Google and Facebook Are Building the Fastest Trans-Pacific Cable Yet (techcrunch.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google and Facebook Are Building the Fastest Trans-Pacific Cable Yet (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday October 12, 2016 @06:50AM from the fastest-internet dept.

Google and Facebook are working together to lay a nearly 8,000-mile fiber-optic cable between Los Angeles and Hong Kong. The cable will have a bandwidth of 120 terabits per second, Google said, adding that this makes it the highest-capacity route between the United States and Asia. TechCrunch adds: Once the new 12,800 km cable is at full capacity, it'll be the highest-capacity trans-Pacific cable yet. Until now, that record was held by the FASTER cable, which Google also has a stake in. Google tells TechCrunch that all parties participating in building the cable will have their own portion of the cable and that the company will have its own fiber pair to keep its own traffic private. The new cable will become the sixth submarine cable that Google has a stake in (the others are Unity, SJC, FASTER, MONET and Tannat). While it may seem unusual for Google to partner with Facebook on this kind of project, submarine cables often feature these kind of partnerships. Facebook and Microsoft recently teamed up to build a trans-Atlantic cable, for example, which at 160 Tbps is even faster than the Pacific Light cable (but also only half as long). Amazon, too, is starting to invest in its own submarine cables, but so far, the company has not partner with other industry giants to do so.

42 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

for Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 06:52 · Score: -1

The American capitalist caste needs to keep in touch with the Chinese worker caste, otherwise how will the workers know what to do?
npslider likes this by npslider · 2016-10-12 06:53 · Score: 1

Thumbs up!
"...has not partner..." by turkeydance · 2016-10-12 06:55 · Score: 1

so sad
fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 07:01 · Score: 0

can't break the laws of physics, boys and girls, not even facebook and google combined can do that.
1. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen what happens with electrons when sent through nano-scale copper traces?
  Electrons flow into the beginning of the "trace", exits at the end of the "trace", bouncing along the outer electron shells of the copper atoms.
  This quantum tunneling effect breaks the light speed barrier, but at such a small scale, it's hardly noticeable, but it is "faster".
  Once they figure out how to pair quantum entangled photons or electrons that they can control the spin on in more than one direction, we will no longer need cables at all. To use a term I first encountered in Orson Scott Card's writings, this "ansible" communication would be instantaneous between the paired (or if the CIA / NSA gets in the act, tripled) electrons/photons.
  Once that's been done, I expect to see all kinds of breakthroughs, most of which I've already patented via the "on an ansible" metric.
2. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by MachineShedFred · 2016-10-12 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I knew this pedantic post would be here. I just knew it.
  Here's why it's "faster" - not because photons move through it faster than usual, but because per huge chunk of data, the total transfer time will be smaller. Less time used = faster. Much like how gigabit Ethernet is "faster" than 100Mbps Ethernet - the electrons move at the same speed, but the data moves through the queue quicker.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
3. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  And of course that is sort of wrong. Yes, it can handle more total users. No, 1 particular user will not see any difference. Because they aren't re-writing the TCP/IP stack to not be depending on ACKs and receive window sizes. So will your large file transfer faster. Well, not really. Not unless the line in use now was congested and this one isn't. Assume you find a time when the existing one is not congested - then this one will not make any real difference (unless the path itself - the total run of cable - is shorter).
4. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying the pipe IS indeed FATTER and not "faster"; good job! Slashdot loves their car-related analogies, so here goes: It's much like a 12-lane freeway can carry more traffic moving at the same velocity than a two-lane road. You aren't getting from point "a" to point "b" any faster, unless you break the laws of driving (physics).
5. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Considering tunnel diodes have been tunneling electrons "faster than light" across the junction for over half a century, I suspect this isn't the breakthrough you think it is.
6. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  The headline is wrong and calling someone who is speaking the truth pedantic is just silly. Your failed example just proofs that correcting such mistakes is important..
7. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by ASDFnz · 2016-10-12 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Bad analogy.
  Consider these two scenarios;-
  * You in your car following another 10,000 cars trying to pass down the 10 km stretch of 2 lane highway.
  * You in your car following another 10,000 cars trying to pass down the 10 km stretch of 10 lane highway.
  Ask yourself, what scenario would you travel the distance the fastest? Do you break any laws of physics?
8. Re:fastest? nope.. fattest? perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  Speed of light limit is statistical. The speed of light is broken all of the time at the micro level and for individual photons/electrons/etc, but the average of the group will never be faster.
Net Neutrality Sucks by ghoul · 2016-10-12 07:10 · Score: -1

This is what happens when big Online companies like Google , Facebook etc use millions of dollars of lobbying to prevent charging by the byte under the guise of net neutrality laws. All the traffic which is generated by these sites and from which these sites generate billions of dollars of revenue needs to travel over infrastrcuture and someone needs to build it. The cable companies can no longer afford to build it as Google's lobbying (along with Netflix et al) has prevented them from making enough money (by charging the larger load creators for more money) so they no longer can create the physical infrastructure. Now the free ride is over and if Facebook, Google etc want to survive they will need to start using their own money to build the backbones. TANSTAFL.

--
**Life is too short to be serious**
1. Re: Net Neutrality Sucks by cbeaudry · 2016-10-12 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They don't generate the traffic, the users do when they request content, be it videos or webpages.
  And the users are already being charged.
  Are you telling me cable companies arent making a profit?
2. Re:Net Neutrality Sucks by fulldecent · 2016-10-12 07:25 · Score: 3
  
  Lol. Just in case anyone is taking this seriously:
  * Comcast's most recently completed year completed with $8.2B in net income. More than 10% of revenue. That's a lot, they surely are not restricted from investing in physical infrastructure
  * Charging by the byte is not a complaint of net neutrality supporters. However this is a problem if certain bytes are charged but others aren't.
  
  --
  -- I was raised on the command line, bitch
3. Re:Net Neutrality Sucks by MachineShedFred · 2016-10-12 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  1. Cable and Telcos not making enough money: HAHAHA hahaha ahahhahha heeeheeheee Heh. Oh, were you being serious?
  2. Apparently Google, Facebook, etc. are fine with laying their own undersea cable, as this story is about them doing exactly that. What have you got a problem with again?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Dogs and cats by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-10-12 07:10 · Score: 1

... this is dogs and cats lying down together.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
AYBABTU by Thud457 · 2016-10-12 07:10 · Score: 1

ALL YOUR PACKETS ARE BELONG TO NSA

Because Google.
And Facebook.

I have found a way around the lameness filter, but the code is too big to fit in this margine

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:AYBABTU by The-Ixian · 2016-10-12 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's weird, I was going to say something similar.... except all your packets are belong to Faceboogle...
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
2. Re:AYBABTU by npslider · 2016-10-12 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  It takes great courage to speak the truth!
3. Re: AYBABTU by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  if you envrypt all of your packets before sending them, such that nobody including the intended recipient can read them, your communications will be secure.
And it's a terabyte SSD as well by dlleigh · 2016-10-12 07:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

The length of the cable is 12,800 km.
The speed of light is 300,000 km/sec.
The velocity factor of fiber is about 68%.
The data rate of the cable is 120e12 bits/sec.
The amount of time that the data stays in the cable is 12,800 km / (300,000 km/sec * 0.68) = 62.7 milliseconds. Multiplying that by the data rate of 120e12 bits per second yields about eight terabits or one terabyte. That is the amount of data "stored" in the cable, at any instant, during transit.
It's not much of an addition to the Google/Facebook data cosmoplex, but it is solid state, liquid cooled, highly distributed and largely immune from fires and small meteor strikes.
1. Re:And it's a terabyte SSD as well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  pingfs: Stores your data in ICMP ping packets
  "pingfs is a filesystem where the data is stored only in the Internet itself,
  as ICMP Echo packets (pings) travelling from you to remote servers and
  back again."
2. Re:And it's a terabyte SSD as well by The-Ixian · 2016-10-12 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Is that like what Scotty did in Relics? Poor Franklin... his pings got too many "request timed out" responses...
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
3. Re:And it's a terabyte SSD as well by npslider · 2016-10-12 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  If he had rerouted the pattern buffer power feed through the secondary anodyne relay, and transferred all life-support power to the transition coils....
4. Re:And it's a terabyte SSD as well by HumanWiki · 2016-10-12 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Is that like what Scotty did in Relics? Poor Franklin... his pings got too many "request timed out" responses...
  Franklin deserved better.
5. Re:And it's a terabyte SSD as well by npslider · 2016-10-12 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  He was a good lad.
6. Re:And it's a terabyte SSD as well by thegarbz · 2016-10-12 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but extracting data towards the end of the stream leads to a huge latency of 62.7ms. :-)
Oh how cute! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 07:16 · Score: 0

Private? Ahahahaaaaaaaaaaa
US gov will be tapping the LA end. China will take the Hong Kong side. And a mysterious dredging accident will mark when the Russkies tap somewhere in the middle.
1. Re: Oh how cute! by biojayc · 2016-10-12 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that tapping a wire of encrypted traffic does little right?
2. Re:Oh how cute! by npslider · 2016-10-12 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well, as long as everyone has a fair share of the data, everyone will be happy! ;)
3. Re: Oh how cute! by npslider · 2016-10-12 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the Secret Court of Evil has already ordered a backdoor, however they failed to sign up for Amazon Prime, so it has not shipped yet.
4. Re: Oh how cute! by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-10-12 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's why the government's steal the decryption keys too.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
5. Re: Oh how cute! by Hizonner · 2016-10-13 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  When the Snowden stuff came out, it turned out that the NSA was tapping cables, including cables belonging to Google, and getting tons of cleartext traffic.
  The article says that Google wants its own pair "to keep its traffic private". Maybe that's just a misunderstanding or misphrasing. But it doesn't inspire confidence given that they screwed up and didn't encrypt last time.
Just think of the DDOS.. by toonces33 · 2016-10-12 07:21 · Score: 1

Just think of the DDOS that will be possible with a trans-Pacific pipe this large! All for Facebook/Google? Sigh.
Cable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 07:23 · Score: -1

Drumpf is a commie stooge.
Chinese can now hack even more of our systems by jfdavis668 · 2016-10-12 08:17 · Score: 1

Imagine the increase in simultaneous hacking attempts that can be made with this new cable!
So Fast by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 08:21 · Score: 0

This one is so fast that the NSA taps are already integrated before laying the cable. That's like, time traveling fast.
I've made jokes about 'FacebookNet' by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 08:51 · Score: 0

Apparently the joke is on me; Zuckerberg apparently wants 'FacebookNet' to be a real thing.
Now, how can we stop this? The internet is bad enough as-is, the direction it's been going, we don't need 'Internet 2.0' to be 'FacebookNet', when the first paragraph of the EULA will say something on the order of "You consent to 100% monitoring of 100% of every packet data sent or received over FacebookNet".
8,000-mile fiber-optic cable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 08:54 · Score: 0

An 8,000-mile fiber-optic cable between Los Angeles and Hong Kong? That's not good enough. You'd get a latency of at least 60ms before even taking all the repeaters into account - that's technically good enough to play games over, but you'd still be at a distinct competitive disadvantage against people playing on the same side of the cable as the server. I demand that they build a 4,000-mile fiber-optic cable between Los Angeles and Hong Kong instead, so that we get decent ping.
1. Re:8,000-mile fiber-optic cable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  that's technically good enough to play games over, but you'd still be at a distinct competitive disadvantage against people playing on the same side of the cable as the server.
  
  Only if you have no knowledge of item placement, don't have any area denial strategy, can't bother to move stealthily, and don't take advantage of cover in any way. Low ping only matters if your tactics suck and you play like an idiot.
The p0rn by funwithBSD · 2016-10-12 09:29 · Score: 1

must flow!

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra