Friday, July 08, 2005
Dennis Threatens Discovery Launch Date
According to CNN.com, hurricane Dennis is casting doubt on the shuttle's July 13th launch date. From the article: 'NASA has until the end of July to send Discovery on a flight to the international space station, otherwise it must wait until September to ensure a daylight launch.' Shuttle managers decided Thursday evening to begin initial preparations to move Discovery from the pad, as the hurricane increased in intensity and headed toward the Gulf of Mexico and Florida's southern tip. NASA spokesman George Diller said, 'We're going to keep our options open. We're still trying to protect the 13th.
source: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/175255&tid=160&tid=14
source: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/175255&tid=160&tid=14
Everything You Need to Know About Next-gen Broadband
New DSL flavors, DOCSIS 3.0, Bell TV, and more...
Written by Karl BodeADSL2+? VDSL2? Fiber to the Curb? Fiber to the Home? DOCSIS 3.0? It's hard to get to the truth behind the constant stream of belligerently optimistic press releases. We sit down with industry reporter Dave Burstein to try and make sense of next generation broadband deployment, and find out when (if ever) you'll begin to see next gen speeds from your broadband provider.
BBR: What can we really expect in regards to a bell next-gen deployment timeline?
DB: In three to four years - because constructing facilities for millions of people take that long - expect that half of Verizon should have fiber at 15-100 meg, otherwise slow DSL. Half of SBC should have DSL at 10-20Mbps, from existing boxes 2,000-5,000 feet away (FTTN). The rest will be slow DSL and satellite resale. One-tenth of BellSouth customers should have 50Mbps+ service from fiber to the curb. Half of the rest should have 10-30Mbps DSL, often using two lines.
BBR: As we discussed yesterday, Verizon seems like the poster child of how to do a next-gen deployment correctly. Your thoughts on their Fios plans?
DB: Verizon is going as fast as it can building fiber; one newspaper reported 2,000 crews working just in Virginia! It's really that big a job to rewire a third of the U.S. All the others are constrained more by their decision on how much to spend, not construction limits.
Verizon wants fiber to the home. That's the big deal. Three million homes passed by the end of 2005. They've budgeted for, and are likely to deliver - a total of 7 million by the end of 2006 and 15 million by the end of 2008. That's about half of their 1/3rd of the country target - an enormous build costing $15-20 billion. Verizon and NTT in Japan are the only two large carriers in the world doing large volumes of fiber.
Currently, Verizon has a BPON network with video that matches cable on one wavelength and 19 meg down/ 6 meg up. They intend to switch to GPON for new builds as soon as it's ready, and have pushed manufacturers to have equipment by mid-2006 and accelerated the international standard. That's designed for 100 meg symmetric and higher, for real.
For the 20 million plus other Verizon subscribers, they will continue offering DSL and have given no indication they'll jump from the 1-5 meg ADSL speeds to the 10-15 meg ADSL2+. They stopped the DSL build at 80% or so to concentrate on fiber, but I believe are now going back to reach 90%+. Because they were considering selling rural lines, they didn't invest, leaving half of Maine unserved.
BBR: How about SBC's "Project Lightspeed"? Our understanding is that SBC was testing an ADSL2+/VDSL hybrid, but was unhappy with the results; they should should soon announce the use of VDSL2 for their next-gen network and U-Verse IPTV services, correct?
DB: SBC is selling satellite to 50% of their users -a fancy TIVO style set top and a slow DSL connection, and upgrading the rest to low profile VDSL2 they call fiber to the node. From the projected 2,000-5,000 feet, low profile VDSL2 is maybe 20 meg down, 1-3 meg up, most of which will be used for their video. They've slipped a year, with 2008 now the goal for 18 million homes completed out of their 30 something million home target. Also called "fiber to the press release" (it's really DSL) and "fiber to the rich" (they are only building the "high-value" customers). Investment is less than 30% of what Verizon plans.
BBR: How about BellSouth? Our understanding is they had run more fiber than the other two bells previously - and first settled on ADSL2+ - but now say they'll eventually embrace VDSL2?
DB: BellSouth has 13 million lines, a million of which have fiber to the curb from a quiet build begun years ago, yes. Those are the lucky ones, because they will be upgraded to 100 meg symmetric VDSL over the next few years. Think 60 megs in practice, but still pretty good. BellSouth has just picked that build up to 200,000 lines for 2005 after slowing down for a few; unfortunately, at that rate it will take them fifty years to complete their rollout.
The others at BellSouth are getting a build ready that will be much like SBC's, with DSL from a fiber node in the neighborhood. They intend to bond together two lines for most customers, to give you speeds closer to 30 meg down - more than the 15-20 meg SBC plans - because they think you'll need that for HD video.
Nominally ADSL2+, will morph into VDSL2 low profile soon. But VDSL2 low profile really is a slightly improved ADSL2+ (2-5 meg faster at these distances), not the 100 meg "high profile" that only works 500-1000 feet they are using for the lucky fiber to the curb types.
BBR: There has been a lot made of Swisscom's trouble with Microsoft's IPTV software overseas. Do you think these troubles will cross the ocean, and if so, will any of the big three bells - who've all tied their horses to Microsoft - be exploring alternative options?
DB: Microsoft's software is incredibly ambitious, and like many big software projects will be late, delaying most big deployments until late 2006 or 2007. Moshe Lichtman of Microsoft recently claimed everything was going fine. It's not.
Most carriers will just accept that, because the other software available (Siemens/Myrio, Minerva, etc.) doesn't promise as much. That may be why the other software works already, of course. They also decided Microsoft was a safer partner. Amazing conclusion - SBC even testified against Microsoft in the antitrust case - but the senior folks decided to go along rather than fight. In at least one big telco, that was against the recommendation of their technical staff.
This spring, all the Bells (including Canada) announced for Microsoft, and I wrote the battle for the large U.S. telco TV standard was over. But I soon heard from folks who know, not to assume that's how it will play out. Everyone was checking other options, just in case. But they are more likely just to slow things down than to actually switch away from Microsoft middleware. They probably won't use Windows Media 9/VC1, opting for MPEG-4 AVC for the encoder, even if they use the Microsoft middleware (channel guide, switching, billing, etc.)
Right now, Microsoft is only delivering some of the promised software, and will be late with some. The first to roll services, SBC, is deeply committed to Microsoft ($400M purchase), so will probably go with the flow. The result will be some limits on what SBC IPTV service will be, annoying but probably not crucial. Schedule of heavy testing and first customer rollout in 2005 will probably be honored in form, but things likely will go slowly until Microsoft bugs fixed, probably late 2006. SBC has already added a year to their schedule.
BBR: IPTV in general, do you see it as a serious competitor to Satellite and cable?
DB: Single channel, not HD IPTV is working well, with a million customers around the world and tens of millions coming in the next few years. Multichannel, HD, to several sets turns out to be much harder and takes more bandwidth, which is why it's coming slower. But $30B in planned investment is coming, and almost surely by 2006-2010, millions will be buying fancy TV programming from telcos.
They don't want to cut prices, but behind all the puffery is essentially a me-too service. They'll claim lots is new, but picture in picture multiple camera angles isn't new, and Sky satellite is already making hundreds of millions with "interactivity", mostly gambling. Comcast will have more video on demand than any telco, while net based services, especially Google, will has loads of video as well. So the telcos will either price aggressively or have limited market share. Expect that to be disguised with a lot of advertising about great "new" services that cable already has in some places.
BBR: So is VDSL2 a minimum requirement if the bells really want to enter the market? Can you clarify your statements on the various VDSL2 flavors mentioned earlier?
DB: Everyone's confused because the next upgrade of ADSL is called VDSL low profile, but isn't that big an improvement. VDSL2, as planned by SBC, is only slightly faster than ADSL2+, perhaps 15-25Mbps rather than 10-20Mbps. Useful, especially when you need bandwidth for HD (9 meg per live encoded channel), but not an earthshaking improvement. Since by late 2006, VDSL2 low profile will be within $10 of the cost of ADSL, most carriers will switch over even for the small improvement.
The real VDSL2 - the 50-100 meg plus of the high profile, including a fast upstream - delivers those speeds less than 1,000 feet or so, so requires new construction most places. Fiber to the basement or curb, advancing hard in Korea, Japan, and soon where BellSouth already has fiber. Verizon may do some of it where running fiber in a building is impractical.
Don't be confused because a medium speed ADSL is named VDSL2. It won't give 50 meg to most people in the U.S.. An accident of what came to what standard committee, and the choice of the linecode technical parameters gave VDSL2 low profile a good name, but not the speed you need.
BBR: If VDSL2 is so promising, why is BellSouth still planning on starting out with ADSL2+? Faith in compression?
DB: VDSL2 is just moving from lab samples to first, untested chips. BellSouth will move when the chips are reliable, late 2005 or more likely 2006. They just aren't announcing things that aren't ready, but they are completely on top of the technology and will move soon as well. They've accepted that getting the speeds they want will often require bonding two lines (24-35 meg, although the press releases wisely promise a little less). With the doubled capacity, they can use either ADSL2+ or VDSL2, so they are waiting till VDSL2 works well and comes down in price.
SBC instead was betting that VDSL2 would get here fast, and have enough extra performance they wouldn't need to give many customers two lines. They also were betting compression would reduce the bandwidth they needed. Vendors of course promised all this, but SBC (and everyone else) is waiting for the chip guys to deliver this month. SBC's tech guys knew they were taking a risk, but management decided that was a better option than spending the money Verizon is.
BBR: What are your thoughts on the various compression flavors the bells are exploring for IPTV and HD?
DB: MPEG-4 and Windows Media 9/VC1 are separately fighting out the war for the codec and the associated royalties. Microsoft in particular muddied the waters by showing great demos of carefully pre-encoded HD movies that ran at 6Mbps, and some uninformed CEOs and COOs didn't realize live TV, especially sports, needs much more bandwidth.
Two HD channels at 6 meg require 12 meg, maybe 14 with overhead, which sounds like it can fit in 20 meg and leave some room for data and a third standard definition set. But the real codecs for live TV, shipping late in 2005, will need 9.3 meg per channel, and even the companies selling them know they've sacrificed some quality to get it down that far.
So to watch one HD show and record another requires about 20 meg, and leaves things very tight unless you designed for 30 meg in the first place. Verizon looked at that, and said we better go for fiber; BellSouth and Bell Canada are thinking two lines bonded, and SBC is praying they can squeeze everything in without critical compromises.
Currently, MPEG-4 AVC 264 is a little ahead of the Microsoft codec, probably a quarter or two. So most telcos are going MPEG-4 even if they are using the Microsoft IPTV software for copy protection, network management, channel switching, etc. Microsoft is pushing hard to get in, so the situation is dynamic.
BBR: While we're only starting to see DOCSIS 2.0 deployment, and the higher speeds it can bring (Adelphia & Cox 15Mbps), DOCSIS 3.0 should only be a few years behind. Do you see the cable industry having any trouble keeping up with these bell plans?
DB: The "15 meg" speeds Cox is offering where they compete with Verizon fiber are mostly advertising. It's really 38 meg shared among 100 or so users, the same speed as the current services advertised at as 3 and 7 meg. That's too much oversubscription to deliver 15 meg most of the time, if even 5 or 10 people are downloading on the node. To regularly get past today's 5 meg or so, you need to bond more channels, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 offers.
DOCSIS 3.0 is real, mostly agreed, and the key vendors have the details and are making equipment for 2006. It's a shared 160/120 or higher, easily expandable to a shared gigabit. Real speeds to users will often be 20-50 megabits. It was developed to compete with higher speed DSL in Asia. Early in 2005, the U.S. cable companies realized Verizon was serious about fiber, and pushed CableLabs and suppliers (Cisco, Motorola, Arris, Broadcom) to get DOCSIS 3.0 ready for the U.S. ASAP, and 2006 is realistic with some pricey gear.
What we don't know is whether the Verizon will scare the cable companies into actually doing the upgrades. It's not terribly expensive. CableLabs chose the Arris/Motorola/Broadcom 160/120 proposal over Cisco 1 gigabit alternative because it can be done with software in the CMTS and a new modem, relatively cheaply. It doesn't require running new fiber or anything terribly expesive. But it's more capital spending than the cablecos planned.
Like the telcos, they've cut 20% or more from what they were investing in 2001. Very dynamic situation with some tough choices - no one outside the companies really knows, with the analysts busily watching every comment and reading tea leaves. I'm pretty sure the cablecos haven't decided yet. Inside at least one giant, they have plans to delay the upgrades but a very vocal disagreement trying to move the company faster.
So maybe Verizon will inspire the cablecos to upgrade, which will in turn put pressure on SBC/Bellsouth. But maybe that won't be enough, and they'll hope marketing and program selection will beat technology. We just don't know yet.
BBR In the end, which solution do you see as the best of the next-gen options?
DB: Verizon's fiber is the best stuff out there, especially after they switch to 2.4 gigabit shared GPON in a year. That's why the smart cablecos are worried. What BellSouth and SBC are doing is essentially matching cable of 2002. By the time they deploy in 2007, cable should be well ahead.
But better technology doesn't always win. Perhaps SBC, by spending less, will be able to price lower and do ok after all. Nobody really knows, although everyone has an opinion. My opinion is that the best tech is needed, especially in an HD world, and Verizon is making the right choice. But some very smart people have looked me in the eyes and said "the fiber numbers just don't work. Still costs too much," and other similar comments.
BBR: Any insider information on how soon before Time Warner and Comcast cross into the 10-15Mbps range?
DB: Both will be experimenting with how to fight Verizon, but remember the 10-15 is mostly illusion once loads go up. Your mileage will vary. It's the same physical system that now often doesn't hit the promised 4 and 7 megabits, with a faster connection from the modem to your computer.
Where they do good traffic engineering (splitting nodes when necessary, etc.) performance will be good; where they are sloppy or cheap, Broadband Reports is sure to be the first with the story. I mentioned to a top Comcast guy recently how many disappointed California users were writing in to BBR, and he said he'd look into it. Company policy is to solve problems like this, but it's sometimes expensive and timeconsuming.
BBR: Wimax: Is it a serious player in the next-gen broadband battles, or simply a niche-solution?
DB: I'm the guy who writes about DSL, TV, and fiber, so the wrong person to ask. But everything's related, so I do keep my eyes open. Some very smart people (Dewayne Hendricks, David Isenberg, Robert Pepper, Eben Moglen) believe wireless could be a big part. Needs plenty of spectrum for the 10 meg plus speeds that will be common in a few years here (and already are in Asia); the current services at a meg or two won't be competitive in most cities.
Meanwhile, Verizon's EV-DO is getting raves for delivering 500K surprisingly reliably to people on the move. Watch for it to become as ubiquitous as Blackberries in the business class. WiFi should be able to cover most cities with an interesting service for $15-20, so I've testified in its favor and hope it shakes things up. Meanwhile, TD-CDMA is working surprising well in London and elsewhere.
None of which answer your original question about Wimax, the most hyped of the many wireless technologies on the way. Both Bill Smith (CTO BellSouth) and Balan Nair (CTO Qwest) tell me the trial results are impressive, although neither is committed beyond trials today. It won't handle mobile outside of Korea before 2007-2008, which is the key niche. Alvarion, the key supplier of "pre-standard" Wimax, just announced a down quarter as Telmex cut orders.
Some things are clear. Wireless can be very cheap (if slow and not rock-solid reliable), so where it plays it is interesting competition. The stuff coming from the cellphone world is working well, and might turn out to outdo the more hyped Wimax. We desperately need more choices, so I hope some of the above proves out.
BBR: One final question, do you see a future for independent ISPs?
DB: AOL admits its dead as an ISP over broadband, and MSN has also given up in favor of other strategies. Earthlink and some of the local keep trying, but it will be very tough for them to remain a factor. Covad is too small, undercapitalized, and afraid of getting the bells fighting back to matter. For most Amreicans, everything but the cable company and the telco is of little relevance. I fear wireless data and power line won't be interesting players, but hope I'm wrong.
It doesn't have to be so. In Japan, two independents (Yahoo BB and eAccess) are consistently beating NTT. Hanaro has a third of Korea. Free.fr signed up over a million in the last year. In the UK and France, regulators set wholesale prices low enough that neither BT nor FT dominate.
Killing the ISPs and most of the CLECs was a political decision, that might still be reversible if wholesale prices were dramatically changed. But I doubt Kevin Martin will make that decision, although I will editorialize about why he should.
Dave Burstein has been offering excellent insider broadband reporting for years, months before it's picked up by major outlets and paraded around as fresh content. You can read his frequent thoughts on the broadband industry via his DSLPrime website or via his newsletter, which is frequently published over at ISP Planet.
source: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/65298
BBR: What can we really expect in regards to a bell next-gen deployment timeline?
DB: In three to four years - because constructing facilities for millions of people take that long - expect that half of Verizon should have fiber at 15-100 meg, otherwise slow DSL. Half of SBC should have DSL at 10-20Mbps, from existing boxes 2,000-5,000 feet away (FTTN). The rest will be slow DSL and satellite resale. One-tenth of BellSouth customers should have 50Mbps+ service from fiber to the curb. Half of the rest should have 10-30Mbps DSL, often using two lines.
BBR: As we discussed yesterday, Verizon seems like the poster child of how to do a next-gen deployment correctly. Your thoughts on their Fios plans?
DB: Verizon is going as fast as it can building fiber; one newspaper reported 2,000 crews working just in Virginia! It's really that big a job to rewire a third of the U.S. All the others are constrained more by their decision on how much to spend, not construction limits.
Verizon wants fiber to the home. That's the big deal. Three million homes passed by the end of 2005. They've budgeted for, and are likely to deliver - a total of 7 million by the end of 2006 and 15 million by the end of 2008. That's about half of their 1/3rd of the country target - an enormous build costing $15-20 billion. Verizon and NTT in Japan are the only two large carriers in the world doing large volumes of fiber.
Currently, Verizon has a BPON network with video that matches cable on one wavelength and 19 meg down/ 6 meg up. They intend to switch to GPON for new builds as soon as it's ready, and have pushed manufacturers to have equipment by mid-2006 and accelerated the international standard. That's designed for 100 meg symmetric and higher, for real.
For the 20 million plus other Verizon subscribers, they will continue offering DSL and have given no indication they'll jump from the 1-5 meg ADSL speeds to the 10-15 meg ADSL2+. They stopped the DSL build at 80% or so to concentrate on fiber, but I believe are now going back to reach 90%+. Because they were considering selling rural lines, they didn't invest, leaving half of Maine unserved.
BBR: How about SBC's "Project Lightspeed"? Our understanding is that SBC was testing an ADSL2+/VDSL hybrid, but was unhappy with the results; they should should soon announce the use of VDSL2 for their next-gen network and U-Verse IPTV services, correct?
DB: SBC is selling satellite to 50% of their users -a fancy TIVO style set top and a slow DSL connection, and upgrading the rest to low profile VDSL2 they call fiber to the node. From the projected 2,000-5,000 feet, low profile VDSL2 is maybe 20 meg down, 1-3 meg up, most of which will be used for their video. They've slipped a year, with 2008 now the goal for 18 million homes completed out of their 30 something million home target. Also called "fiber to the press release" (it's really DSL) and "fiber to the rich" (they are only building the "high-value" customers). Investment is less than 30% of what Verizon plans.
BBR: How about BellSouth? Our understanding is they had run more fiber than the other two bells previously - and first settled on ADSL2+ - but now say they'll eventually embrace VDSL2?
DB: BellSouth has 13 million lines, a million of which have fiber to the curb from a quiet build begun years ago, yes. Those are the lucky ones, because they will be upgraded to 100 meg symmetric VDSL over the next few years. Think 60 megs in practice, but still pretty good. BellSouth has just picked that build up to 200,000 lines for 2005 after slowing down for a few; unfortunately, at that rate it will take them fifty years to complete their rollout.
The others at BellSouth are getting a build ready that will be much like SBC's, with DSL from a fiber node in the neighborhood. They intend to bond together two lines for most customers, to give you speeds closer to 30 meg down - more than the 15-20 meg SBC plans - because they think you'll need that for HD video.
Nominally ADSL2+, will morph into VDSL2 low profile soon. But VDSL2 low profile really is a slightly improved ADSL2+ (2-5 meg faster at these distances), not the 100 meg "high profile" that only works 500-1000 feet they are using for the lucky fiber to the curb types.
BBR: There has been a lot made of Swisscom's trouble with Microsoft's IPTV software overseas. Do you think these troubles will cross the ocean, and if so, will any of the big three bells - who've all tied their horses to Microsoft - be exploring alternative options?
DB: Microsoft's software is incredibly ambitious, and like many big software projects will be late, delaying most big deployments until late 2006 or 2007. Moshe Lichtman of Microsoft recently claimed everything was going fine. It's not.
Most carriers will just accept that, because the other software available (Siemens/Myrio, Minerva, etc.) doesn't promise as much. That may be why the other software works already, of course. They also decided Microsoft was a safer partner. Amazing conclusion - SBC even testified against Microsoft in the antitrust case - but the senior folks decided to go along rather than fight. In at least one big telco, that was against the recommendation of their technical staff.
This spring, all the Bells (including Canada) announced for Microsoft, and I wrote the battle for the large U.S. telco TV standard was over. But I soon heard from folks who know, not to assume that's how it will play out. Everyone was checking other options, just in case. But they are more likely just to slow things down than to actually switch away from Microsoft middleware. They probably won't use Windows Media 9/VC1, opting for MPEG-4 AVC for the encoder, even if they use the Microsoft middleware (channel guide, switching, billing, etc.)
Right now, Microsoft is only delivering some of the promised software, and will be late with some. The first to roll services, SBC, is deeply committed to Microsoft ($400M purchase), so will probably go with the flow. The result will be some limits on what SBC IPTV service will be, annoying but probably not crucial. Schedule of heavy testing and first customer rollout in 2005 will probably be honored in form, but things likely will go slowly until Microsoft bugs fixed, probably late 2006. SBC has already added a year to their schedule.
BBR: IPTV in general, do you see it as a serious competitor to Satellite and cable?
DB: Single channel, not HD IPTV is working well, with a million customers around the world and tens of millions coming in the next few years. Multichannel, HD, to several sets turns out to be much harder and takes more bandwidth, which is why it's coming slower. But $30B in planned investment is coming, and almost surely by 2006-2010, millions will be buying fancy TV programming from telcos.
They don't want to cut prices, but behind all the puffery is essentially a me-too service. They'll claim lots is new, but picture in picture multiple camera angles isn't new, and Sky satellite is already making hundreds of millions with "interactivity", mostly gambling. Comcast will have more video on demand than any telco, while net based services, especially Google, will has loads of video as well. So the telcos will either price aggressively or have limited market share. Expect that to be disguised with a lot of advertising about great "new" services that cable already has in some places.
BBR: So is VDSL2 a minimum requirement if the bells really want to enter the market? Can you clarify your statements on the various VDSL2 flavors mentioned earlier?
DB: Everyone's confused because the next upgrade of ADSL is called VDSL low profile, but isn't that big an improvement. VDSL2, as planned by SBC, is only slightly faster than ADSL2+, perhaps 15-25Mbps rather than 10-20Mbps. Useful, especially when you need bandwidth for HD (9 meg per live encoded channel), but not an earthshaking improvement. Since by late 2006, VDSL2 low profile will be within $10 of the cost of ADSL, most carriers will switch over even for the small improvement.
The real VDSL2 - the 50-100 meg plus of the high profile, including a fast upstream - delivers those speeds less than 1,000 feet or so, so requires new construction most places. Fiber to the basement or curb, advancing hard in Korea, Japan, and soon where BellSouth already has fiber. Verizon may do some of it where running fiber in a building is impractical.
Don't be confused because a medium speed ADSL is named VDSL2. It won't give 50 meg to most people in the U.S.. An accident of what came to what standard committee, and the choice of the linecode technical parameters gave VDSL2 low profile a good name, but not the speed you need.
BBR: If VDSL2 is so promising, why is BellSouth still planning on starting out with ADSL2+? Faith in compression?
DB: VDSL2 is just moving from lab samples to first, untested chips. BellSouth will move when the chips are reliable, late 2005 or more likely 2006. They just aren't announcing things that aren't ready, but they are completely on top of the technology and will move soon as well. They've accepted that getting the speeds they want will often require bonding two lines (24-35 meg, although the press releases wisely promise a little less). With the doubled capacity, they can use either ADSL2+ or VDSL2, so they are waiting till VDSL2 works well and comes down in price.
SBC instead was betting that VDSL2 would get here fast, and have enough extra performance they wouldn't need to give many customers two lines. They also were betting compression would reduce the bandwidth they needed. Vendors of course promised all this, but SBC (and everyone else) is waiting for the chip guys to deliver this month. SBC's tech guys knew they were taking a risk, but management decided that was a better option than spending the money Verizon is.
BBR: What are your thoughts on the various compression flavors the bells are exploring for IPTV and HD?
DB: MPEG-4 and Windows Media 9/VC1 are separately fighting out the war for the codec and the associated royalties. Microsoft in particular muddied the waters by showing great demos of carefully pre-encoded HD movies that ran at 6Mbps, and some uninformed CEOs and COOs didn't realize live TV, especially sports, needs much more bandwidth.
Two HD channels at 6 meg require 12 meg, maybe 14 with overhead, which sounds like it can fit in 20 meg and leave some room for data and a third standard definition set. But the real codecs for live TV, shipping late in 2005, will need 9.3 meg per channel, and even the companies selling them know they've sacrificed some quality to get it down that far.
So to watch one HD show and record another requires about 20 meg, and leaves things very tight unless you designed for 30 meg in the first place. Verizon looked at that, and said we better go for fiber; BellSouth and Bell Canada are thinking two lines bonded, and SBC is praying they can squeeze everything in without critical compromises.
Currently, MPEG-4 AVC 264 is a little ahead of the Microsoft codec, probably a quarter or two. So most telcos are going MPEG-4 even if they are using the Microsoft IPTV software for copy protection, network management, channel switching, etc. Microsoft is pushing hard to get in, so the situation is dynamic.
BBR: While we're only starting to see DOCSIS 2.0 deployment, and the higher speeds it can bring (Adelphia & Cox 15Mbps), DOCSIS 3.0 should only be a few years behind. Do you see the cable industry having any trouble keeping up with these bell plans?
DB: The "15 meg" speeds Cox is offering where they compete with Verizon fiber are mostly advertising. It's really 38 meg shared among 100 or so users, the same speed as the current services advertised at as 3 and 7 meg. That's too much oversubscription to deliver 15 meg most of the time, if even 5 or 10 people are downloading on the node. To regularly get past today's 5 meg or so, you need to bond more channels, which is what DOCSIS 3.0 offers.
DOCSIS 3.0 is real, mostly agreed, and the key vendors have the details and are making equipment for 2006. It's a shared 160/120 or higher, easily expandable to a shared gigabit. Real speeds to users will often be 20-50 megabits. It was developed to compete with higher speed DSL in Asia. Early in 2005, the U.S. cable companies realized Verizon was serious about fiber, and pushed CableLabs and suppliers (Cisco, Motorola, Arris, Broadcom) to get DOCSIS 3.0 ready for the U.S. ASAP, and 2006 is realistic with some pricey gear.
What we don't know is whether the Verizon will scare the cable companies into actually doing the upgrades. It's not terribly expensive. CableLabs chose the Arris/Motorola/Broadcom 160/120 proposal over Cisco 1 gigabit alternative because it can be done with software in the CMTS and a new modem, relatively cheaply. It doesn't require running new fiber or anything terribly expesive. But it's more capital spending than the cablecos planned.
Like the telcos, they've cut 20% or more from what they were investing in 2001. Very dynamic situation with some tough choices - no one outside the companies really knows, with the analysts busily watching every comment and reading tea leaves. I'm pretty sure the cablecos haven't decided yet. Inside at least one giant, they have plans to delay the upgrades but a very vocal disagreement trying to move the company faster.
So maybe Verizon will inspire the cablecos to upgrade, which will in turn put pressure on SBC/Bellsouth. But maybe that won't be enough, and they'll hope marketing and program selection will beat technology. We just don't know yet.
BBR In the end, which solution do you see as the best of the next-gen options?
DB: Verizon's fiber is the best stuff out there, especially after they switch to 2.4 gigabit shared GPON in a year. That's why the smart cablecos are worried. What BellSouth and SBC are doing is essentially matching cable of 2002. By the time they deploy in 2007, cable should be well ahead.
But better technology doesn't always win. Perhaps SBC, by spending less, will be able to price lower and do ok after all. Nobody really knows, although everyone has an opinion. My opinion is that the best tech is needed, especially in an HD world, and Verizon is making the right choice. But some very smart people have looked me in the eyes and said "the fiber numbers just don't work. Still costs too much," and other similar comments.
BBR: Any insider information on how soon before Time Warner and Comcast cross into the 10-15Mbps range?
DB: Both will be experimenting with how to fight Verizon, but remember the 10-15 is mostly illusion once loads go up. Your mileage will vary. It's the same physical system that now often doesn't hit the promised 4 and 7 megabits, with a faster connection from the modem to your computer.
Where they do good traffic engineering (splitting nodes when necessary, etc.) performance will be good; where they are sloppy or cheap, Broadband Reports is sure to be the first with the story. I mentioned to a top Comcast guy recently how many disappointed California users were writing in to BBR, and he said he'd look into it. Company policy is to solve problems like this, but it's sometimes expensive and timeconsuming.
BBR: Wimax: Is it a serious player in the next-gen broadband battles, or simply a niche-solution?
DB: I'm the guy who writes about DSL, TV, and fiber, so the wrong person to ask. But everything's related, so I do keep my eyes open. Some very smart people (Dewayne Hendricks, David Isenberg, Robert Pepper, Eben Moglen) believe wireless could be a big part. Needs plenty of spectrum for the 10 meg plus speeds that will be common in a few years here (and already are in Asia); the current services at a meg or two won't be competitive in most cities.
Meanwhile, Verizon's EV-DO is getting raves for delivering 500K surprisingly reliably to people on the move. Watch for it to become as ubiquitous as Blackberries in the business class. WiFi should be able to cover most cities with an interesting service for $15-20, so I've testified in its favor and hope it shakes things up. Meanwhile, TD-CDMA is working surprising well in London and elsewhere.
None of which answer your original question about Wimax, the most hyped of the many wireless technologies on the way. Both Bill Smith (CTO BellSouth) and Balan Nair (CTO Qwest) tell me the trial results are impressive, although neither is committed beyond trials today. It won't handle mobile outside of Korea before 2007-2008, which is the key niche. Alvarion, the key supplier of "pre-standard" Wimax, just announced a down quarter as Telmex cut orders.
Some things are clear. Wireless can be very cheap (if slow and not rock-solid reliable), so where it plays it is interesting competition. The stuff coming from the cellphone world is working well, and might turn out to outdo the more hyped Wimax. We desperately need more choices, so I hope some of the above proves out.
BBR: One final question, do you see a future for independent ISPs?
DB: AOL admits its dead as an ISP over broadband, and MSN has also given up in favor of other strategies. Earthlink and some of the local keep trying, but it will be very tough for them to remain a factor. Covad is too small, undercapitalized, and afraid of getting the bells fighting back to matter. For most Amreicans, everything but the cable company and the telco is of little relevance. I fear wireless data and power line won't be interesting players, but hope I'm wrong.
It doesn't have to be so. In Japan, two independents (Yahoo BB and eAccess) are consistently beating NTT. Hanaro has a third of Korea. Free.fr signed up over a million in the last year. In the UK and France, regulators set wholesale prices low enough that neither BT nor FT dominate.
Killing the ISPs and most of the CLECs was a political decision, that might still be reversible if wholesale prices were dramatically changed. But I doubt Kevin Martin will make that decision, although I will editorialize about why he should.
Dave Burstein has been offering excellent insider broadband reporting for years, months before it's picked up by major outlets and paraded around as fresh content. You can read his frequent thoughts on the broadband industry via his DSLPrime website or via his newsletter, which is frequently published over at ISP Planet.
source: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/65298
Everybody In The Pool
 | |
It might sound far-fetched, but the pieces are in place for it to happen later this summer. Apple (nyse: AAPL - news - people ) is already developing a hybrid iPod/cell phone with handset maker Motorola (nasdaq: MOT - news - people ). And companies ranging from the Virgin Group to The Walt Disney Co. (nyse: DIS - news - people ) are proving that a new network model can allow all kinds of businesses to easily enter the mobile market.
On Wednesday, Disney said it plans to launch a family-centric wireless phone network sometime next year. The venture, called Disney Mobile, will sell mobile service, custom handsets and premium phone content, like ringtones and games featuring Disney characters. The launch won't require an extensive deployment of infrastructure and new cell towers, since all the calls will go over Sprint's (nyse: FON - news - people ) national cellular network. That means Disney will gain access to a dedicated, direct marketing channel to kids, benefiting both from network revenue and from selling its content in a new medium.
This way of doing business in the mobile market, known as the "mobile virtual network operator," or MVNO, is an increasingly popular and successful model for all different kinds of companies. In December, Disney subsidiary ESPN launched its own mobile network, offering consumers custom sports news and multimedia. Internet service provider Earthlink (nasdaq: ELNK - news - people ) did the same in October, targeting high-end users who like to use their phones for e-mail and data access. And since its launch in 2002, the Virgin Group's youth-centric Virgin Mobile USA has surged to over three million subscribers, and a public offering is reportedly in the works for later this year.
Apple is not the only big company that might roll out cellular service this year. Analysts suggest that other companies with strong brands could be planning their own networks, including Nike (nyse: NKE - news - people ) and Wal-Mart Stores (nyse: WMT - news - people ).
"Wal-Mart...could very well launch an MNVO," says Current Analysis analyst Weston Henderek. "A Wal-Mart offering would most likely be targeted at value-oriented and credit-challenged prepaid customers looking for the best price." The company might do well to follow in the footsteps of convenience store chain 7-Eleven (nyse: SE - news - people ), which launched its own prepaid, discount wireless service in April of 2004, using its stores as distributors.
The leap to wireless could be even easier for Apple, since it already specializes in making cool, user-friendly handheld gadgets, and has sold over 15 million iPod music players to date. With each new generation of the devices, Apple has added features like more memory and color screens. It makes sense that the company would want to merge two devices already in consumers' pockets, combining a cell phone and a music player.
In July 2004, Apple announced it would partner with handset maker Motorola in making a version of its iTunes software to run on Motorola phones. The software has been delayed but is expected to be made available soon. Observers say the companies also might have collaborated on a new hybrid iPod phone. Apple has no comment on the rumors, but Jobs has been enthusiastic about the cellular marketplace. "The mobile phone market...is a phenomenal opportunity to get iTunes in the hands of even more music lovers around the world," he said in a statement announcing the partnership.
But Apple might have a problem getting the devices into consumers' hands. Carriers will probably be loath to sell and support it, since they want to sell their own music downloads--not have customers upload tunes from home. "The carriers don't like it," says analyst Rob Enderle, head of The Enderle Group. "They want Apple to change the design so the phone has to sync through their networks, not with a PC."
The solution could be for Apple to launch its own cellular network, doing an end run around carriers and providing the company with revenue from both selling phone handsets and from the resale of cellular service.
"You could certainly see Apple emerge as an MVNO, and then they could control how the phone works," says Enderle. "It would undoubtedly be the better path for Apple. I think they would be smart to do it."
If Apple launched their own virtual network, they could even tie it in to their iTunes Music Store. This would allow them to obtain more revenue from the direct sale and download of digital music to phone handsets.
Even if heavy hitters like Wal-Mart and Nike don't take the mobile plunge, it's likely that more MVNOs will materialize this year. "We're going to see much more of these," says Enderle. "It's very profitable for the carriers. Virgin has been very successful with it, and it reduces customer acquisition costs very substantially."
source: http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/07/08/apple-cellphone-service-cx_de_0708apple.html
The New C Standard
"At a very late stage Addison Wesley decided not to publish my book, 'The New C Standard: An economic and cultural commentary'. Now that the copyright issues have been sorted out I am making the pdf freely available. You can download the pdf (mirror 1). The organization is rather unusual in that the commentary covers each sentence of the C Standard (actually the latest draft of C0X, excluding library) one by one (all 2022 of them). One major new angle is using the results from studies in cognitive psychology to try and figure out how developers comprehend code. The aim being to try and produce some coding guidelines that reduce costs (ie, reduce the time needed and bugs created). The book also contains the results of lots of measurements (over 400 figures and tables) in an attempt to back the arguments being made -- another unusual feature since most software related books don't publish any figures to back up what they say. Other subsections discuss common implementations and differences between the latest draft standard and C90/C++. More background on the project is available from the Inquirer.
source: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/1245232&tid=156&tid=192
source: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/1245232&tid=156&tid=192
Debian addresses security concerns
Popular Linux distributor Debian has moved quickly to address concerns it was falling behind on security.
The organisation's security team has issued a host of announcements and informed the community it has resolved problems with the infrastructure governing security updates.
"There were several issues with the security infrastructure after the release of Sarge [aka Debian 3.1] that led to the Debian security team being unable to issue updates to vulnerable packages. These issues have been fully resolved, and the infrastructure is working correctly again," it said in a statement issued this afternoon.
Debian's elected leader Branden Robinson yesterday flagged an inquiry into the processes by which security updates are released, citing a potential lack of transparency and communication failures.
It was also an appropriate time to add new members to Debian's security team, as several have been inactive for a while, Robinson said in an e-mail to developers. He admitted the organisation had been "sluggish" in the area recently and said the focus would now be on ensuring Debian was not plagued with such problems again.
He said an inquiry -- to be conducted by developer Andreas Barth -- would allow the organisation to attack weak points.
"One thing I'd like to see is better documentation of the internal workings of the security update process," he wrote. "With a broader understanding of the security workflow, I'm hopeful that people will be less likely to draw erroneous inferences about what the causes of problems are, and more likely to make offers of assistance that prove fruitful."
Robinson said he expects to spend a lot of time talking about the security issue to Debian developers and representatives of the user community at the upcoming sixth annual Debian developer conference on July 10 in Helsinki, Finland.
"Many people have stepped forward in public or in private to offer us assistance with ensuring that this problem does not recur," he said, "and that Debian upholds its valuable reputation as a consistent provider of timely security updates to its users."
"I regret the interruption of this service, but with so many people determined to apply their skills to this facet of our responsibilities, I'm confident that we can prevent its recurrence."
Robinson said after "extensive conversations with many people", he suspected two factors were at the heart of Debian's security woes.
Firstly, he said the security team had not been given enough manpower to deal with the demands being placed on it. In addition, there was a failure in the process of actually distributing security updates that were ready to go out.
In the statement issued this afternoon, Debian warned users against installing packages from the "sarge-proposed-updates" suite, as some Web sites had been advocating as a temporary fix before official updates became available.
"Those packages are currently under development and may not work properly," the statement said. "In addition, those packages may not provide users with timely security fixes."
source: http://zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39201347,00.htm
Apache Request Smuggling Vulnerability Found
"Whitedust is reporting on a HTTP request smuggling vulnerability in Apache. The flaw apparently allows attackers to piggy back valid HTTP requests over the 'Content-Length:' header, which can result in cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, session hijacking and other various kinds of attack. This flaw affects most of the 2.0.x branch of Apache's HTTPD server."
source: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/0453212&tid=172&tid=128&tid=2
source: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/0453212&tid=172&tid=128&tid=2
Open-source Licensing: BSD or GPL?
"Mark Brewer of Covalent Technologies argues BSD is better for the enterprise. As open source licensing models, both the Berkeley Software Distribution license and the General Public License have advantages and disadvantages. But in the end, the BSD offers more benefits to enterprise customers. Matt Asay of Novell makes the case for GPL. He says, no one open source license is ideal in every circumstance. Different licenses serve different ends. Berkeley Software Distribution-style licenses have been used to govern the development of exceptional open source projects such as Apache. Clearly, BSD has its strengths. However, all things being equal, he prefers the General Public License (GPL ). The GPL is one of the most exciting, innovative capitalist tools ever created. The GPL breaks down walls between vendors and customers while enabling strong competitive differentiation. Which is a better licensing model for open-source applications: BSD or GPL? What do you think?"
source: http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/0447259&tid=117&tid=7
source: http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/0447259&tid=117&tid=7
Guitarists, your Days are Numbered
"Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have created a mechanical guitar playing robot, named the Crazy J. The guitar player is composed of two mechanical systems that interact to play a range of 29 musical notes. A plucking mechanism with six independently controlled picks is mounted over the body of the guitar and a fingering mechanism with an array of 23 fingertips is mounted over the first four frets of the fingerboard."
source: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/0245247&tid=216&tid=141
source: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/08/0245247&tid=216&tid=141
POWERアーキテクチャーに更なる弾み
IBM®は本日、東京で開催された「Power Everywhere™ Forum 2005」において、Power Architecture™関連の新製品、パートナー、イニシアティブを発表し、引き続きIBM POWER™ マイクロプロセッサー・ファミリーの世界的展開に弾みをつけていくことを示しました。
POWER.org新メンバー
POWER.orgは今回のフォーラムで、標準インターフェース設計、統合、検証のためのEDA、IP製品ソリューションを提供するDenali Software Inc.、IT、エンジニアリング・サービスをグローバルに提供するHCL Technologies Ltd.、多種多様の先進集積回路、ソフトウェア・デザイン・ツールや知的財産を開発、製造、販売するXilinx, Inc.の3社がPower.orgへの参加に同意したことを発表しました。
Power.orgは、コンシューマー・エレクトロニクス、ネットワーキング、ストレージ、軍事、および自動車の各市場向け電子システムのオープン・スタンダードに基づくハードウェア開発プラットフォームとしてIBM Power Architectureの利用促進に取り組んでいる企業のコミュニティーです。
新製品
Power PC® 970MP
IBMは本日、Power Architectureベースのマイクロプロセッサー・ファミリーの最新製品、Power PC 970MPを発表しました。Power PC 970MPは、IBM Power PC 970FXマイクロプロセッサーのデュアルコア・バージョンです。Power PC 970MP は、1.4～2.5 GHzの低コスト・高性能の64ビット対称型マルチプロセッシング (SMP)対応システムをコンパクトなパッケージでと希望されるお客様向けのマイクロプロセッサーです。また、このマイクロプロセッサーには省電力機能が搭載されており、システム・アーキテクトはこれを活用してシステムの電力をダイナミックに管理することができます。
IBM Power PC 970MPマイクロプロセッサーは、実績のある64ビットIBM Power Architectureをベースとしており、エントリー・レベルのサーバー向けに、また組み込み型市場向けに、これまでにない性能とパワー・マネージメ ント機能を提供します。Power PC 970MPは、HPCクラスターから高性能ストレージ、シングルボード・コンピューター、高性能ネットワーキング・アプリケーションなど処理要求の厳しい 組み込み型システム・アプリケーションまで、さまざまなアプリケーションにおいて、これまでにない性能を発揮します。
2つの64ビットPower PC 970MPコアは、各々それ自体に専用1MB L2キャッシュを備えているため、Power PC 970FXの2倍以上の性能を実現します。この設計によってお客様は、システム処理のニーズに合わせてさまざまな性能および電力動作基点をダイナミックに 選択できます。作業負荷が減少している時間帯には、両方のコアの周波数と電圧を下げて消費電力を減らすことができます。また、一方のコアはそのまま動作さ せながらもう一方のコアだけを「ドーズ(doze)」という省電力状態に設定することで、さらに電力を節約することができます。さらに、それほど高性能の 処理が必要とされない時間帯には、一方のコアの電力を完全に切ることもできます。
さらにIBMは、Power PC 970FX省電力版を新たに発表しました。この最新のマイクロプロセッサーは、20ワット以下の消費電力で動作する低コスト・高性能の64ビット対称型マ ルチプロセッシング(SMP)対応のプロセッサーを希望されるお客様向けの製品です。一般的な作業負荷を処理する場合、この新しいオファリングの動作電力 は、13W(1.4 GHz時)、16W(1.6GHz時)となっています。また、このマイクロプロセッサーには省電力機能が搭載されており、システム・アーキテクトはこれを 採用することでシステムの電力をダイナミックに管理することができます。
64ビットPower PC 970FXマイクロプロセッサーは、イメージング、ネットワーキングなどの組み込み型のアプリケーションに適しており、これまでにない性能とパワー・マ ネージメント機能を提供します。最大2.7GHzで作動するよう設計されたPower PC 970FXは、512KB L2キャッシュ、64ビットおよび32ビットのアプリケーション互換性、プロセッサー・コアとSIMD/Vectorエンジンにデータを与え続けるために 最大7.1GB/sで供給することができる高帯域プロセッサー・バスなどの機能を備えています。プロセッサー・コアは一周期に5つの命令を送ることがで き、2つの固定小数点、2つの浮動小数点、2つの負荷格納、2つのベクトルと2つのシステム・ユニットからなる10の演算装置それぞれに一周期1命令を出 すことができます。L1命令キャッシュは64KBを、L1データキャッシュは32KBを持っており、各プロセッサーは専用の1MB L2キャッシュを備えています。
新しいイニシアティブ
IBMは、「Power Everywhere Forum2005」において、Linux®コミュニティー内のITプロフェッショナルと開発者によるオープン・ネットワークOpenPower™ Projectを拡大すると発表しました。このイニシアティブでは、インターネットを通じてPOWER5™プロセッサー・ベースのOpenPowerサー バーを無料でテストする機会をLinuxの開発者や熱心なファンに提供します。また、参加者はバーチャル・コミュニティーに参加し、他の参加者と共同作業 を行うこともできます。これは、LinuxコミュニティーがOpenPowerシステムの優れた性能をオープンで共同作業的手法によりオンライン・フォー ラムでテストできる初めての試みとなります。
さらにOpenPower Projectは、Power Architectureテクノロジーに基づきLinuxのための広範なツールとリソースを取り扱っています。OpenPower Projectについては、下記WEBサイトをご覧ください。
http://www.openpowerproject.org/(英語)
source: http://www-6.ibm.com/jp/press/20050707003.html
POWER.org新メンバー
POWER.orgは今回のフォーラムで、標準インターフェース設計、統合、検証のためのEDA、IP製品ソリューションを提供するDenali Software Inc.、IT、エンジニアリング・サービスをグローバルに提供するHCL Technologies Ltd.、多種多様の先進集積回路、ソフトウェア・デザイン・ツールや知的財産を開発、製造、販売するXilinx, Inc.の3社がPower.orgへの参加に同意したことを発表しました。
Power.orgは、コンシューマー・エレクトロニクス、ネットワーキング、ストレージ、軍事、および自動車の各市場向け電子システムのオープン・スタンダードに基づくハードウェア開発プラットフォームとしてIBM Power Architectureの利用促進に取り組んでいる企業のコミュニティーです。
新製品
Power PC® 970MP
IBMは本日、Power Architectureベースのマイクロプロセッサー・ファミリーの最新製品、Power PC 970MPを発表しました。Power PC 970MPは、IBM Power PC 970FXマイクロプロセッサーのデュアルコア・バージョンです。Power PC 970MP は、1.4～2.5 GHzの低コスト・高性能の64ビット対称型マルチプロセッシング (SMP)対応システムをコンパクトなパッケージでと希望されるお客様向けのマイクロプロセッサーです。また、このマイクロプロセッサーには省電力機能が搭載されており、システム・アーキテクトはこれを活用してシステムの電力をダイナミックに管理することができます。
IBM Power PC 970MPマイクロプロセッサーは、実績のある64ビットIBM Power Architectureをベースとしており、エントリー・レベルのサーバー向けに、また組み込み型市場向けに、これまでにない性能とパワー・マネージメ ント機能を提供します。Power PC 970MPは、HPCクラスターから高性能ストレージ、シングルボード・コンピューター、高性能ネットワーキング・アプリケーションなど処理要求の厳しい 組み込み型システム・アプリケーションまで、さまざまなアプリケーションにおいて、これまでにない性能を発揮します。
2つの64ビットPower PC 970MPコアは、各々それ自体に専用1MB L2キャッシュを備えているため、Power PC 970FXの2倍以上の性能を実現します。この設計によってお客様は、システム処理のニーズに合わせてさまざまな性能および電力動作基点をダイナミックに 選択できます。作業負荷が減少している時間帯には、両方のコアの周波数と電圧を下げて消費電力を減らすことができます。また、一方のコアはそのまま動作さ せながらもう一方のコアだけを「ドーズ(doze)」という省電力状態に設定することで、さらに電力を節約することができます。さらに、それほど高性能の 処理が必要とされない時間帯には、一方のコアの電力を完全に切ることもできます。
さらにIBMは、Power PC 970FX省電力版を新たに発表しました。この最新のマイクロプロセッサーは、20ワット以下の消費電力で動作する低コスト・高性能の64ビット対称型マ ルチプロセッシング(SMP)対応のプロセッサーを希望されるお客様向けの製品です。一般的な作業負荷を処理する場合、この新しいオファリングの動作電力 は、13W(1.4 GHz時)、16W(1.6GHz時)となっています。また、このマイクロプロセッサーには省電力機能が搭載されており、システム・アーキテクトはこれを 採用することでシステムの電力をダイナミックに管理することができます。
64ビットPower PC 970FXマイクロプロセッサーは、イメージング、ネットワーキングなどの組み込み型のアプリケーションに適しており、これまでにない性能とパワー・マ ネージメント機能を提供します。最大2.7GHzで作動するよう設計されたPower PC 970FXは、512KB L2キャッシュ、64ビットおよび32ビットのアプリケーション互換性、プロセッサー・コアとSIMD/Vectorエンジンにデータを与え続けるために 最大7.1GB/sで供給することができる高帯域プロセッサー・バスなどの機能を備えています。プロセッサー・コアは一周期に5つの命令を送ることがで き、2つの固定小数点、2つの浮動小数点、2つの負荷格納、2つのベクトルと2つのシステム・ユニットからなる10の演算装置それぞれに一周期1命令を出 すことができます。L1命令キャッシュは64KBを、L1データキャッシュは32KBを持っており、各プロセッサーは専用の1MB L2キャッシュを備えています。
新しいイニシアティブ
IBMは、「Power Everywhere Forum2005」において、Linux®コミュニティー内のITプロフェッショナルと開発者によるオープン・ネットワークOpenPower™ Projectを拡大すると発表しました。このイニシアティブでは、インターネットを通じてPOWER5™プロセッサー・ベースのOpenPowerサー バーを無料でテストする機会をLinuxの開発者や熱心なファンに提供します。また、参加者はバーチャル・コミュニティーに参加し、他の参加者と共同作業 を行うこともできます。これは、LinuxコミュニティーがOpenPowerシステムの優れた性能をオープンで共同作業的手法によりオンライン・フォー ラムでテストできる初めての試みとなります。
さらにOpenPower Projectは、Power Architectureテクノロジーに基づきLinuxのための広範なツールとリソースを取り扱っています。OpenPower Projectについては、下記WEBサイトをご覧ください。
http://www.openpowerproject.org/(英語)source: http://www-6.ibm.com/jp/press/20050707003.html
