Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google's Dark Fibre Plans?

Posted by Hemos on Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:32 AM
from the reduce-reuse-recycle dept.
sebFlyte writes "According to news.com "Google is looking for Strategic Negotiator candidates with experience in...(i)dentification, selection, and negotiation of dark fiber contracts both in metropolitan areas and over long distances as part of development of a global backbone network." Is the search giant planning to build a global fibre-optic network?" Or perhaps simply use unused fibre that they can get for cheaper then from the datacenter providers; although at least from my talks with the datacenter folks, Google's not paying much per Mbps as it is.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by sanityspeech (823537) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:35AM (#11386060) Journal
    The free encyclopedia definition: [wikipedia.org]
    "Dark fibre or unlit fibre (or fiber) is the name given to fibre optic cables which have yet to be used. They are hence not yet connected to any device, and are only there for future usage."
    • by FrYGuY101 (770432) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:45AM (#11386185) Journal
      Thinking about it... maybe Google is planning an entrance into the ISP market?

      I mean, Google might be getting cheap rates for www.google.com, but that probably wouldn't extend to customers, plus accessability wouldn't be that great...

      I'm not quite sure what Google's angle on the market would be, except perhaps high-speed/low-cost, but that doesn't seem as elegant as Google's usual offerings...
      • They're going to build a huge pair of AI called Icarus and Daedalus. They will merege to form the AI Helios. You will be given the choice to merge with Helios - using your Google branded brain implant [google.com], or stop using Google alltogether - causing a new dark age.

        Or you could just go to a rave.
      • FWIW it is very common for larger companies to buy up Dark Fiber from large telco providers. All of the Tier 1 Telcos sell Dark Fiber as a standard product line, and you will find many of the Fortune 100 companies out there own their own. I highly doubt this is Google's atempt to change business plans and enter the depressed Telco sector.
    • by rwyoder (759998) on Monday January 17 2005, @12:00PM (#11386363)

      Dark fibre or unlit fibre (or fiber) is the name given to fibre optic cables which have yet to be used. They are hence not yet connected to any device, and are only there for future usage.

      There is a second meaning: It is fiber which is not lit by the provider. For example if you have two locations and lease a dark fiber between the two, you are essentially getting two ends of a single fiber with no networking equipment in the loop. You will then connect your own equipment at each end and light it your self.
    • by seanadams.com (463190) * on Monday January 17 2005, @12:05PM (#11386413) Homepage
      There's more to it than that... my understanding is that when you lease "dark fiber" it means that when you get it, the fiber is _still_ dark from end-to-end, i.e. there is no mux/demux equipment or any telco "value add" services associated with it. It's sort of like the "alarm circuit" that telecoms used to sell, which was a "dry copper" pair from one location to another with no telecom switch or repeaters on the line. It's not just "unused" fiber - it's fiber that you get to signal on however you want (within some power limits I'm sure).

      This means you provide the equipment, potentially giving you vastly more bandwidth than the telecom could sell you on that fiber. It also means you can upgrade your equipment later for faster speeds. It also means less points of failure on the line because its just optics all the way through.

      Dark fiber usually isn't sold by the telecoms. Usually you'll have to get it from companys such as the railway and sewer owners - the guys who oversee the cables themselves, not the higher level services.

      The disadvantage of dark fiber compared to a telcom OCx circuit are 1) you can't get channelized services eg split this DS3 into a few DS1 to this locations, and few DS1s to that location, a couple DS1s for ISDN PRI, etc etc. 2) you have less flexibility in choosing the endpoints - your choices are limited to big data centers where the vendors are willing/able to provide dark dervice 3) you don't get to deal with the really nice helpful people at the phone company
      • by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Monday January 17 2005, @12:14PM (#11386524) Homepage
        You can lease dark fiber from a telco... I worked for a company that did it for a short while.

        There's probably 100* more dark fiber than lit fiber in the world - when they're putting it down it's dirt cheap to put a few more bundles in. You can get it pretty much anywhere to anywhere (where there's some kind of physical link anyway).

        The real cost though is lighting the thing. It costs a fortune to rent the mux equiment, and it's large enough that space considerations at the other end come into play. That's mostly the reason why it's still dark in the first place (that and the telcos have so much excess bandwidth already they don't know what to do with it... it's more cost effective to negotiate a cut rate on a piece of existing fiber).

          • by Firethorn (177587) * on Monday January 17 2005, @03:29PM (#11388510) Homepage Journal
            When you're buying that kind of fiber, you can buy whatever kind you want.

            When 2 pair costs $.20 per foot, without install costs, and 12 pair costs $.30 per foot, and it costs the same $10 a foot to bury the sucker, you might as well guard against future expansion, breakage and whatnot by installing the 12 pair. Standardizing on 12 pair also simplifies inventory work. I've heard that many telco's standardized on 12 pair everywhere except for major, major backbones because the savings from standardized purchasing, inventory, and etc made it cheaper.

            *all costs are estimated
    • by nizo (81281) * on Monday January 17 2005, @02:19PM (#11387836) Homepage Journal
      The nice thing about dark fiber is that it is more efficient. While regular fiber uses light to transmit data, dark fiber uses a lack of light to transmit data.
  • Unification (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fleetie (603229) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:35AM (#11386062) Homepage
    Ah, so has Google unified String Theory, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy?
  • by xmas2003 (739875) * on Monday January 17 2005, @11:38AM (#11386092) Homepage
    Seems like buying a Level 3 (or similar sized network provider) would be an easier route, as these guys got hammered in valuations due to over-capacity and a lot cheaper to buy existing capacity rather than building your own.

    BTW, the Light Reading guys were the ones who "broke" this story back on January 6th [lightreading.com]

    • by Tancred (3904) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:46AM (#11386195)
      I would be. It's far from their core competency and there's so much competition in the telco business that everyone sells at cost anyway. Maybe a datacenter chain like Equinix would be a better acquisition target.
    • by vyzar (11481) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:47AM (#11386209)
      No no no.

      Why the hell would Google want to buy up an existing ISP/telco with all the crap that that entails?

      What they are doing is actually very sensible.

      By looking to negotiate purchase/lease of dark fibre over the medium term they are avoiding the big cost which is actually putting fibre into the ground.

      I imagine that they would ensure that the maintenance of that fibre is the responsibility of the provider, so they don't need to run their own maintenance crews either.

      And the BIG plus with having access to fiber is that you can then ramp up your capacity by using WDM (Wave Division Multiplexing) to get more bandwidth out of your fibre.

      They have probably realised that to ramp up their networks to cope with their future plans they need more bandwidth that they can afford to buy as "service" from a regular telco. Its just too damn expensive!

      By leasing the fibre themselves, they light it how they want, rather that how the telco wants to sell it to them.

      This *might* have biogger up front costs, but the recurrent costs are MUCH lower.
    • They're only talking about hiring out a few experts with expertise in dealing with new fiber negotiations. Going from this to a plan to own a major telco backbone is a huge leap, they would likely have to triple their headcount to manage such an operation...one in the past that has bankrupted many other companies.
    • by ScentCone (795499) on Monday January 17 2005, @12:31PM (#11386686)
      Don't forget that Google parks hardware all over the place. They've got a pile of it sitting in datacenters run by Savvis, who bought up the dregs of the Cable & Wireless operations (who bought up the dregs of the Exodus operations). But unlike Exodus, C&W also had tons of dark fibre. Savvis has been trying to make everything lean and mean, but they've got a pretty nice inter-datacenter-network... but not necessarily any bargains when peering with other people's operations. I can imagine that Google would love to get outside the loop of having the datacenter operators dictate what terms they're willing to live with when setting up new peering arrangements. Especially as Google's needs become more instantaneously multi-directional (rather than crunch-and-publish, it's real-time ad stats, mail, etc).

      Even if all these new hires do is help Google's datacenter providers make good decisions about new or altered peering networks, they'll probably earn their keep.
  • by imthatguy (772683) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:38AM (#11386096)
    And thus it begins....it was difficult to see at first; what Google's plans were. Only after it had struck first using highspeed fiber to initiate the subroutines in the Google desktop search companion did humanity realize its vast mistake. Only it was too late...Google was selfaware...and it was hungry...for pie...I mean Pi...
  • I have seen traces from the Netherlands to www.google.com go over the amsterdam internet exchange [ams-ix.net] for some time now. According to their member page [ams-ix.net] they have been connected since march 2004. Traceroute:
    5 bb2-ge6-0.amsix-telecity.home.nl (213.51.158.153) 28.478 ms 27.683 ms 26.895 ms
    6 r2-ge1-2-0.amsix-telecity.home.nl (213.51.158.158) 26.563 ms 35.185 ms 33.987 ms
    7 core1.ams.net.google.com (195.69.144.247) 32.044 ms 32.543 ms 30.484 ms
    8 64.233.175.246 32.806 ms 32.560 ms 30.529 ms
    9 216.239.46.173 30.058 ms 29.058 ms 26.684 ms
    10 216.239.49.254 37.532 ms 36.958 ms 39.685 ms
    11 216.239.48.50 41.163 ms 41.902 ms 43.109 ms
    12 216.239.49.62 35.543 ms 34.004 ms 33.173 ms
    13 * * *

    The AMS-IX is the largest Internet Exchange / NAP in Europe.

  • GoogleISP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17 2005, @11:39AM (#11386116)
    Maybe this is the beginning of Google Broadband. With all the other non-search areas they've gotten themselves into, maybe they're looking to take on MSN and Yahoo in the ISP realm.

    GoogleISP: Dark fiber to your city, fiber to you home coming soon.

    And after they can give everyone a super high speed broadband connection, it's just one more step to selling a subscription for the comping suite of web-based apps that GMail proves they're so good at.
    • Google does not have access or ownership to a last-mile network, and more to the point the management of such networks is incredibly costly. If Google tried to be a later-day SBC I imagine their stock would begin to look a lot like SBC (translation: not good for present owners of GOOG).

      If they were truly making such plans they would also have to hire literally tens of thousands of people, or make a monstrous acquisition. Neither of which appears in the cards from what I can tell.

    • If google was to go the ISP route, then they will most likely buyout current ISP (like AOL, which probably can be had at bargain basement prices in a few years). Somehow, I don't think this is google's plan. If I could distill their main objective, they're around to make the internet more "meaningful"--better search results, better email, heck better social connections (with Orkut). Providing a connection to the internet doesn't appear to fit into this mold--they'll leave it up to others to do. I could be w
    • What can a bunch of geeks do with a lot of fiber, a lot of money, and disruptive technology?

      Google + WiMAX + VoIP = enough technology and brains to stomp any RBOC or cable company.

      The only problem with this is that the WiMAX timeline is far away, and it's unclear how much the end-user antennas will go for. Will users want to install another dish?

      Even if they don't go this route, that dark fiber could be a useful asset down the road. If they can price it well enough, they'll be on the "buy" side of a make
  • I know! (Score:3, Funny)

    by SharpFang (651121) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:41AM (#11386134) Homepage Journal
    Bastards :)
    They want to take over the Internet. :)
    Create a new backbone. Replace InterNIC and all the suits who control the net now.
    Then compete and eliminate most first tier providers, and generally own the global network.
    Best luck, Google! I hope you will succeed!
    • Re:I know! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AlgaeEater (838019) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:45AM (#11386173) Homepage
      Either that or they want to be able to sync their world-wide collection of data-servers in an 'accpetable' length of time.
    • they have a 'don't be evil' motto, we have nothing to worry about until they get new CEOs
      • Hey, they don't have to mean evil! Think of it: Current structures behind the backbone are something from a different era. Like, Before Christ. Getting any progress with them is impossible and the only power to force them to do something are the most evil of corporations. Just think of all that's wrong about the central domain management system. Or "political" issues that make packets routed from one university to another in the same town through a continent on the opposite side of the globe.
        Google would be
    • I for one welcome our new backbone replacing internet overlords!

  • Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tancred (3904) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:42AM (#11386140)
    They've got several (lots of?) datacenters that have to sync up lots of data. Anyone with enough data to transfer around can save money just buying the strands of fiber or wavelengths on lit fiber instead of paying a provider to light it. It's not surprising that Google has enough of this work to do that they want to hire someone with experience in it.
    • Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tristan-jt2 (820528) on Monday January 17 2005, @12:58PM (#11387041) Homepage
      Based on stuff I heard in another life, Google used to get transit contracts with the fastest connection they could get, but the lowest commited rate. The syncs used to take place in the proverbial top 5% of the 95th percentile.

      As in: they used provider A for 36 hours, provider B for the next 36h, provider C for the next 36h, etc... (bear in mind it was not surfer facing transit, just used to sync up the DCs.)

      They've probably reached the level where they've got too much data to get away with that scheme. So they've got a pretty simple choice:
      - Pay for the commited rate they really need.
      - Link the 2 Data Centers with dark fiber lit with 10GigE.

      Based on the over provisionning most fiber companies did when they built their networks, there's a lot of room for negociation when you're shopping for fiber, especially when you can hang the promise of a huge internationnal network in the balance.

      The second option is pretty much guaranted to turn out to be much more affordable.
      • Adding products like Gmail on top of their infrastructure changes the sychronization schedules... e-mail is far more time-sensitive than bulk updates sychronizing their web search index. It could simply be due to a change in their needs.
  • if google were to go into the telecommunications business they could make a killing if they did it properly.

    What i am thinking though, they want to build their own private network which links their many datacenters around the US, so that we can get our search results even faster, or any of the other things like gmail.

    Storing mail in two seperate locations is possible, but it would make for a pain in the ass if it takes to long to sync the changes between the servers in different datacenters to get people
  • Which word is "dark" modifying, "plans" or "fibre"?

    --
    so dark, you'll forget the fibre
  • by grumling (94709) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:49AM (#11386222) Homepage
    I'm getting really tired of all these "experts" talking about the glut of fiber in this country. The press makes it sound like there's dozens of dark fibers just a few inches from your house, and those darn telcos/cable companies just don't want you to have access to them. The reality is that most of the cash cow areas (such as Boston, NYC, LA and the bay area) have over capicity. Most of the rest of the country, where the payback is greater than 5 years, is very underserved.

    And even where there is overcapicity, it is mostly in the urban areas, put in place for business, not single family homes. Good luck getting dark fiber in the 'burbs, let alone the sticks

    • I'm getting really tired of all these "experts" talking about the glut of fiber in this country.

      Well, they are right. There is a glut of fiber.

      The press makes it sound like there's dozens of dark fibers just a few inches from your house, and those darn telcos/cable companies just don't want you to have access to them.

      I've never gotten that impression. Never in the talks about fiber gluts and dark fiber have I heard about it being related to last-mile fiber. It is always about things like this, a c
  • It could just be an option play - the option in the future to improve pae performance by shuttling most traffic through a Google-only backbone.

    I think people may be reading too much into this. They're talking about hiring out a small number of positions. Going from that to wanting their own national fiber network is a huge leap, but I suppose its fun to speculate...

  • than (Score:4, Funny)

    by MarkoNo5 (139955) <MarkovanDooren@3 ... ail.com minus pi> on Monday January 17 2005, @11:56AM (#11386315)
    It is "cheaper than", not "cheaper then". Only on slashdot does a Belgian reader teach English grammar to an American editor.
  • by B5_geek (638928) on Monday January 17 2005, @11:58AM (#11386337)

    Am I the only one who thought of a few laxitive jokes when they read this?

  • by mbpark (43131) <mbpark@nOSPaM.diginexus.com> on Monday January 17 2005, @12:33PM (#11386725) Homepage
    Hello,

    Considering what Google has built internally for server management and redundancy, I would hypothesize based upon available data (i.e. GFS) that they're looking to light up fiber between their data centers, while running either TCP/IP or IPv6 (with modifications of existing IGP and routing protocols, more than likely BGP or OSPF) between them.

    This is a very smart move on their part, if this is true. This would allow them to do their own internal traffic control and shaping over a private network, and develop/modify algorithms for efficient transfer of data over said network, without having to "play" by Telco/ISP rules.

    In other words, they're more than likely building their own global network to more efficiently transfer data over the Internet by completely bypassing it for their inter-server traffic. This is a very smart move, if true.
  • Nice business idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17 2005, @12:39PM (#11386798)
    They're going to create a global super computer. Local servers gives higher performance. What do you think the Google bar is for? Coming versions will ask you if you want to donate your free CPU cycles to Google. Google in turn will sell these to corporations that needs CPU power.
  • Seeking assets (Score:4, Interesting)

    by michael_cain (66650) on Monday January 17 2005, @01:42PM (#11387503) Journal
    One possible explanation is that Google is looking for something to do with their current $55B stock valuation [yahoo.com]. Other than making the founders incredibly wealthy, the high stock price by itself isn't particularly useful to the company. But it can be used as collateral for loans to acquire assets that could be useful both now and in the future. Given the massive storage and computing resources that Google already manages, I suspect that they can manage their own fiber network for very little incremental expense (I'm less sure about the physical care of the fiber -- who fixes your dark fiber when someone cuts it?). As they attempt to provide more and more services, they may simply want more control over the underlying transport.
  • by amichalo (132545) on Monday January 17 2005, @02:47PM (#11388097)
    returned 75 hits [google.com].
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Give him a break, he's only an editor. It's not like he's supposed to know the difference. Oh, wait...