigabit switches in place. I'd have to do link aggregation & NIC teaming to take advantage of that kind of speed.

This is GPON which means the bandwidth is shared between 8-32 other subscribers so the likelihood of managing to pull over 2Gbps during peak hours is likely low once you also account for further bandwidth contention on OLT uplinks and deeper into the network core.

As for teaming/LAG, does the ONT they provide even support that? I somewhat doubt GPON ONT manufacturers design their ONTs with delivering 2Gbps to a single endpoint in mind.

 

[ipwn3r456]

I don't think it's hard for the U.S. to change it's entire infrastructure to fiber. It's just cost some money. The U.S. is still relying on it's DSL infrastructure, some cable, it's just getting outdated. I don't even feel like U.S. is a very technological country anymore, they can't even manage their communication systems. Japan is already taken many big steps ahead of us. *sigh*

Depends on where you live.
Cable does not exist on my street. Satellite is not available either. The signal is blocked by trees on the mountains. If we had those cut down, maybe.
My ONLY choice is one service provider. DSL 6 mbps for $50 per month.
5 years ago it was 1.5 mbps for $70 per month.

The cable company advised us that if everyone on our street signed a 2 year premium contract ($120 month) they would run cable down our street but we would have to pay for the line coming to our home from the street. Internet service would be an additional $70 per month .

I feel sorry for you. It was the same case for me about four years ago, where AT&T is the only option for me. I didn't really care about internet speeds at that time, I just want internet connection. At that time have 1.5 Mbit/s down, 0.375 Mbits/up connection via DSL, it was slow, but it's alright for me, and I pay about $28 per month. Then after a few years later, it was raised by $10. Luckily a cable company have putting cable in our area, switched to them, now I have 15 Mbit/s down, 1 Mbit/s up connection, for about $30. I think the government needs to involve with this "monopoly" in the areas with just 1 ISP (internet service provider), they can literally raise the prices the heck they want. With the ridiculous speeds using older technologies, U.S. needs to improve or else we will become one of the third world countries in terms of communication technologies.

 

[linkgx1]

Really, if you split that big install fee into montly installments....you're really paying like $80 a month.

 

[mrmez]

2 year contracts are pretty standard in AUS anyway.
Include the installation cost, and its $72.50/month.
Why wouldn't you get it? (Assuming reasonable data allowance, of course)

 

[razor512]

even if you are limited by the speed of the servers you are connecting to, if you have a bunch of users online with those 2gbit connections, you can set up a VPN and have shared folders and access them at the full speed of a hard drive, or even a decent raid 5 array. Great if you have friends and family who want to share a raid 5 NAS for backups.

Or better yet, you can stream applications over the net.

I have gotten this to work pretty well on my verizon fios live USB of ubuntu, running virtualbox and a windows XP virtual machine preconfigured to run openVPN which then connects to my home network and network matted drives where I can launch applications from. (works with games (basic ones due to the hardware acceleration limit), and a bunch of other applications.

If I had even a 1gbit connection, I could run those apps as if they were locally stored over the internet, especially since the college has around 300-500mbits of bandwidth.

 

[shahrooz]

30$ for a 256Kbps can anyone top this one?

 

[Ezio Auditore]

For 50$ we get a crappy 20 mo connection in tunisia that might get down to 1mo or even less during "rush" hours

 

[Pherule]

"that provide 1 Gbps and 150 Mbps for $79 and $129, respectively"
I don't think the writer of this article knows what the word 'respectively' means.

 

[Unolocogringo]

2 year contracts are pretty standard in AUS anyway.
Include the installation cost, and its $72.50/month.
Why wouldn't you get it? (Assuming reasonable data allowance, of course)

First EVERYONE on our street had to sign up before they would run the cable. Didn't happen .
Second ,I watch 3 to 4 hours of TV per week. Mostly movies and PBS. Not cost effective @ 8 to 10 dollars per hour.

 

[zoenphlux]

ATT doesn't have a "CAP" they have a "LIMIT" on what the normal monthly rates allow. After I think 150gb/m they charge 10$ per GB extra. If they have a true cap I've never heard of it. Of course at only 6mb/s MAX on normal DSL(most of their lines still) that is actually hard to hit unless you stream video 24/7. Even Uverse is maxed out at 24mb/s and that is only if you are right at the junction according to some technitions I know. They are sticking with copper to the house still which is why it is still slow compared to most. 18 down and 3 up is the max for most people. Fastest Cable we have is 12mb/s. I live in a smaller town(bout 15,000 ppl) in GA. ATT is killing the US from getting faster speeds.

 

[Unolocogringo]

ATT doesn't have a "CAP" they have a "LIMIT" on what the normal monthly rates allow. After I think 150gb/m they charge 10$ per GB extra. If they have a true cap I've never heard of it. Of course at only 6mb/s MAX on normal DSL(most of their lines still) that is actually hard to hit unless you stream video 24/7. Even Uverse is maxed out at 24mb/s and that is only if you are right at the junction according to some technitions I know. They are sticking with copper to the house still which is why it is still slow compared to most. 18 down and 3 up is the max for most people. Fastest Cable we have is 12mb/s. I live in a smaller town(bout 15,000 ppl) in GA. ATT is killing the US from getting faster speeds.

Why the sad face for Georgia. We have a lot of wonderful things here. And a few crappy things, Atlanta being one of them.

 

[razor512]

ATT doesn't have a "CAP" they have a "LIMIT" on what the normal monthly rates allow. After I think 150gb/m they charge 10$ per GB extra. If they have a true cap I've never heard of it. Of course at only 6mb/s MAX on normal DSL(most of their lines still) that is actually hard to hit unless you stream video 24/7. Even Uverse is maxed out at 24mb/s and that is only if you are right at the junction according to some technitions I know. They are sticking with copper to the house still which is why it is still slow compared to most. 18 down and 3 up is the max for most people. Fastest Cable we have is 12mb/s. I live in a smaller town(bout 15,000 ppl) in GA. ATT is killing the US from getting faster speeds.

that is what most people mean by a cap.

In the US there is no "cap" on where you can go in the white house, but certain locations will charge you a couple bullet holes.

Uncapped means you can use as much as you want and not have any additional cost or negative actions. Bandwidth caps are one of the biggest scams. an ISP's network is limited by throughput and not by the amount of data you are allowed to transfer. If they have a 10mbit network and want to give each customer a megabit, they will support 10 customers. if they were to add 20 customers to the 10 mbit network, then create a cap of 1GB of upload+ download per month, it would not magically allow all 20 users to get 1mbit/s on the 10mbit network.

The only way a cap like that can offer more customers to get fast speeds on an oversold network is if they indirectly block traffic.

Since it will be a huge uproar if an ISP blocks certain sites, and in most cases, they are not allowed to, they use indirect means to block certain traffic.

eg, you would not use netflix on a satellite internet connection because you would blow through your cap in 2 hours.

A more physical example is suppose a politician wanted to stop all air travel, without violating the right to travel clauses?, the politician could just change the regulation, on the airspace. No passenger aircrafts are allowed more than 20 feet above ground level. (then they can say, hey you can still fly, but just not so high) (in case you did not notice, modern large passenger aircrafts are unable to fly at that height)

This is how ISP's indirectly block things by making anything that would allow a customer to use the full speed being sold to them, impractical to use.

 

[016ive]

The things I would do with a connection that fast

 

[shin0bi272]

Not true. The worlds fastest internet is held by a 70 year old bulgarian woman whos son cobbled together several different internet connections to get an aggregate speed of 40Gbps. She uses it to read online news papers.

 

[getochkn]

Not true. The worlds fastest internet is held by a 70 year old bulgarian woman whos son cobbled together several different internet connections to get an aggregate speed of 40Gbps. She uses it to read online news papers.

Then it's not the fastest single connection if it's a bunch of them put together is it. That's like saying a Ford Focus is faster than a Ferrari, because 6 Ford Focus's can do 150mph each, so 6 of them can do 900mph total and beats the 250mph of the Ferrari.