Slashdot Mirror


Google's 'FASTER' 9000km, 60Tbps Transpacific Fiber Optics Cable Completed (9to5google.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via 9to5Google: Google and an association of telecom providers have announced that the FASTER broadband cable system that links Japan and the United States is now complete. The system is the fastest of its kind and stretches nearly 9,000 km across the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, starting in Oregon and ending in two landing spots in Japan. The association consists of Google, China Mobile International, China Telecom Global, Global Transit, KDDI, Singtel, and supplier NEC Corporation. The estimated construction cost of the project was $300 million in 2014. At 60 terabits per second, FASTER will help "support the expected four-fold increase in broadband traffic demand between Asia and North America." The system uses a six-fiber pair cable and the latest 100Gbps digital coherent optical transmission technology. The service is scheduled to start on June 30, 2016, and will help increase the connectivity between Google's data centers scattered around the globe.

73 comments

  1. Trying to profit off the Olympics in 8K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they never saw the disaster in Rio coming.

  2. 6 pairs? by ERJ · · Score: 1

    Would it really be that much more expensive to drop 50 or more if you are doing it? I would think that most of the cost is not in the materials but labor.

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

      There's actually only 5 usable pairs. The 6th is for parity bits only.

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

      There's actually only 5 usable pairs. The 6th is for parity bits only.

      OK . . . . . . so what? That has nothing to do with the original question.

      Why only 6 pairs, why not more. I'm sure cost of laying 9,000km of cable is far greater than the cost of a few more pairs of fiber. Seems very short-sighted.

    3. Re:6 pairs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because you are not factoring in the cost of a repeater every 60 km. Then you have to keep those repeaters powered and they are good for about 25 years. Oh you say you can leave them turned off till they need used. We have a lot of people who buy a back up circuit, never test it or check to see that it is still usable and find out when their main circuit fail their back up is down also.

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

      I guess this is mono mode fiber, and that on the transmitter side they use erbium amplifiers on the output, so why do they need a repeater on this link?

      Or do we still need amplifiers every few 100's of kilometers?

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

      I found this article, and states 12000km
        http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/signaltwinning-trick-breaks-fiber-distance-record

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

      OK, so here is the thing:
      An undersea cable is like 25mm across. The volume of 9,000km cable is like way more than 4,000 cubic meters but of course you can't store the cable that efficiently.
      That means that you can't just dump more cable on a boat. In fact you don't just bring one boat for this cable.
      The assessment that labor costs is the big part might be right, but all costs, labor and material will scale pretty linearly with the number of pairs here.
      You can use a thicker cable and have less length on a boat or you can use several cables and make several runs. The latter would give better redundancy.
      12 pairs will still cost twice as much as 6.

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

      amping every 100km is different then regen which you would do over a much longer distance

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

      From the articet: But some experts are skeptical that such a system will ever be commercially viable

        Govind Agrawal, a professor of optics at the University of Rochester, in New York state, calls the paper “an excellent piece of work.”

      “Having said that,” he adds, “I doubt this technique will ever become commercial. The systems engineers are always reluctant to employ nonlinear techniques in their design.” Since nonlinear effects are by definition out of proportion to their causes, they can be tricky to work with.

  3. Until the next (big) earthquake by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1
    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  4. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's with all the Yay Google stories? Is Google paying the Slashdot colo bill or something?

    1. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with 3D printing dead, the only other subject would be slurping off Elon Musk's morning pre-cum. I guess Google is better than that.

  5. Radiation Proof Cables? by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    I don't want any radioactive zeros or ones showing up at my Ethernet port.

    1. Re:Radiation Proof Cables? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Is this how Skynet is born?

  6. Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so high that when I read "2014" I thought I was not in the present anymore!

  7. Splatoon lag? by bpgslashdotaccount · · Score: 1

    Will this fix the lag in Splatoon?

    1. Re:Splatoon lag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      9,000km/speed of light = 30ms.
      Koreans tend to ragequit at anything above 10ms.
      Don't worry, you are still safe.

  8. Latency vs.Bandwidth by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The system is the fastest of its kind ... 60 terabits per second

    Wouldn't that be the largest, the widest, or the broadest, or something like that? I'm guessing the latency for the distance isn't any lower than most other connections "of its kind", i.e.fiber optic, AKA light through fibers. Pretty sure light through the same material type generally travels the same speed.

    I mean, we don't call this the "fastest" dump truck in the world because it hauls a larger payload a similar speed as other dump trucks.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    1. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but if we went with the highway analogy, in the case of fiber we actually care about the speed of all the other cars on the road as well.

    2. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It depends what you mean by fastest. As you note we have a perfectly good word for "the time it takes for a bit to make it out the other end" - latency. Most people probably intuitively associate bandwidth with speed, though, because it's most directly relevant to what they do, which is try to transfer quantities of data. If it takes 1 minute to download a movie on one connection and 10 on another, but both are identical latency, most people will say the former is 10 times faster - because it is, for what they use it for. A gamer who has specific needs might prefer a lower-bandwidth but lower-latency (or jitter) connection, but probably wouldn't call it faster - they'd say it was lower latency because they know most people associate speed with bandwidth. Your dump truck wouldn't be called the fastest, but if the typical person had a mountain of soil they wanted moved and called up the earth-moving companies to give them a bid, the one with the biggest trucks would probably be able to bid the shortest time.

      Of course, if it's a more direct routing, it may indeed be the lowest-latency link between those two points.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A 90's analogy:

      "I need to buy a faster modem."

      A Slashdotter's pedantic rebuttal:

      "But it's not fast! It's stationary!"

      Followed by,

      "How fast is stationary engine, then?"

      [...]

      Please, just just stop.

    4. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be the largest, the widest, or the broadest, or something like that?

      Communications speeds have always been predominantly measured by throughput / bandwidth. It's fastest because you can fit a lot more data through it in less time. If you're streaming a movie, you can start watching it much sooner, because the connection is faster. Latency would have almost no affect on that.

      Lower latency is only important in a few narrow applications, and within practical limits, it doesn't matter in most usages, so it's not a typical measure. Low latency is certainly not what people want when they ask for a faster connection.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      People say "faster" because the page loads faster. Isn't that what counts practically?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, I don't think you would call a 3ms 3kbps connection fast when talking about internet access.

      on another note, 300 mil? makes the linkedin buyout of 26 billion look like a joke. think about it. ms could have made 86 links like this with that money.

      86.

    7. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Ignore him. He's that guy.

    8. Re:Latency vs.Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed is strictly a measure of time. How long does it take for something to get completed. In some situations, latency is the bottleneck, in other situations it's the bandwidth. It can be either.

  9. Poorly played google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should have added some loops to make it over 9000.

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

    Now if you could link Australia to that, that'd be great.

  11. I bet latency still sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to ensure I switch away from Google Public DNS to my ISP's normal DNS servers before doing any OSX/iOS updates. Otherwise Akamai CDN gets confused and serves up update content from machines inside NTT, Tokyo. When this happens a typical OS update takes days instead of minutes due to the godawful latency and packet retries.

    1. Re:I bet latency still sucks by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      It's Google, so they probably made FTL photons

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:I bet latency still sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those would be tachyons, not photons.

    3. Re:I bet latency still sucks by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

      Tachyons upgraded my computer to Windows 3010.

    4. Re:I bet latency still sucks by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      A tachyon is any particle traveling FTL. Pedantic and wrong.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    5. Re:I bet latency still sucks by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      Technically, I don't think you can be both pedantic and wrong. ;)

      (Uh, oh. What if I'm wrong?)

  12. Google/NSA's spying isn't enough on Asian citizens by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

    The headline should read that, because that's exactly what this project is all about.

    NSA's Google can't encourage enough people to send them their personal details by utilising various Google spyware like android/chrome/mail/search/etc, so they had to forcefully enter the market and push themselves down peoples throat, whether people like it or not.

  13. Pron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it run Linux?

  14. Re:Google/NSA's spying isn't enough on Asian citiz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A cable system being built by a Japanese firm out of Chinese components, managed by Singaporean, Chinese and Japanese telcos. But it has Google as a minor sponsor, so you think it's an NSA plot?

  15. Waiting for the next two undersea fibers... by kybred · · Score: 1

    They will be CHEAPER and BETTER. But you'll only be able to use any two of them at one time.

    1. Re:Waiting for the next two undersea fibers... by zlives · · Score: 1

      less than the third of the price of instagram... atleast we have our priorities straight.

  16. It would, actually by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Undersea cables are interesting beasts. When you look at them they are MASSIVE and so you figure there are a lot of pairs. Nope. 4-8 usually. All the rest is shielding and power. The big limiting factor size and cost wise is the amplifiers. You have to have a bunch of optical amplifiers in-line with the cable, and those have to be powered from the shore. Obviously each channel needs its own amplification so in the case of 6 pairs that's 12 amps. You then need a set of 12 amps periodically along the cable.Every few hundred km or so.

    Hence, undersea cables are small in count when laid. Very different form land. If you hook up a building, fuck it you probably lay 144 fibers minimum because that's a small sized bundle. However for those long-haul undersea connection, it is just a few fibers per massive line.

    1. Re:It would, actually by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder why they do not run the cable up to Alaska and then to Japan. The total cable would be longer but less of it would be at sea.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:It would, actually by Durrik · · Score: 1
      Mainly for latency reasons. From what I can find from a simple google search most optical cables transmit light 31% slower than in a vacuum. This means that for every 1000 km you add to the length of the cable you ad 4.8 ms of latency (if I did my math right)

      4.8 ms might not seem like a lot, but when you're talk about needing speed it is one of the factors that is important. Trading, online games, etc. I'm not sure how much distance you will add if you run it up to Alaska and then over. If you're wanting to run it by land over to Alaska and then over to Japan it could be a fair amount, it might save a bunch on initial cost but will hurt latency. Plus there's Canada in the way, so you'd have to work through all that red tape too, and that might cost more (time == money) than just running it straight across the ocean.

      --
      Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
    3. Re:It would, actually by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      You did the math right. 5 microseconds is what I use at work because that also will cover the electronics, transponders, OTN switches, et cetera.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:It would, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did the math right. 5 microseconds is what I use at work because that also will cover the electronics, transponders, OTN switches, et cetera.

      Uh, somebody may have done the math right, but your answers are different by a factor of about a thousand. mS != uS.

    5. Re: It would, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He uses 5us/km, but didn't make that clear, the other dude said 1000km.

    6. Re: It would, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He uses 5us/km, but didn't make that clear, the other dude said 1000km.

      Well that would make all the difference then. :)

    7. Re:It would, actually by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Would it actually be a lot longer? Often airliners will do a great circle route and stop in Alaska when going to Japan or Korea. It would be easier to maintain but I wonder if it would be any cheaper to run. After all the bottom of the ocean is free and you just need a ship to spool it out. It might be cheaper then running it over land.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  17. Re:Google/NSA's spying isn't enough on Asian citiz by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

    Anytime google is involved, they're getting something out of it.
    But I may just be wrong, and google is funding this out of the goodness of their corporate hearts ;)

    But when I think about Google's Fiber, Wifi, DNS, etc, it's obvious there's no stopping them in the lengths they go to, to further invade and learn about individuals, especially those that don't use any google products and manage to some-what evade their tracking using adblock, etc.

  18. TL;DR - executive summary - now watch twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as much anime porn in half the time!

  19. Re:Wow by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    Loads Google home page in less than a second!

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  20. Great cultural exchange! by Knightman · · Score: 3, Funny

    So Japan can now watch American p0rn faster and American can watch Japanese p0rn faster also! ;)

    --
    --- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
    1. Re:Great cultural exchange! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember paying absurd prices to import from Japan anime episodes on laserdiscs. Now we get more anime streamed than I have time to watch.

      Some of this future isn't that bad. I hope we get the sexbots soon, though.

  21. Where the Internet at? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an Oregonian, why don't we have a direct link to this motherfucker? We don't even have Google Fiber right now.

    1. Re:Where the Internet at? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue isn't the backbone. The issue is the last mile. Between the Hillsboro and Bend Datacenters, there is a stupid amount of bandwidth running through Oregon. Multiple ISPs have been rolling out Gigabit service to the greater Portland area, it just isn't going very fast and costs a fair bit.

      Google Fiber has real competition in this area, so they are focusing on lower hanging fruit elsewhere. (or at least, areas who could use the boost more)

  22. Re:Google/NSA's spying isn't enough on Asian citiz by Threni · · Score: 2

    A for-profit business spent millions of dollars on something directly connected to their business and you've figured out that they did it as part of the business? Wow, you're a fucking smart guy. NSA better look out before you investigate whether or not they too have.... no, it doesn't bear thinking about.

  23. Isn't this google fiber thing old news? by ai4px · · Score: 1

    I recall back in 2007 they proposed an easily installable FO link... https://archive.google.com/tis...

    1. Re:Isn't this google fiber thing old news? by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      I think they renamed that project SHIT (Sewer Hosted Internet Topology).

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    2. Re:Isn't this google fiber thing old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they renamed that project SHIT (Sewer Hosted Internet Topology).

      I know this was just an April fools idea, but really, wouldn't it save a LOT of installation costs to use the sewer system to run your fiber for FTTH? I mean in urban areas the sewer system goes to every home. They'd just have to tunnel from the sewer to the yard at the nearest manhole.

    3. Re:Isn't this google fiber thing old news? by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      There is at least one ISP in London doing this. I've heard of other projects in European cities where they'd rather not dig up streets in the 'old city' portions, so they snake cabling through sewers.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  24. Pretty funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That this transpacific cable is less expansive than a single F-35C.

    1. Re: Pretty funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly and this is the problem. We could find universal real broadband, roads, nasa, science. Or we could have a marginal increase in the number of a plane that we don't need

    2. Re: Pretty funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit. Fund*

  25. Re: Google/NSA's spying isn't enough on Asian citi by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    No plot, it's just the newest lane in the "Offshoring Superhighway".

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  26. Re:Google/NSA's spying isn't enough on Asian citiz by cjjjer · · Score: 2

    Google has only one product and that is you the user.

  27. It doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone explain how 6 fibers pairs at 100Gbps equals 60Tbps?

    1. Re:It doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because each 100Gbps is a single wave lenght, and they use 100 different wave lenght on each cable.

  28. They should consider using sync and by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    replicating most of slowly changing web contents. Use the capacity for phone calls between people.

  29. Re: Google/NSA's spying isn't enough on Asian citi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was so clever the first time I heard it.

  30. it would have actually been faster.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it weren't for all the "extra hardware" installed by third parties.