Google Is Backing a New $300 Million High-Speed Internet Trans-Pacific Cable

An anonymous reader writes Google has announced it is backing plans to build and operate a new high-speed internet Trans-Pacific cable system called "FASTER." In addition to Google, the $300 million project will be jointly managed by China Mobile International, China Telecom Global, Global Transit, KDDI, and SingTel, with NEC as the system supplier. FASTER will feature the latest high-quality 6-fiber-pair cable and optical transmission technologies. The initial design capacity is expected to be 60Tb/s (100Gb/s x 100 wavelengths x 6 fiber-pairs), connecting the US with two locations in Japan.

Only 6 pairs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think that since the sheathing probably costs more than the fiber, and the labor/paperwork/engineering involved in laying it probably dwarfs the equipment cost, they'd put in a lot more than 6 pair.

So which agencies' backdoors are in there?

[ron_ivi]

Google ... China Telecom Global ... KDDI ... SingTel

Does that suggest at least 4 countries with NSA-like taps into the data.

Re:Hmmm

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'd rather Google come in and bust the telecom monopoly in my home town where I have a choice between Verizon FiOS and Comcast Xfinity ... if you want to call that a choice. The lesser of the evils is Verizon FiOS. At least the FiOS is truly fiber optic!

That sounds great, but what happens when Google obtains monopoly status in your area?

Re:Only 6 pairs?

[hackertourist]

For each fiber, you need an amplifier every 50 (?) km. You may run into a weight limit where the amplifier pack becomes too heavy to be suspended by the cable during cable laying.

Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there?

[timeOday]

I will admit what triggered suspicion - I forgot to bring a birth certificate for my 15-year-old son, and my wife wasn't with us. I don't see what a photocopied birth certificate proves (with regard to either kidnapping or smuggling contraband on my motorcycle) - but either way it was made abundantly clear to me that "privacy" is not a relevant concept at an international checkpoint. In fact the Canadian agent even claimed I shouldn't be taking him between US states without documentation, since I had no way to prove I had "permission", which really made my head spin.