Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the greased-lightning dept.

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.

135 comments

  1. Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can they make it NSA tamper proof?

    1. Re:Big Challenge by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope.

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    2. Re:Big Challenge by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      The Chinese will be able to hack us 100 times faster.

    3. Re:Big Challenge by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure if I'd rather have the NSA spying on my or China trying to steal my intellectual property.

      I don't believe this is an either/or situation.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You mean "copy." And "intellectual property" is just a vague propaganda term designed to lump a bunch of concepts that are only somewhat similar together so as to confuse people and make them believe that it's related to real property.

    5. Re:Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt that you're worth spying on. I also doubt if you own any intellectual property of any value.

      People here tend to think they're much more important and interesting than they actually are.

    6. Re:Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kids these days with your crazy ideas. What made you think Google isn't actually a front for the NSA?

    7. Re:Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe people here wisely understand that being interesting is the biggest risk you can take.

    8. Re: Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly for you my name is Mark Zuckerberg and you already signed your intellectual property over to my company. Muchas gracias.

    9. Re:Big Challenge by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I'd rather have the NSA spying on my or China trying to steal my intellectual property.

      I don't believe this is an either/or situation.

      And if you're not sure what that means, Google "double penetration"... but maybe not at work.
      Then again, with Google in the mix it will be "triple penetration"...
      bottom line is everyone will have your data and you will be screwed, like now but faster!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    10. Re:Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA ? How about making it Chinese proof? It's not a secret that china loves to spy on everybody as well, they even go as far as installing chips in coffee maker and what not, so this being managed by chinese company doesn't reassure me in the least.

    11. Re:Big Challenge by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I believe they have accepted the "if you want the cable to be able to actually connect to anything in the US, you need to let us splice this box into the cable" proposition by the NSA.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re:Big Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. Realistically its an AND situation.

  2. Finally some Asian LPBs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like we've reached the point where Google is actively looking for things to blow their multi-billion dollar cash hoard on. They could do worse than laying cable.

    1. Re:Finally some Asian LPBs by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Funny

      they can do worse than making us a nice fat pipe for quality anime and JAV

    2. Re:Finally some Asian LPBs by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      I can't argue against faster-loading pregnant furry futanari tentacle porn.

      Did I miss any fetishes?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    3. Re:Finally some Asian LPBs by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes this weird niche one where there are women having sex.

    4. Re: Finally some Asian LPBs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > yes this weird niche one where there are women having sex.

      Gross.

    5. Re: Finally some Asian LPBs by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you think that's weird, they even have bizarre specially named sub-genre of that kind where material is deposited in the women's tract at conclusion of sexual activities by the male.

    6. Re:Finally some Asian LPBs by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Yes, A LOT. I'm not sure of the rule number, but the minute you think you've listed all fetishes you didn't actually get them all.

      Loli, Vore, TS, transformation, gassy, and on and on and on.

    7. Re:Finally some Asian LPBs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory XKCD: Fetishes (Gödel's incompleteness theorems)

      CAPTCHA: "punishes"

  3. Slight problem by Andurian · · Score: 5, Funny

    60Tb/s is fine for me, but what about the other people who want to use it?

    1. Re:Slight problem by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      You'll have to share with the others, otherwise you won't get any dessert.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:Slight problem by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      You can have it, but with your download limit of 250GB, you will be throttled after 0.004 seconds.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    3. Re:Slight problem by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      My first thought too. We have two 100 GB/s pipes within a block of me, and lots of 40 GB/s pipes spread throughout campus, so (does math) ...

      If we do some high def surgical research and genome swaps with collaborators in Japan, S Korea, and China this might fill up fast.

      And that's just this campus.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Slight problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60Tbps = 7.5TBps. 250GB / 7500GBps = 33ms to throttle (modulo the fact that actual data throughput will not reach 60Tbps).

    5. Re:Slight problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had an opportunity early last year to have a 10Gbps pipe, from my desktop workstation, to the Internet.

      Conclusion? MEH. Except for bulk data transfers, nothing outside the university's LAN has a low enough ping to make it meaningful. And even for bulk transfers... anyone whose server has a 10Gbps pipe who's not brain damaged is going to rate-limit it exactly because otherwise it would take one other guy with a 10G pipe to clog the whole thing.

      It _was_ really impressive that I could upload a 4GB iso of the latest TAU livedvd in under ten seconds. It'll also be nice when we get the new displaywall set up and I want to talk to ParaView on it. But on anyone's desktop? Pointless. There's maybe 1% of what I or anyone else does on a desktop where a lowly 1Gbps pipe isn't overkill.

  4. My tax dollars at work. by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Or at least I assume so, given how much this would benefit the NSA.

  5. Send your data to the CCP faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that they haven't already tapped all the pipes in the ocean, but isn't Google a little worried about giving the Chinese direct access to all trans-Pacific data?

    1. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Why are you so confident they don't already have it?

      Between spies infiltrating endpoints and fiber-tapping subs (If the US has one, which they do, China almost certainly does too), it's best to assume all data is or can be captured in transit and focus on end-to-end encryption.

    2. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is it even worth it for governments to tap undersea cables? It is easy to negate the attack using end-to-end encryption. The sub also has to have the capability to record and store terabytes worth of information a second. I don't know of any recording device capable of that.

      CATCHA: intent

    3. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      So is it even worth it for governments to tap undersea cables? It is easy to negate the attack using end-to-end encryption. The sub also has to have the capability to record and store terabytes worth of information a second. I don't know of any recording device capable of that.

      CATCHA: intent

      Actually, all the sub has to be able to do is take the data and feed it back into the fiber with different destination addresses. Which means that the sub doesn't even have to stick around after pulling off the intercept. This DOES mean that the next group to intercept the data gets to see a whole bunch of encrypted (or not) data flowing to a mystery address, however.

    4. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yeah, break into an optical network timed to the nanosecond without triggering any alarms? They (THE "they") can't even snoop a line without the operators finding out. A 2dB loss in power for a tap would be obvious. Well, unless they set up a machine that bent the fiber at 2 degrees per day, for 90 days. Most of the non-destructive ("hidden" or "secret" taps) pick up light leakage. But a 2-3 dB drop from a sudden bend for the tap, and the monitoring systems will set off alarms. Some can even locate the bend from dispersion and reflections (designed to find breaks, but sensitive enough to find the bends of a non-destructive tap). But bend it slowly over many days, and the "damage" will look like a problem with the line, perhaps a water incursion. Likely, before you start setting off power loss alarms, they'll re-set the alarm thresholds. Best if you had someone on the inside to report the actions in relation to the slow power loss. But blindly bending it over a 90 day period would likely get you a tap with nobody realizing it was a tap. But tap it in 10 seconds, and they'll have a "non-destructive tap alarm" go off. No really, some equipment has that built in.

      But a destructive tap, like the parent suggests, will never go unnoticed.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    5. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what I'm talking about here, but could the tap be applied while they're still laying the cable? I mean, at some point a ship with a coil of cable sets off from the US, unreeling the cable as it goes. Once it's a couple of kilometers away, the NSA sends in the sub and applies the tap before the ship's even got over the horizon. Presumably that'd work, wouldn't it? Or do they have the cable lit with some sort of test data while they're laying it?

    6. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      That was one of the thoughts I had; the other was: the actual cable would be crazy to tap, but they don't have to. Instead of tapping all of the fiber strands sheathed in the power cable, why not just dip in at the boost point? You get a momentary power fluctuation which affects the entire service, and then everything goes back online -- with the booster replaced by a destructive intercept. To the remote telemetry, it reads like a temporary boost anomaly, when really it's an intercept.

      You don't need to be undetectable when you can provide some sort of reason for the anomaly (anchor a large boat in the region for example). You just need to be explainable as something less nefarious.

      Or, since you've got the theoretical sub, you could just slowly bend the cable over 90 days as the gp said; but then you'd need to have some sort of transmitter to attach or have a huge local storage system on the sub.

      Including the junction point during the cable lay makes much more sense.

    7. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why tap the middle of the cable when you can tap the head end?

    8. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what I'm talking about here, but could the tap be applied while they're still laying the cable?

      In practice, the tap would go in without a problem, but the diagnostics at either end would detect a problem with the cable and give an approximate location Then it's up to the operator whether they want to accept a known damaged cable, or pay to investigate the "damage" before going live. It's possible they'd look for a rebate from the cable manufacturer, and just light it up. But I've not seen anything indicating any cable was "lightly damaged" and put into service. The liklihood that "damage" would get worse and lead to failure would be too high.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    9. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Add that to conspiracy theories, and the cable cuts in the middle east were not from sloppy sailors, but US agents cutting the cable so a tap could be installed elsewhere undetected.

      Because if you do actually cut the cable (with a boat anchor, near shore), then you can do whatever you want with it in the middle and nobody would notice.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    10. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hence why it's all theoretical.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re:Send your data to the CCP faster? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      This is the direction I was going, but I'm not sure it's actually true -- the other end of the cable will still have access to all telemetry in the boosters and sheathe right up to the booster prior to the cut, won't it? Anyone with more experience with these cables willing to weigh in here?

  6. Beta? by RussR42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The cable will never leave beta and then be discontinued in a year.

    1. Re:Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cable will never leave beta and then be discontinued in a year.

      You mean like Gmail?

    2. Re:Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cable will never leave beta and then be discontinued in a year.

      Yup. Just like gmail.

    3. Re:Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cable was probably coiled up on that barge they just sold.

  7. Only 6 pairs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      each fiber has amplifiers every so far to keep the signal above the noise floor

    2. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Rashdot · · Score: 2

      The other 660 pairs are for the NSA.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    3. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Shatrat · · Score: 4, Informative

      The limitation is in the amplifier equipment in the festoons on the ocean floor. In terrestrial cables we don't have that limitation and you'll frequently see 288 count cables on long-haul routes and 48 count cables going through neighborhoods and subdivisions.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Only 6 pairs? by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      That doesn't even make sense.

    6. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      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.

      And those amplifiers require power, which is hard to transmit over a cable at those distances. (Well maybe not "hard", but the length imposes practical limits.)

    7. Re:Only 6 pairs? by baka_toroi · · Score: 0

      I think those amplifiers are passive, but don't quote me on that.

    8. Re:Only 6 pairs? by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Informative

      They use optical amplifiers. The signal stays in optical form, and is guided through a special section of fiber. A laser pumps energy into that fiber section, some of that energy ends up amplifying the signal. So it still needs power to drive the laser.

    9. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically 70-150km depending on the equipment.

      http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-33/issue-8/world-news/optical-amplifiers-speed-data-flow-undersea.html

    10. Re:Only 6 pairs? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Delivered through a system as practical as it is insane-sounding: There's one power cable, doubling as an armor layer. The station at one end drives it +lotsofvolts relative to ground, the other drives it -lotsofvolts. All those amplifiers are hooked up in series.

    11. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But NSA

    12. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Rashdot · · Score: 2

      Does a total of 666 make sense?

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    13. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it :(

    14. Re:Only 6 pairs? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Wow...biblical numerology is hilarious.

    15. Re:Only 6 pairs? by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

      It will be a Revelation to you once you comprehend its significance.

  8. Isn't this pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that there was plenty of undersea cable that's under-utilized or sitting dark.

    Don't we keep inventing new ways to send orders of magnitude more data through the same old fibers? Isn't this the reason of the original WorldCom market collapse? Isn't this still the case, and there is tons of dark fiber and bandwidth available?

    I doubt this makes any economic sense, so I'm just suspicious that Google just wants to own and snoop more traffic.

    1. Re: Isn't this pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those were 1Gb/s, these are 100Gbs with 100 WDM. Suitable for linking data centers, not just offices

    2. Re: Isn't this pointless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They were originally 1Gb/s, but aren't they potentially much faster now? There have been improvements in fiber transceivers, and that's what I'm talking about. Old 1G links are now 40G. Looking for references....

    3. Re: Isn't this pointless? by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Transoceanic cables have repeaters positioned along their length. They can't be upgraded to newer tech without help from the US Navy.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re: Isn't this pointless? by Shatrat · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, because those submarine cables also include the amplifiers/regenerators spaced out across the ocean floor which aren't compatible with the slick new coherent optics. Most of the old ones are hardwired to regenerate Sonet framed signals.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re: Isn't this pointless? by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      So really, it's cheaper to lay new than to upgrade existing.

      --
      signature is pants
  9. So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by ron_ivi · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

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

    1. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I guess. It's like pointing out that overseas freight might be opened by Customs - which is to say, yeah, it might. I practically got a proctological exam just crossing over into Canada this summer. What is more secretive and nefarious is the tapping of a line between 2 nations (or within one nation) by a third party.

    2. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by TheDarkener · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does it really matter at this point how information traverses the Internet? It is a PUBLIC network. Do yourself a favor and encrypt all your traffic and you won't have to worry about which route your data takes to get to its destination. Doing it any other way is just not going to cut it these days.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      "I practically got a proctological exam just crossing over into Canada this summer"

      That's probably because of the guns. Too many Americans "forget" they have a Desert Eagle in the glove box, even after the customs guy asks them 3 times.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    4. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that simple. If you want both privacy of the communication and content. One without the other isn't good enough in many cases. Unfortunately the issue is more along the lines of privacy of the communication rather than the communications themselves which is at issue here. We need significantly more research and hackers working on projects like Tor (and even stronger really, Tor is low latency, and not the best possible solution at privacy).

    5. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Probably, but anyone who cares, such as google, should be assuming that is happening and using wire-speed encryption hardware on both ends. Even without collusion, it's not that hard to sneak a 90/10 tap into an optical signal at a NAP and take a peek.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I practically got a proctological exam just crossing over into Canada this summer.

      Free medical checkups are one good reason to live in Canada.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    7. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by ledow · · Score: 2

      A fact that even Google, Facebook, etc. are learning, as they start to encrypt ALL traffic between their datacentres and not just rely on the promise of privacy from governments / ISPs.

      This is the natural evolution of the Internet, prompted by such spying and interceptions - being used for nothing more than transporting encrypted packets whose payload cannot be determined to any significant degree. The Internet is fast becoming a darknet of its own.

      I know that, for years, I haven't accepted unencrypted communication for FTP, telnet etc. and now it's progressed to the point where Google are pushing people towards using TLS, etc.

      Even my SMTP server lets you talk TLS to it if you try. Not everyone who emails me tries, of course, but it will let you do it so my "end" is secure.

      I find it ironic that all the wiretapping etc. controversy has achieved is to make it even HARDER to spy on people.

      But I have to say, I'm still wary of EC at the moment - being pushed as "the" alternative for a variety of problems such as PFS, etc. - I can't help wondering that while we're looking for the next "trick", it's already been done to us.

    8. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Lanboy · · Score: 1

      Not really. It is the internet, consider it pre-tapped. USA capture on the edge in LAX (Thanks AT&T) , China captures on the GFoC. Doubt Japanese government or Singapore does much of their own taps.

      In any case, who wants to support a tap a 5000 feet down?

    10. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by wanax · · Score: 1

      Many years ago, when I was 6 or 7, my grandparents drove me up to Prince Edward Island for a vacation. Getting through the border into Canada took about 45 minutes, with my grandparents getting grilled and the agents asking me about a dozen times whether I wanted to be with them and whether my parents knew where I was etc etc.. Getting back into the US took about 2 minutes. It seems like it's a Canadian neurosis.

    11. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I've been pushing (In the most annoying of manners) for my regular contacts to set up Retroshare as a secure IM program.

    12. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean taking a young child back into the the country where he lives was easier than taking the same child out of the country? Yep, sure boggles the mind.

    13. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/268/kw/minors%20leaving%20the%20us/related/1

      "While CBP may not ask to see this documentation, if we do ask, and you do not have it, you may be detained until the circumstances of the child traveling without both parents can be fully assessed. If there is no second parent with legal claims to the child (deceased, sole custody, etc.) any other relevant paperwork, such as a court decision, birth certificate naming only one parent, death certificate, etc., would be useful."

      "Adults traveling with children should also be aware that, while the U.S. does not require this documentation, many other countries do; failure to produce notarized permission letters and/or birth certificates could result in travelers being refused entry (Canada has very strict requirements in this regard)."

      Canada, on the other hand, says that they don't require the documentation, however many other countries do...

    14. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Non-custodial kidnapping is the most common kind of kidnapping. Something like 99.99999% of all the kids on milk boxes are custodial kidnappings. But Christ, you're his Dad and he's 15, they could have asked him.

      The world's gotten a bit insane.

    15. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Even my SMTP server lets you talk TLS to it if you try. Not everyone who emails me tries, of course, but it will let you do it so my "end" is secure.

      I just checked our server logs for the last month. Out of the connections, less then 4-5% negotiated TLS.

      Now, granted, about 90% of those connections were probably spam, so maybe as much as half of legitimate mail servers now negotiate TLS.

      (Anyone got better data? I didn't feel like trying to figure out whether a particular connection was or was not a spam connection.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    16. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I travel through the border fairly often. Getting back in to Canada (where I live) takes only a minute or two forgetting the line up, getting into the US can be anywhere from minutes to hours. I think the point is that it takes longer to get into a country in which are not a citizen than one you are.

    17. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a high rate of Americans kidnapping their child and fleeing to Canada/Mexico. It's cheaper to stop it at the border than go through lengthy extradition processes.

    18. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by ledow · · Score: 1

      https://usikkert.no/blog/the-s...

      is a start.

      I'm sure there are better around.

      You can test particular domain mail servers here:

      https://starttls.info/

    19. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There is a high rate of Americans kidnapping their child

      It's impossible to kidnap your kid, they are kidnapping their ex's kid, who they might share genetic code with.

      What's funny is that when I left the US, the three of us had three different surnames on our passport, and nobody said a thing. We had all the extra paperwork to prove who the 3 year old belonged to, but nobody cared. Flew from Hawaii to Fiji, no questions asked. I guess one parent with a kid is suspicions, a married-looking couple with a kid can go wherever, even if not married and the kid isn't theirs (not the case for us, but for all anyone knew, it was).

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    20. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by GNU(slash)Nickname · · Score: 1

      It seems like it's a Canadian neurosis.

      Nope. The process for entering the US from Canada without proper documentation for a minor is just as rigorous.

    21. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by wanax · · Score: 1

      I made at least 25 border crossings (mostly foreign-foreign) while a minor and not under the care of my parents or with a cousin who was not under the care of their parents (including a solo one to Mexico to meet up with some family friends when I was 10, although IIRC that was pretty paperwork heavy with the airline)... Canada was the only time there was any trouble.

    22. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by wanax · · Score: 1

      We had proper documentation (notarized permission letter, notarized copy of my birth certificate, passport)... The reason I say it's a Canadian neurosis (albeit semi-seriously) is that I made many other (25 or so) border crossings as a minor without parental accompaniment (many more with one parent), and never had an issue anywhere else (including Mexico, France, Italy, England, Austria, US, Switzerland, Cayman Islands).

    23. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, when I worked at Yahoo (several years ago), we had to encrypt all traffic between data centres - regardless of if it was a VPN or leased-line connection. It was always done by the two machines at either end of the comms (so stunnel, SSH etc were common tunnelling tools) - I always wondered why they didn't just encrypt it all VPN style over their leased lines, I guess cost was a factor.

    24. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is Canada good or bad for being the only ones diligent in their jobs?

    25. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by wanax · · Score: 1

      My experience tells me absolutely nothing about whether Canada was being diligent in border screening.

      In every single case I crossed a border as a minor it was with free will and full paperwork, so I can't say if the screening was diligent in a way that would uncover a coercive crossing situation.

      It also doesn't tell me anything about their screening criteria. Making too many type 2 errors, like I experienced with my grandparents, means that resources are not being effectively directed. And that has costs as well, since after that experience neither my family nor I returned to Canada until after I was an adult.

    26. Re:So which agencies' backdoors are in there? by GNU(slash)Nickname · · Score: 1

      I think it's largely random. We've traveled regularly to the US (from Canada) with our grandson since he was two, and had to show the custodial letter about half the time. Occasionally a 3rd degree, usually just a quick Q&A. Same thing with the dog - we always have his papers (immunization records) ready with our passports, and we've never been asked for them.

      Come to think of it, the dog is probably worth more to the right buyer. :)

  10. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good bye comcast, you fucking fuck!

  11. Hmmm by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    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!

    1. Re:Hmmm by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

    2. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atleast you have an option I have comcast and oh wait thats it

    3. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we ask verizon/att/comcast/tw to come back

    4. Re:Hmmm by DaRyuujin · · Score: 1

      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!

      I'm right there with ya, only the monopoly in my area is shitty Verizon DSL, talk about being stuck with a single bad choice.

    5. Re:Hmmm by MiniMike · · Score: 1

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

      A quick internet search indicated that there will be no problems, and that we shouldn't worry at all about this. I was then given a link to a free game download. BBL.

    6. Re:Hmmm by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      And what's your monthly cap with Comcast? Is it higher than 35GB?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    7. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no competition - when they all place nice together.

      Take that away - give them an arena to fight in - and you'll see the competition begin.

      Then and only then will the competition actually benefit the consumer.

    8. Re:Hmmm by alen · · Score: 2

      WTF do you expect google to do? even on google fiber netflix tops out at 10mbps

      you can splooge your shorts watching your speedtests all day long, but in reality it won't be that much faster since all the services you access won't be buying enough bandwidth on their end for you to take advantage of it

      i have 2 LTE phones and Team Stream takes forever to update even though i can do a 20mbps speed test at the time. welcome to the internet

    9. Re:Hmmm by present_arms · · Score: 1

      aww bless comcast users and monthly caps :) Usage for August 90.18GB Your download allowance: Unlimited that's me in the UK though.

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    10. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is it living in a third world country

    11. Re:Hmmm by JDeane · · Score: 1

      Must suck balls to have limits so low... I have a Netflix account with 4 HD connections (4 TV's) and I average 450-500+ GB's a month is usage. Already past 153GB's for this month. (Loving this Gargoyle firmware on my router.)

      Although I did read a story on here that Comcast was trying to merge with my current ISP Time Warner/Brighthouse. if that happens I may need to switch to Verizon's FiOS and uuugghhh I would rather cut off my testicles. Customer service is well shit... one time I had to cut about 200 feet of phone line they refused to bury in my yard, after calling them for 3-4 months straight I called them on my cell phone and told them to turn off my land line and swore they would never get another penny from me.

    12. Re:Hmmm by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In this case where it is pretty obvious that Google Fibre is going to go global, so a global monopoly.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  12. Does not compute by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    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.

    Isn't China doing missile tests toward Japan right now? Why the %$@#%$@ would Japan let China have anything to do with connecting them to this new network?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Does not compute by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They are still arguing about things like school history textbooks - China accuses Japan of whitewashing their atrocities, Japan accuses China of exaggerating some of them or presenting them in a way that makes them seem like current practice. But it's a peaceful debate involving much slinging of insults and very little slinging of missiles.

  13. Everything you wanted to know about undersea cable by hackertourist · · Score: 2

    Neal Stephenson's utterly fantastic essay on the subject (all 42,000 words of it) for Wired

  14. Huh?? Google ARE the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahahaahahaha it's so funny how people think google are just a company and not a direct arm of the world government. the idea the USA is it's own country is just an illusion put on sheeple shits so that they feel good about their enslavement

    1. Re:Huh?? Google ARE the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be great if we had one world government. Imagine how many fewer wars would be required. How many problems could we solve with all of the worlds people moving in the same direction.

  15. Re:Everything you wanted to know about undersea ca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will James Cameron be involved in this?

  16. Net Neutrality by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I believe Google just fired a salvo into the Net Neutrality war.

    Comcast et all: Hey content providers, it'd be a real shame if your speeds got real slow. A real shame. Howsa about some protection money, y'know just in case?
    Google: Gee Comcast, seems your connection the the rest of the world is awfully slow, might be we just bypass you altogether...

    Seems sort of like Backbone VS Last Mile: Fight!

    At the very least a bit of future hedging going on. Google also has last mile service in a few areas. Imagine if they also own FASTER backbone infrastructure as well. Competition probably sucks if your not used to it.

  17. Re:Everything you wanted to know about undersea ca by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    I know that article is old as shit because I had a subscription to Wired when it came out. Fantastic stuff, though.

    I just finished reading Snow Crash again last week. I almost never re-read books, but that's a classic. It was written in 1992 and set 20 to 25 years in the future, AKA right about now. The reason that Facebook purchased Oculus is because they want to basically create the Metaverse.

  18. Does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're thinking of North Korea, they've been launching test missiles near/over Japan for years. While relations between Japan and China have never been particularly warm they're not outright enemies. They've had some disputes over an island chain in recent years and I don't think China feels Japan has apologized enough for WWII atrocities but that's about it.

  19. Across the wide Pacific? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Seems they could just run it from Alaska to Russia. Wouldn't even lose sight of the ship laying the cable.

    1. Re:Across the wide Pacific? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Only if you are Sara Palin. (I'm not sure you understand the distance involved)

      Seriously though, it's actually probably cheaper to lay it across the equator than try to put a cable across the bearing straight. The ocean is pretty turbulent in the straight, it's pretty turbulent any time you get closer to the poles. There were articles the other day that global warming has opened up so much water this summer north of canada that they've had 15' (3m) waves. You need calm water (including underwater currents of which there is a big one in the straight) when dropping miles of cable to the bottom of the ocean.

      Consider for a moment you're in water a mile deep laying cable. The total suspended amount of cable from the boat to the bottom of the ocean is more than 2 miles, and with the armoring and other features may weigh several thousand pounds and have enough cross-sectional area that a couple mile per hour current passing over the cable could capsize your ship, drag the ship under or shear the cable in half. The forces they deal with when laying the cables is HUGE without waves and strong ocean currents. They need massive boats, calm waters and very careful monitoring to put these cables down. If you tear the cable in half while laying it you've got to find the end, drag it and several miles of cable off the bottom, cut the end and resplice everything including the power and armoring, water proof the splices and then relay the whole thing along with continuing to lay new cable.

      Where possible they run the cable over islands to make the runs through the ocean shorter. But trying to lay the cable across the bearing straight would be a major challenge. It would be an even bigger challenge once you got it across the bearing straight to get it anywhere because it's about 2000 miles from anything on either end and it would come ashore in some of the most hostile territory on earth (such as all the ground being permafrost which means you can't really bury the cable).

  20. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That 95% of america will never reap the benefits from, whatever they may be.

  21. It's not Google by zedaroca · · Score: 2

    From the announcement in the quoted article:
    "A consortium of six global companies announced that they have signed commercial agreements to build and operate a new Trans-Pacific cable system to be called “FASTER” (...) The six-company consortium is comprised of China Mobile International, China Telecom Global, Global Transit, Google, KDDI and SingTel."
    The OP gives the wrong idea that Google backs up the project and the others are involved only in management, which seems incorrect from the original announcement in NEC's page.

  22. Can't wait for 60 Tbits/sec to my home by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    Then I can reach Comcast's data cap in, what, 5 or 6 milliseconds.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  23. Let's mix China, Japan, & ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... the NSA ... what could possibly go wrong?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  24. Does this fiber go anywhere near Bend, Oregon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this cable goes anywhere near Bend, Oregon. It seems that that's where most of them end up or branch too. Hmmm, I wonder why?

  25. Ah Cryptonomicon by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Once again, scifi leads the way.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  26. Only need 600 Napatech analysis cards to tap it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not bad to tap a continent... Not bad at all.

    1. Re:Only need 600 Napatech analysis cards to tap it by bernywork · · Score: 1

      Napatech is way too expensive.

      --
      Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
  27. Re:Everything you wanted to know about undersea ca by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Nothing new considering William Gibson wrote Neuromancer in the 1980s.

  28. why 6 pairs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the weird 6 pairs and not 8 pairs ?

  29. Don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have comcast. I'll never see any of that speed.

  30. Internet by bernywork · · Score: 1

    Why the fuck does everyone think this is actually going to be used for internet traffic?

    Sure, part of the China Mobile side of things might be used for peering, I'd be shocked if any more than 5% of this capacity was going to be used for internet peering.

    --
    Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
  31. Re:Everything you wanted to know about undersea ca by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    1984. That's actually one of the only other books I've read multiple times.

    The details of the Snow Crash version will probably be much closer to what Facebook ends up building.