Meta Plans $10 Billion Global 'Mother of All' Subsea Cables 29
Meta plans to build a $10 billion private, "mother of all" undersea fiber-optic cable network spanning over 40,000 kilometers around the world, according to TechCrunch. The project, dubbed "W" for its shape, would run from the U.S. east coast to the west coast via India, South Africa and Australia, avoiding regions prone to cable sabotage including the Red Sea and South China Sea.
The social media giant, which co-owns 16 existing cable networks, aims to gain full control over traffic prioritization for its services. The project mirrors Google's strategy of private cable ownership. The construction could take 5-10 years to complete.
The social media giant, which co-owns 16 existing cable networks, aims to gain full control over traffic prioritization for its services. The project mirrors Google's strategy of private cable ownership. The construction could take 5-10 years to complete.
Put it in space instead (Score:2)
During cloud cover use cloud penetrating radio frequencies for uplink and select geographically diverse low cloud coverage ground stations. Satellite to satellite communications are faster (light travels 30% faster in vacuum or even air than glass) and higher bandwidth than any fiber optic cable.
It's the latency (Score:2)
> Satellite to satellite communications[sic] are[sic] faster
The drawback to a space network is the groundsat (x2) RTT latency. The same physics limits that and the distances are vast. That's why undersea and terrestrial networks (regardless of layer-1 media) are preferred.
Why is latency important? It sucks to watch the TV News anchor person call on a live remote person who is just standing there (sometimes nodding) for over a second before they reply. It's not usable for VoIP, Zoom, WebEx, Teams, etc
Re: (Score:2)
There's more latency in fiber optic than LEO satellites. I'm talking about satellites that are in orbit at 250 mile altitude. Light travels 30% faster in space than in a vacuum .. not to mention all the extra distance a cable has to follow due to land topography. If a cable is a mere 2000 miles long (Europe to USA is about 3500 miles, FYI .. Japan to USA is 5500 miles) .. that would have more latency than a satellite link.
Re: (Score:2)
*Light travels 30% faster in a vacuum than in glass
Re: (Score:3)
*Light travels 30% faster in a vacuum than in glass
Now tell us how bandwidth is better in space than in fiber. If you know this to be true, let me know, because dealing with free space bandwidth is my job., and I'd love to know why I'm wrong.
In my world, latency means something. But it is pretty important to not have a clogged spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
> Satellite to satellite communications[sic] are[sic] faster
The drawback to a space network is the groundsat (x2) RTT latency. The same physics limits that and the distances are vast. That's why undersea and terrestrial networks (regardless of layer-1 media) are preferred.
Why is latency important? It sucks to watch the TV News anchor person call on a live remote person who is just standing there (sometimes nodding) for over a second before they reply. It's not usable for VoIP, Zoom, WebEx, Teams, etc. You can't play multiplayer action games on it. It's only good for one way transfers like web browsing, video watching, and downloading whatever someone will sue you for downloading.
Don't forget that if you put the worlds internet in space, you are committed to a never ending cycle of launching satellites to replace the other satellites that you launched before. If something like a kessel Event happens - and since everyone thinks that satellite internet is utter perfection, it simply will happen.
Re: It's the latency (Score:1)
Cable vs Satellite (Score:3)
Satellite to satellite communications are faster ...and higher bandwidth than any fiber optic cable.
Speed-wise yes, latency-wise unlikely because the distance is further you have hundred to a thousand or two of extra kilometres to and from orbit depending on the location of the satellite plus added distance bouncing between satellites whose positions shift as they orbit. Also satellite bandwidth is tiny compared to undersea cables. Also the estimates I have seen for the full-size V2 starlink satellites is around 100Gbps per satellite compared to ~10+ Tbps for modern undersea cables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You only have to be able to multiplex over 100 of those thousands of satellites to reach ~10 Tbps.
You are nothing thinking this through properly. You need 100 parallel routes between A and B on the ground, not just 100 satellites. You will need 100 satellites accessible at point A to handle the upload, then 100 parallel transmission routes between satellites to reach point B and then 100 satellites in reach of the groundstation to download back to the surface. That's going to be thousands of satellites in total with hugely complex upload and download stations to ensure that they can always reach 100 sa
Re: (Score:2)
Also satellite bandwidth is tiny compared to undersea cables. Also the estimates I have seen for the full-size V2 starlink satellites is around 100Gbps per satellite compared to ~10+ Tbps for modern undersea cables.
Read that people, because this guy gets it. I'm not certain where the other poster got the idea that the band the satellite oprates in has more bandwidth than fiber, but a fiber system has whatever bandwidth that you want. Need more BW? Add more fibre channels.
And yes the basic speed of fiber will always be greater than satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
During cloud cover use cloud penetrating radio frequencies for uplink and select geographically diverse low cloud coverage ground stations. Satellite to satellite communications are faster (light travels 30% faster in vacuum or even air than glass) and higher bandwidth than any fiber optic cable.
On the other hand, you have more distance, both because of the distance up to the satellite and back down and because the signal has to go farther when you're higher up, which cancels out a lot of that benefit.
The planet has a radius of about 6,378 km. So a fiber line halfway around the world would be about 20,000 km long. Starlink is at about 550 km of altitude, so a Starlink path around the world would be 1100 km up and down plus 21765 km, for a total of 22865 km. So almost half of that speed differenc
One Chinese Anchor (Score:2)
All it takes is one Chinese ship with an errant anchor and that's done.
There are hundres of undersea cables a year, and many ships capable of repairing normal cables.
Make a monster cable requiring hundres or thousands of splices... good luck with getting that there by end of business today.
E
Re:One Chinese Anchor (Score:5, Funny)
I'm OK with Meta doing stupidly wasteful things that could hurt its viability.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm OK with Meta doing stupidly wasteful things that could hurt its viability.
If you’re a taxpayer you should.
They can only afford to do stupid wasteful things by buying and abusing every tax loophole they can. Maybe we stop funneling every mega-corps tax liability through Ireland first. Start squeezing them for real taxes.
Then we’ll see how many private global networks get laid.
Re: One Chinese Anchor (Score:2)
âoeHey, every network with tax loopholes is gonna get laid!â
-Rodney Googlefield
Re: (Score:2)
I'm OK with Meta doing stupidly wasteful things that could hurt its viability.
Unfortunately this is not that. They can pay for this cable in 2 months. With cash! And net profit all that while still blowing lots of money on the Metaverse.
The thing about big numbers is they are used by companies who typically deal in even bigger numbers. You may thing $10bn hurts Meta's viability, but that's only because you don't realise they clock in $15-25bn in quarterly profit, every quarter. And that off the back of like $40bn in revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems highly vulnerable to a single malevolent act.
Poor strategy in an increasingly hostile world.
But think of the jobs it would create!!
I doubt it's that many, but someone always has to say that to get you to forget how stupid the original idea is.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is one Chinese ship with an errant anchor and that's done.
There are hundres of undersea cables a year, and many ships capable of repairing normal cables. Make a monster cable requiring hundreds or thousands of splices... good luck with getting that there by end of business today.
E
All it takes to completely destroy the entire starlink ecosystem is a rocket with a bag of sand or ball bearings. Launch to retrograde, in the same orbital shell and deploy. Satellites all go bye-bye. Any country with a space program and launch to orbit capability
Now Russia and China probably wont do that - Mutually assured destruction. But rogue actors like North Korea or Iran will be able to silence StarLink
How about rolling to rural areas instead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No good having a big fat fiber in the ocean when all people can get on land are rotting DSL or patchy 2G/3G wireless signals.
The guy from North Korea just checked in.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point? What value is there in Meta expanding their data collection to a bunch of hillbillies for whom we all already know the full genetic makeup?
Great! (Score:2)
Now we'll all be stuck with the Meta[stasize] Net. Joy.
Seems weird (Score:2)
The article and summary talk a lot about owning their own bandwidth and avoiding conflict areas, but avoiding conflict areas also means you don't connect those areas. So Facebook will get to talk to South Africa, parts of India and northern Australia for cheap. Except for maybe India these aren't exactly the world's hubs of bandwidth demand, and why go all the way around? Unless the actual purpose is to connect the US east and west coasts. Is it really cheaper to go all the way around the world than across
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it were, it would cost much less to go from Alaska down the west coast to Panama, across there, and then up the east cost to Montreal. So that can't be their reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
So I can't just sail a hundred or a thousand kilometers further
However, In favour of blowing up the cable, not much will be lost... it's Facebook traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Things get a lot harder if they're a) deep and b) far away.
Houthi rebels aren't going to be going to the middle of the Indian Ocean or diving a thousand metres down and cutting a cable. China, Russia or the US could, but it would be much more of an operation than just slipping the captain of a freighter a suitcase of cash to "accidentally" drag its anchor while transiting the Baltic Sea.
Is it russia and China proof? (Score:2)
Given the recent and former events of cable breaking via dragging and stretching them by dropping their anchor in European waters, why don't Meta and actual telcos crowdfund a couple hundred billions to finance Ukraine beating russia into a normal, hopefully broken up set of countries?