Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Cable-Laying Boom Will Boost Internet Capacity

Posted by timothy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:02 AM
from the well-the-oceans-are-cute dept.
Barence writes "Dozens of new undersea internet cables are set to be laid over the next couple of years, providing a huge boost to worldwide capacity. The huge boom in internet video has led to doomsday scenarios of the internet running out of capacity. Although experts believe that there is abundant amounts of 'dark fibre' lying unused in oceans across the world, major telcos are pushing ahead with projects that will see at least 25 new cables laid by 2010, at a cost of $6.4bn."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived.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.
  • Not another Domesday scenario! I prefer cubes...
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      We don't need another hero. All we want is life beyond the bandwidth dome...

      • Mad parent underrated. Even if you don't think it's funny, it isn't offtopic to joke about a typo in the summary.

        What typos are you talking about, you mad parent?

  • Dark Fibre? (Score:5, Funny)

    by hellfish006 (1000936) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:06AM (#24100415)
    i assume it amounts to 90% of the fibre on earth...
  • by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:08AM (#24100445) Homepage
    They'd better be anchor-proof.
  • Anchors Aweigh!

    • by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Tuesday July 08 2008, @12:13PM (#24102525) Homepage Journal
      "Anchors Aweigh" means that the anchor is free of the bottom.
      Your trusty Quartermaster logs the event, and the ship is legally underway (should paint be traded with another vessel, and a trip to the "Long Green Table" ensue).
      The command (in the US Navy, anyway) is "Let go the anchor", and the bosun trips the pelican hook (usually with a sledge hammer), a deafening roar ensues as the chain comes flying out of the chain locker, and everyone on the fo'c'sle has a religious experience.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:09AM (#24100457)

    The cables are predominantly set to be laid in areas such as Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East, which are currently underserved.

    So, in the Caribbean and Africa? Is the demand for video and other such growing traffic in huge demand there?

    It doesn't seem that it will really increase traffic throughput for the Eu and the US where this traffic has the most potential to grow.

    Am I wrong?

    • With all the spying going on, the less traffic that has to go through the states, the better.

    • by menace3society (768451) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @11:03AM (#24101367)

      You might be wrong. We've already laid a ton of fiber down to serve Asia, North America, Europe. A lot of that is still unused.

      There's not so much fiber serving the Carribbean, the Middle East, and Africa now, but the capacity for demand is growing. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain are using their oil wealth to build whole new cities that will compete, not with industrial cities like Delhi or Beijing, but with New York, London, Silicon Valleyâ"the places where money is made on ideas, not extractive resources or physical products. They are trying to build first-class universities too. They are going to demand top-notch informatics and telecom capabilities, and thanks to your boss's car, they have the cash to get it.

      Africa and the Caribbean are a bit different, but Egypt and South Africa are in good positions to make use of it. Some of the more stable countries (Morocco, Tanzania) could grow into it within a decade, and that's assuming that Lagos and Zimbabwe don't fix themselves up (I wouldn't hold your breath, but if it happened, they'd need fiber to sell oil/food/minerals). I suspect the Caribbean line is intended for Cuba, one the US ends its brain-dead embargo.

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by Corpuscavernosa (996139) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:09AM (#24100459)
    I guess there's not much to say except 1) yay, the internet is not going to reach capacity and 2) now I won't have to worry about going back to magazines for pr0n. Much easier to clear your cache and history than finding a good wife/girlfriend/son proof hiding spot at the house.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What do you need to do that for? Just get your wife/girlfriend to watch it with you. Problem solved. They're just as horny as you are, they just hide it better. And... your son is going to find it no matter where you put it. Trust me.. been there, done that.

  • by heatdeath (217147) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:10AM (#24100475)

    I guess it's early in the morning...

    Sigh. 'editors'.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:11AM (#24100497)
    Anyone else not worried as the Telcoms have been playing the artificial scarcity bit for years?
      • The minute VoIP came out and the Telecoms could not stop it, the price of telephone service dropped in price by an order of magnitude. Maybe you need to clarify your point?
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:11AM (#24100505)
    I don't care about more fiber in the oceans nearly as much as I care about fiber in the last mile to my house. So far living in North America doesn't have me watching BBC streaming videos yet.

    Of course, this does mean that ship anchors are less likely to take down countries than before.
  • by CDMA_Demo (841347) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:13AM (#24100531) Homepage

    Dozens of new undersea internet cables are set to be laid

    Look, even cables get laid

  • by slashname3 (739398) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:13AM (#24100537)
    Who here really things the Internet is going to hit some capacity ceiling? Get over it. It won't happen. Did not happen to USENET back in the day and won't happen now.

    And when will the editors learn to read or at least use a spell checker?
  • Meh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by snarfies (115214) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:13AM (#24100539) Homepage

    Not that laying all this undersea cabling will do anybody any good due to "last mile" crap.

  • I think we've all been through the various domesday scenarios: Biosphere II probably being the most well known. I guess there's not much to say about them except remember to bring some extra oxygen...

  • Dark Fiber (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daryen (1138567) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:15AM (#24100583)
    What is this dark fiber everyone keeps talking about?

    There is a Wikipedia Article [wikipedia.org] about it, and a book [google.com] with the title that seems largely unrelated. We all know there are many rumors about Google Buying It [internetoutsider.com].

    How much is there though? What kind of fiber is it? MMF [wikipedia.org] or SMF? [wikipedia.org] Also, if this fiber has been unused for years, it would have to be tested to make sure it doesn't have any major breaks in the lines.

    Depending on the type, location, amount, and condition of this fiber it could be a major asset... or not. I haven't been able to find any detailed information about it, I'm sure some of our Slashdot crowd working in networking must have a better idea than I?

    • Re:Dark Fiber (Score:4, Informative)

      by prelelat (201821) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:21AM (#24100679)

      Dark fiber is fiber optic that is unused. Fiber optic has light going through it. Unused it has no light going through it. No light means it's dark.

      So what they are talking about is lots of fiber optic line that is not being used for one reason or another(some have redundent lines that are used only if there is a break or other pointless reasons). I hope that helps.

      • Re:Dark Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RulerOf (975607) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @11:30AM (#24101799)

        So what they are talking about is lots of fiber optic line that is not being used for one reason or another

        The majority of dark fiber is owned by the Tier 1 ISP's, specifically, Level3. The fiber was laid by small independants during the .com bubble, and as those companies folded, telecoms bought it up for pennies on the dollar.

        They bought the fiber explicitly for the purpose of preventing competition from springing up, and, god forbid, offering broadband at a reasonable price. Now, they keep it dark so they can claim that their network capacity is near its limit and justify the incredibly draconian policy they have toward network growth.

      • No light means it's dark.

        But that's only half the story.

        Because it's dark (dark is heavier than light, which is why it gets darker the deeper you go into the oceans), the cable sinks to the bottom. If the cables were full of light, they'd float to the top of the ocean where pirates could steal the bandwidth and possibly spread spam or even malware worldwide.

        The trick, of course is ensuring that "undersea cables" remain so. For that, anchors are used. They're sort of like firewall anchors, but bigger and

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Well you could use those lines and if one line goes down you could still route those people over to the other line. This routing would only decrease the bandwidth to what it is currently used while having both operational would increase bandwidth. So yeah it is kind of pointless it use that redundant line only in the instance of a break.

          Also if you aren't actively monitoring that line you could have a break in your active one and have no backup. That way you would know when there was a break reroute traf

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Much of the dark fiber out there is in the form of unused strands in cable bundles.
      When a fiber line is run nobody runs a single pair of fiber stands, they run a cable with dozens to hundreds of strands in it.

      They then light one or two pairs with gear running at anything from 1 to 40 Gb/s

      The results is that there are many-many inter-city cables with 72 fiber strands each of which could carry (with dwdm harware) 160 x 40Gb/s channels but are only being used for a single 10Gb/s link.

      So a typical fiber cable h

  • by Illbay (700081) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @10:22AM (#24100703) Journal
    ...are less about "undersea fiber-optic cable" availability, as far as I'm concerned, and much more about packet-throttling by the local ISP.
  • The extra interlinks will also relieve bottlenecks elsewhere. Since most Internet bandwidth now goes through the US, other links offloading from the segments tying the US together will also increase the spare capacity of those relieved internal links.

    The telcos are going to have to lie a lot harder to pretend that there's not enough US bandwidth to retain Network Neutrality, and instead start the Net Doublecharge on bandwidth already paid for at the other ends.

  • You'd be surprised what a few dozen Mb/sec sustained can do to some of these countries in the middle of nowhere. Nevermind if there's an undersea cable break.

    This can't happen soon enough.
  • DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)

    This is not really a breakthrough.

    we've known this for years. And, the telcos and network owners keep telling us that bandwidth is scarce. It's not scarce. It's an infinitely scalable resource.

    lay more fiber add more routers, it gives you more bandwidth.

    They don't really want to pay for it. At this point, telcos and network owners are literally prohibiting progress on the Internet.

  • Oh please (Score:4, Interesting)

    by John Sokol (109591) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @11:41AM (#24101981) Homepage Journal

    I have been hearing this for year,
      but sorry there really is NO "doomsday scenarios of the internet running out of capacity" from video! I am really getting sick of hearing this.

    Digital video is all or nothing, meaning it will play or it will not play. If you can't get enough bandwidth you net nothing! It's not like analog TV where the signal just gets degraded a bit but you can still watch it, on the net you just can't get it to play at all.

    If it doesn't play most people will give up, get board and go away, back to there TV's or what ever they do and so the Internet doesn't die.

    It self regulates where just a certain percentage of video is too crappy to play and people give up, and some start ups can't make their cheap crappy ISP's work and go bust.

    It's not like everyone will just keep trying to use the video even when it's not working for them.
    They will back off.

    So far youtube hasn't brought down the Internet.

    There are also many architectures that allow a company like youtube to bypass much of the backbones and so they will also not effect the performance of the Internet as much as you might think. I was calling this distributed servers, now called content distribution networks, but basically, you don't put up one massive server in one place but many server as close to the views as possible minimizing the distance the video packets must travel. Thereby using a little of the Internet as possible. So even QoS and these
    cable-laying booms really aren't going to make any difference with video since most video doesn't go over International cables and can't use QoS unless your some large corporation paying for QoS on your H.323 Video Conferencing System.

    In the end, any crying "doomsday scenarios" is like crying the sky is falling, they are just trying to grab headlines and should be treated like the idiots they are.

    John L. Sokol
    www.videotechnology.com

  • Numbers don't add up (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Beefpatrol (1080553) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @12:16PM (#24102573)

    I used to work for a company that was attempting to manufacture fiber-based AWG (Arrayed Waveguide Grating) devices back in about 2000. At that time, the fraction of fiber in the ground that was dark was thought to be about 99%. The devices we were testing were capable of multiplexing 16 channels together on to one fiber. The standard speed for a fiber link over single mode fiber is 2.5 Gbit/s, and a fiber link requires a pair of fibers, (for bi-directional traffic.. I suppose if you only wanted to send data one way, you could use a single one.) At that time, there were multiple competitors that had 40 channel devices based on some different technologies. When I stopped paying attention to what was available, 160 channel devices were being talked about and 80 channel devices were on the market. The cost of one of these AWGs was about $20k, (to buy as a customer, not the cost of production), and they have since come down in price by a large amount. You would need one on each end of the fiber. If we assume that 80 channel devices are available, and 1% of the fiber in the ground (the portion that was used) was 1 pair, then there were at least 8000 2.5 Gbit/s channels available in whatever segment of the network contained "99% dark fiber".

    I haven't been able, in the last few minutes, to find stats on current backbone traffic levels, but I seriously doubt that the amount of potential long-haul fiber capacity is the reason for laying these cables. The only valid reasons I can see are that the existing ones are owned/controlled by entities that aren't cooperating or utilizing their cables very well or that redundancy is desired. The article states that Google is planning on running a cable from the US to Japan. I have to assume that this is more because the owners of existing cables are not cooperating. This might be the start of investment in a highly fractured network which does not have the redundancy that the internet was originally designed to provide.

  • by edremy (36408) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @12:34PM (#24102837)
    See the Pipe International blog [pipeinternational.com] about the cable they are laying between Australia and Guam. There's tons of detail in here for any sort of geek- stuff on the ships, sonar and mapping of the seabed, how modern cables amplify signals, details on the buildings that house both ends and tons more.

    One of the oddest blogs out there, but strangely compelling.

  • by peter303 (12292) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @01:30PM (#24103663)
    Early this year Pakistan, Iran and parts of the mid-east lost international broadband when one or more undrseas cables were cut. It was unclear weather it was a natural disaster, saboage or industrial accident. Of course, many countries blamed their historic enemies for the alleged sabotage including the world's favorite Devil- the USA.

    More fiber means more redundancy. But there are still vulnerable chokepoints.
  • by the_olo (160789) on Tuesday July 08 2008, @02:19PM (#24104423) Homepage

    It would be interesting to know, how much extra length the oceanic floor cables get in order to account for plate tectonics [wikipedia.org] (more specifically for divergent boundaries, like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge or East Pacific Rise?

    Of course, the typical speed of plate movement being no more than 10 cm / year, I expect an answer to be in the order of thousands of years...