Verizon successfully tests near-1Gbps FiOS

Want SpeedTest results that’ll make your friends green with envy? Good news: you can hold off on that move to Japan or South Korea. Verizon says it has successfully tested near-Gigabit Internet speeds in a "field trial" over its FiOS network. Here’s the skinny, in the company’s words:

The latest field trial was conducted in June in Taunton, using an existing GPON system developed by Motorola, a current supplier to Verizon of both BPON (broadband passive optical network) and GPON networking equipment. The trial, conducted at an existing FiOS business customer location, was intended to demonstrate in a live network setting that currently deployed FiOS equipment can support higher bandwidth services and can deliver 1 Gbps without major change to the network.
The throughput speeds were measured at 925 Mbps (megabits per second) to a local server and more than 800 Mbps to the regional test speed servers. The customer’s existing FiOS service was left in place, and showed no degradation in the voice, data or video services during this trial.

And Gigabit speeds are just a start. Verizon claims its Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) platform supports maximum speeds of 2.4Gbps up and 1.2Gbps down, which is pretty darned fast—quick enough that you’d need to invest in a 10GbE network adapter to exploit that capacity. (For the arithmetically challenged out there, 2.4Gbps would correspond to a download speed of 300MB/s.)

Verizon plans to use these blazing-fast speeds for novel applications like "3DTV, desktop virtualization and remote storage," and as "wireless backhaul for the next generation of wireless technologies." Dedicated applications probably make sense, since I’d expect that few servers out on the web would be able to load a 1Gbps FiOS connection anywhere close to its full potential.

Comments closed
    • Majiir Paktu
    • 9 years ago

    l[

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      The thing is that those servers typically use QoS which cuts down client bandwidth down to 1-5Mbps per peer.

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    Are there any routers that can handle that kind of bandwidth? I’ve read that the recent soho routers with 400 MHz CPUs and DDR RAM can only manage maybe 50 mbps from WAN. The old WRT54G can only deal with around half of that.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 9 years ago

      Well you can turn any computer into a router.

      I don’t see why routing to the internet would be more difficult. The ISP usually does most of the routing anyways.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Yes, only current generation units are designed to handle Gigabytes of bandwidth. Cisco isn’t going give them away for free either. ๐Ÿ˜‰

      Cisco is looking at all of the backbone upgrading as a huge “business opportunity”. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    What is strange about this article is there are probably hundreds of ISPs across the country that already provide 1 Gbps connectivity or better via fiber. (Where I work this is offered, but the cost is astronomical.) This concept isn’t especially novel, other than providing it to the home. Even then Verizon has all but given up its fiber rollouts. The U.S. will not see this type of connectivity to the common home in burbs/urban in 20+ years at current adoption ratesg{<.<}g Don't count on Google, either...

      • UberGerbil
      • 9 years ago

      g[

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 9 years ago

        well put.

        This could well be a sound consumer benchmark. If this tech does make its way to the average consumer we can say hello to streaming HD 1080p and good bye the ridiculous price of HD cable.

          • swaaye
          • 9 years ago

          You just outlined one reason that it isn’t enthusiastically happening.

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          You aren’t going to get this type of bandwidth anytime soon (again 20 years, if ever) to U.S. households except in dense urban areas: period. Fiber/last mile, is simply too expensive, and will remain so given all the bureaucracy that occurs to lay it. Verizon gave up simply because shareholders said you are burning too much money with not enough return.

          The focus is on wireless for the forseeable futureg{<.<}g

    • albundy
    • 9 years ago

    yeah, but you wont have NY1!

    • paulWTAMU
    • 9 years ago

    And here I sit wishing I could get 12meg down/1 meg up ๐Ÿ™

    • notfred
    • 9 years ago

    Everyone saying “Who needs speeds that fast?” is thinking about this wrong. I’ve been on the Internet since 1991 and each speed increase brings with it new applications.

    How about being able to watch stuff from my MythTV server across the Internet when I’m visiting friends and family? That’s something that’s not possible right now, but faster links would allow. Who knows what new applications will become possible with increased networking speed?

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      better upload I can see needing, but download? I can already stream video. that’s possible now.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        I also use orb to stream video from my pc with no issues. Not 1080p, but SD anyway.

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    Cyril, you are going to need more than a 10Gbps NIC.

    At very least, you need CAT6 cabling (15M limit) or their optical counterparts. If you want network-wide 10Gpbs support. You are going have to add capable switches, routers. Those aren’t cheap.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 9 years ago

      Not to mention that if you’re actually downloading and not just streaming you might need a storage upgrade too – 300MB/s is well beyond the mass storage drives available today. You’d need a RAIDx0 array of some type at least unless you’re filthy rich and can go crazy with SSDs.

    • Corrado
    • 9 years ago

    Its too bad Vz pulled the plug on FiOS rollouts. They swore up and down to me that they’d have FiOS in my old neighborhood in October of 2007. Still not there, and I don’t expect it to ever be there. Even in Philly, one of their ‘primary’ FiOS markets, the coverage is spotty. And by spotty, i mean they strategically rolled it out to all of the blocks/neighborhoods with an avg income of $200K+.

    But, whatever. In philly at least, it keeps Comcast on their toes. In FIOS markets, Comcast service is superior to markets where its the only game in town.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Blame local politics for that.

      USA is lagging more and more behind in their mainstream broadband infrastructure. I can understand the geographical challenges, but it is sad that major metropolis areas lack high-bandwidth services. While their counterparts in EU, Far East have considerable options. Hell, Canada is pwning the USA.

        • Flying Fox
        • 9 years ago

        Not really. FiOS is still better than the lowly capped service of -[

        • shank15217
        • 9 years ago

        Really? Go checkout all the lawsuits Verizon files when localities try to bring in their own public funded internet service.

          • Krogoth
          • 9 years ago

          Again, it is all poliltics.

          Breaking local monopolies is bad! Nobody wants compenition! You only need 768kbps of bandwidth with a 40GB cap for 59.99/month!

        • axeman
        • 9 years ago

        No, Canada is no better.

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    the other problem, is that who really needs speeds that fast? Eventually, we’ll reach a plateau in data necessity. For a business, maybe. But once we reach 30MB/s for download speed, I can’t really see people being much more concerned about it. 10 songs a second is plenty. this seems like overkill to me. I would much rather see governments building the backbone, rather then getting crap tiered internet from verizon.

      • jasonalwaysready
      • 9 years ago

      just like crossing the atlantic. I mean, once you can do it in 2 weeks by steamliner, I can’t really see people being much more concerned about it. 20 knots is plenty.

      • Dirge
      • 9 years ago

      “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”

        • Shining Arcanine
        • 9 years ago

        Bill Gates never said that. :/

      • cmrcmk
      • 9 years ago

      I can see some truth in the argument that 30Mbps is enough for one person. But for a family, you would need to multiply that a couple times to get it to handle peak load.

      2 HD TV channels + 2 gigabyte game demo + file backup to remote server + VPN to work… it can add up pretty quickly

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        I’m still not convinced. I’m a pretty DAMN heavy user, torrenting a ton, and my 15Mb line is more than enough. 10 minutes for a movie, whilst getting steam games at 700kpbs is fine. I can see people needing more storage space, but sorry, I’m not a believer that we need those insane speeds. 100Mb is available in my area, not even that much more money. I see 0 reason to upgrade. Part of my satisfaction with my internet speeds maybe due to eastlink, my isp, not throttling at all. keeps my speeds high, and me pretty satisfied…

        I do not agree it is anything like “crossing the atlantic”. 640k is not enough to do the basics. once we’re fast enough to stream 1080p on various computers at once, I don’t see there really being that much more information to relay. We can move massive amounts of information in a relatively small amount of time. I wouldn’t say we NEVER need it, I just think that improving the existing access to current speeds would be a better investment.

          • djgandy
          • 9 years ago

          56k was enough to load a web page.

          Try streaming 1080p baseline over that 15Mb connection.

          Hopefully one day television will die, and the 50+ movie channels that come with it will too. The bandwidth that the hundreds of cable channels used to use will be focused into on demand over internet services.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I DO stream 1080p over that connection. I watch youtube, as well as other 1080p video online. streams awesome, whilst i’m dling stuff, and the other 3 computers in the house are using the net.

            • bcronce
            • 9 years ago

            BlueRay quality 1080p is 30-54mbit/sec and will rise quite a bit once you add in 3D tv.

            Start talking about 50-90mbit per stream. Now, add in 2-4 TVs in a House. How much download do you need?

            15mbit is NOT enough.

            How about remote storage? Got 10TB of data that you want backed up remotely?

            You may say that sounds stupid, but if everyone had 1gb inet connections, this would be common sense.

            Lets put it this way. EVERYTHING other than having a roof and having food is completely unneeded.

            If you want to say having more than x-Mbit connection is stupid, then I must say that the internet is stupid because it is not a requirement to live. The internet is a toy. I want a FASTER toy. You can enjoy your slower toy. Have fun with your 2 week atlantic trip.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I still don’t see it as a necessary upgrade vs the total adoption rate. they need improved access to existing speeds first.

            • blazer_123
            • 9 years ago

            Your right Sweatshop. However, your on a computer enthusiast website so it’s not like your going to win many people over. Resources are scarce, investment is limited, and we as a society need to focus more on access to decent internet speed rather then increase the amount in already well endowed areas. The positive externalities resulting from wide access to the internet far outweigh and potential advantage from increasing speed to a select few.

            To use a previous analogy: 20 knots for everybody is better then a concord for a handful, 10 knots for almost 4/5th of society, and .5 knots for the rest. It is better in both a relative and absolute sense.

            Yes, you can theoretically increase speed and access. However, with the realistic assumption of a budget constraint _[

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 9 years ago

            FYI, the Blu-Ray spec allows up to 40mbps sustained and spikes of 50mbps for up to 1 second. The addition of 3d increased that to 60mbps sustained.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 9 years ago

            Heavily compressed 1080p that looks worse than 720p Bluray.

            Also, 4k is coming around the corner in a few years, so quadruple the bandwidth needed.

          • Hallucin8
          • 9 years ago

          I’m happy with Eastlink also. Considered moving up to 30Mbit but don’t want to deal with a 250GB/month cap. Yes I know other providers offer far less, I just don’t want to give up my true unlimited.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            where you at?

            • Shining Arcanine
            • 9 years ago

            That should be: “At where are you?”

            • Flying Fox
            • 9 years ago

            Robbers users envy your 250GB cap.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            right now i have absolutely no cap. AT ALL. been over 1 TB in a month. not even a letter. they let us do anything. and as long as i stay on this plan, that’s what i’ll get. 70$ a month for phone and 15Mb down, cap and throttle free, isnt a bad price!

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Got Comcast, getting at least 40Mbps down (probably more, I was just testing with the lappie through wireless). I pay $55, including basic-basic cable. No phone, but who pays for wired phone these days when everyone’s carrying a cell phone anyway?

            BTW, throttling torrents is fine; >95% of them are illegal. Just let us law-abiding citizens enjoy our Netflix streams.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            lol. i live in canada. downloading music is 100% legal (until the new legislation comes in, anyway). so, no, don’t throttle my torrents. they can gtfo of my bandwidth, just like my phone calls.

            And I pay for a land line. I don’t have a cell, and don’t need one. just a good old fashioned corded phone for this guy ๐Ÿ˜‰

            Who still watches cable?

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 9 years ago

            And the movies?

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Downloading music is legal… you mean, music you pay for?

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            no. In canada we pay taxes to subsidize “torrented music” we are 100% currently allowed to download shared tunes.

            in BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe.[9][10] Under certain conditions both downloading and uploading were held to be legal. Specifically, paragraphs [24] and [25] of the decision[11] stated that Section 80(1) of the Copyright Act allows downloading of musical works for personal use. This section specifically applied to musical works and therefore the decision made no determination as to the legality of downloading other forms of copyrighted works.

            Paragraphs [26] to [28] of the decision also made a ruling on uploading, stating that

            The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution. Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying

            And this is where we sit today. Bill c-61 looks to change that, but until then, we’re good to go!

          • Fighterpilot
          • 9 years ago

          Just try 100Mbps fiber for a few weeks and see if you want to change back…
          Your 15Mbps gives you a maximum of 1.2MB/sec so a low resolution 700Mb movie won’t take 10 minutes ,especially as you claim Steam is getting 700Mbps at the same time.
          Saying you don’t need faster Internet is like saying you don’t need a faster video card.
          If you want to stream HD video in full screen it requires around 4Mb/sec of throughput,that’s way out of your current league….
          ยง[<http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/4172/fospeed.png<]ยง

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        He said 30 MB/s, not 30 Mbps. Learn to read.

        • dashbarron
        • 9 years ago

        I think a greater problem is what the expected speeds are and what we actually get. Sure we’re promised say a 10mbps line at home, but we get ends up being something more like 1.5mbps, depending on what connection we have.

        As long as they keep increasing the theorettical maxium speed, I’ll finally be able to have the speed promises me to 6 years ago.

      • Shining Arcanine
      • 9 years ago

      Burst speeds are always useful.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    Technology demonstrations aren’t the problem:

    Proving that you can provide 1GB internet speed isn’t exactly groundbreaking.

    Proving that you can invest in the infrastructure needed to provide these connections to more than just a “marketing stunt” sized group of customers will be the real test.

      • eitje
      • 9 years ago

      Gb

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    Too bad that there isn’t enough backbone bandwidth to make that kind of connection mainstream in the USA.

    I expect it to be a business-only option for some time, until backbones get significant upgrades.

    The other problem with that kind of bandwidth is that there isn’t that many server that host that much bandwidth unless you are doing a VPN connection with a user who has similar bandwidth.

      • Corrado
      • 9 years ago

      If you’ve got a lot of users doing lots of bandwidth intensive apps, it comes into play. So many people seem to think that only 1 person will be using it at a time. If you’re in a small, say, video editing business with 10 employees and 6 of your guys are either downloading or uploading data to 6 different customers, thats where huge bandwidth numbers will come into play.

      • Shining Arcanine
      • 9 years ago

      Well, it would be usable for short bursts, which the majority of internet streams are.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This