Slashdot Mirror


Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon Are Quietly Buying Undersea Cables (venturebeat.com)

The internet is commonly described as a cloud, writes the consumer policy expert and editor at BroadbandNow, but "In reality, it's a series of wet, fragile tubes, and Google is about to own an alarming number of them."

An anonymous reader quotes VentureBeat: Google makes billions from its cloud platform. Now it's using those billions to buy up the internet itself -- or at least the submarine cables that make up the internet backbone. In February, the company announced its intention to move forward with the development of the Curie cable, a new undersea line stretching from California to Chile. It will be the first private intercontinental cable ever built by a major non-telecom company. And if you step back and just look at intracontinental cables, Google has fully financed a number of those already; it was one of the first companies to build a fully private submarine line.

Google isn't alone. Historically, cables have been owned by groups of private companies -- mostly telecom providers -- but 2016 saw the start of a massive submarine cable boom, and this time, the buyers are content providers. Corporations like Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon all seem to share Google's aspirations for bottom-of-the-ocean dominance... We're reaching the next stage of internet maturity; one where only large, incumbent players can truly win in media....

I've been watching this trend develop, being in the broadband space myself, and the recent movements are certainly concerning. Big tech's ownership of the internet backbone will have far-reaching, yet familiar, implications. It's the same old consumer tradeoff; more convenience for less control -- and less privacy... As we look to the future, we need to start asking ourselves what the internet is really going to look like whenever the content services that already command so much of our attention are in control of the internet backbone as well.

"Consumers will soon need to decide exactly how much faith they want to place in these companies to build out the internet of tomorrow."

76 comments

  1. consumers by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consumers will soon need to decide exactly how much faith they want to place in these companies to build out the internet of tomorrow.

    What if a consumer doesn't have faith ? What options are there to stop this ?

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

      Stop using the internet.

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

      I'll lend you some faith via a blockchain.

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

      Lottery. Win a billion dollars and buy it yourself.

    4. Re:consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they're not doing anything illegal and are paying for the proper access rights, I don't see how you could have a say in it...nor should you. I suppose you could stop it. Here's the plan:

      1. start your own multi-billion dollar business
      2. outbid them

    5. Re: consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Found the communist who has nothing to support his own position so he immediately resorts to insults.

    6. Re:consumers by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      even better has been that companies like ATT, verizon, and govs like China have been building out the net. If you have faith in them, you are making a HUGE mistake.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re: consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy works for a telecom - he said so himself. So basically he is throwing shade on the megacorporations trying to displace his shithead megacorporation that already gives us the high hard one.

        Fuck the telecoms - they had literally decades to build goodwill and chose to enrich themselves every single chance rather than play in good faith, and then become actual bad actors when regulators attempted to hold hearings by jamming the hearing rooms with paid shills so no opposition opinions could be heard.

      They have it coming and I can't wait to see them knocked down a peg or two by having to actually compete instead of colluding.

    8. Re:consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself.

    9. Re:consumers by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well guess why they are doing hey, because then they can data mine you whether or not you want it, privacy invasive cunt in the middle attacks. What can you do about it, nothing. They know you hate their bullshit and they are working around it to continue to do it behind the scenes, a real pack of shit heads. So they want to data mine the internet backbone, you approved it when your ISP agreed to it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:consumers by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      Ummm... just use a different company who also runs their own cable?

      First, this is Google laying one cable. Big deal. Second, there are lots of companies who lay cables, mostly telecoms, because that's the business they're in.

      The summary makes it sound like once someone lays a cable, everyone is forced to use it. Back in reality, one more company producing a service (underwater data transport) increases the available options, it doesn't decrease them.

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

      If a consumer doesn't have faith, they could listen to George Michael ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ). If they have little faith, there's Bon Jovi ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... )

  2. Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Net Neutrality push and pushback has made the giants very aware how vulnerable they are to the gatekeepers. You bitch and whine about the FCC and American telecom policies, but that's all above board adn clean compared to telecom in Asia and South America.

  3. Wait... what? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The slant of the headline and the lede paragraph imply that Google (and others) are “buying up” the existing undersea cabling... but what they are actually doing is laying their own new cable.

    And this particular new cable brings the number of undersea cables owned by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon to a grand total of...

    (Drumroll please)

    One.

    There are plenty of real reasons to hate on these companies. We don’t need to find made-up reasons for doing so.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Wait... what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that's what I was going to say. They're building new submarine cables? Great. I don't trust anyone to own cables, that's why I use encryption.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Wait... what? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the author considers the current large owners of undersea cables to be more benign... you know, US companies like AT&T and Verizon, or India’s Tata Group.

      Corporate ownership of undersea communications cables is nothing new. Heck, the first undersea telegraph cables back in the 1800s were paid for by British industrialists.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Wait... what? by enriquevagu · · Score: 1

      to a grand total of...

      (Drumroll please)

      One.

      Which is completely correct if and only if you ignore any other cables owned by these companies, such as Marea. Which, by the way, is currently the fastest undersea cable in the World at 200 Tbps. This cable is operated by Telxius (part of Telefonica) and co-owned by Telxius, Facebook and Microsoft.

      So yes, other than the fastest undersea cable in the World, your (atm) +4 insightful comment is completely correct.

    4. Re:Wait... what? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      So they’re part of a consortium? Big deal. Facebook and Microsoft together only own half the lines in Marea, and they’re not even the ones operating it.

      Consortiums are how these cables have generally been handled this whole time - consortiums which include the companies which need the bandwidth. The story was attempting to frame the situation differently.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re: Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he does - he admits working for a telecom later in the summary.

      This whole thing is: OMG Google is encroaching on MY domain! Call to action!!

      Fuck him and Fuck his telecom.

    6. Re: Wait... what? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Bandwidth != speed

      What you're really trying to say is that they own a teeny tiny fraction of total undersea data transmission capacity.

    7. Re:Wait... what? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      to a grand total of...

      (Drumroll please)

      One.

      Which is completely correct if and only if you ignore any other cables owned by these companies, such as Marea. Which, by the way, is currently the fastest undersea cable in the World at 200 Tbps. This cable is operated by Telxius (part of Telefonica) and co-owned by Telxius, Facebook and Microsoft.

      So yes, other than the fastest undersea cable in the World, your (atm) +4 insightful comment is completely correct.

      So it's actually 2?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  4. Ah! Now this is something we should regulate by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Now they own the pipe, and that makes a big difference. It's up to us to make sure access is not restricted by content.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: Ah! Now this is something we should regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh snap

    2. Re:Ah! Now this is something we should regulate by PPH · · Score: 2

      The last thing we need is more regulation.

      Nice little business you've got there. I don't suppose you'd mind us collecting a fee to make sure it doesn't burn down.

      Shame there isn't a rule against that sort of behavior, right?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Ah! Now this is something we should regulate by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this ain't "private"...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. Have the government step in to build it by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the amount of money it takes to do these projects means you're options are big companies or the government. I'd personally rather see the government doing it. Telecom is too valuable to leave in the hands of private companies that may not (ok, let's be honest, probably not) have the best interests of consumers at heart.

    This does require a voting public to be engaged. I think that's doable but we need to get more emphasis on economic issues like this and less on social & wedge issues.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Have the government step in to build it by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Telecom is highly regulated in every country, whether the government owns it won't change how it's operated. And given the shenanigans we've seen in the US government over the past couple of years I'm inclined to leave it in private hands.

    2. Re:Have the government step in to build it by Can'tNot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't exactly a revolutionary idea, a government is supposed to be the instrument of the will of the people. The fact that a question like that could even be asked, of whether vital infrastructure would be better administrated in the hands of individuals rather than entrusted to the government's safe keeping, is an example of how far we've strayed from the democratic ideal.

    3. Re:Have the government step in to build it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is the will of the people, in a sort of ideologue hippie world sense of will. In reality government bends to whoever has the cash, and in this day those people tend to be internet giants. Your government is bought just like you buy chicken nuggets.

      https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=president+reagan+corporatism&&view=detail&mid=41A38344B62EB3DB221041A38344B62EB3DB2210&&FORM=VRDGAR

    4. Re:Have the government step in to build it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which government are we talking about here?

      https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/business/built-for-america-sold-cheaply-to-the-world.html

    5. Re:Have the government step in to build it by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      but but but THATS SOSHULIZM YOU DIRTY COMMIE!!!

      I'm afraid we are well past the point where the government-is-evil reactionaries will allow us to have nice things.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    6. Re:Have the government step in to build it by suezz · · Score: 1

      the corporations currently own our government which equates to fascism. I totally agree but the government needs some honest brokers and stop getting paid from corporations and actually act like the people are their bosses instead of the corporations.

  6. Quietly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, quietly. A market with few players doen't need any shouting.

  7. So Senator Ted Stevens Was Right by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    It is nothing but a bunch of tubes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:So Senator Ted Stevens Was Right by PPH · · Score: 1

      And the tubes are full of cats.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:So Senator Ted Stevens Was Right by gtall · · Score: 1

      So was Ted Stevens.

  8. Buy? Bad. Lay? Good. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

    If Google were buying up existing cables, I would be worried. But Google laying NEW submarine cables can only be for the good, because there aren't enough.

    And some redundancy in cables is DEFINITELY a good thing.

  9. #freefumbs #chinesefirewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life will be much better behind the GoogWall(tm), just ask all the Chinese slaves behind theirs! Or, maybe not.

  10. Interesting by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Google stopped the deployment of Fiber to the Home due to the costs of making it happen.

    I can't help but think that deploying an undersea cable would be quite the financial undertaking as well.

    That got me thinking about why Google would be interested in such things, but the answer came rather quickly.

    Considering the amount of traffic that cable would be carrying ( likely all routed through Google owned hardware ) it's a treasure trove for any Company who partakes in the " Big Data " business model of knowing anything and everything about everyone.

    Why settle on a per area basis ( regional fiber deployments ) when you can own the backbone that feeds an entire country ?

    1. Re:Interesting by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      They are two different business cases. Google was never really interested in laying optical fiber to every home in an area. They did it in order to spur on their competitors into action.

      In laying an undersea cable they actually want the connection and bandwidth that the cable brings. There is no competitor to spur on. They'll be able to move their traffic over that cable, lowering their costs, and charge others for using the cable.

    2. Re:Interesting by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      it's a treasure trove for any Company who partakes in the " Big Data " business model of knowing anything and everything about everyone.

      Don't know about US, but EU regulations are not going to allow 3rd party data snooping.

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

      Neither does AES-128

  11. Shills shill shill shills by the shill shore by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consumers will soon need to decide exactly how much faith they want to place in these companies to build out the internet of tomorrow.

    As if people have faith in Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

    Like the removal of Net Neutrality, privatizing internet infrastructure has only reduced prices for consumers.

    Reduced what in the what now?

    This is an "article" written by an astroturfing lobbyist. His ideology sells the belief that deregulation solves all problems, yet because he is beholden to his telecom masters, he must also sell the belief that having more competition is also bad.

  12. Wired by barcarolle · · Score: 1

    Someone call Neal Stephenson.

  13. Good thing Net Neutrality was killed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise, we'd need separate communications cables to support every different service provider, which would not only be wasteful but would impact the environment.
    Oh, wait...

  14. https://www.facebook.com/rzhaa.ptrii?refid=12 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pasword

  15. And? by ledow · · Score: 2

    It's not really a threat to privacy or security if you have an ounce of either, though, is it?

    You're encrypting your traffic, right?

    Then one of the primary facets of all modern encryption is that an adversary can read EVERY SINGLE PACKET you send and still be none the wiser as to what you were doing.

    If you're properly routing your traffic, encrypting your DNS, etc. etc. then it doesn't matter if Putin himself is delivering the packets.

    There may be net-neutrality issues, but there shouldn't be any security issues whatsoever. You should be able to publish your encrypted sessions on the ten o'clock news or in a newspaper... it literally makes no difference to whether or not your data was secure or not.

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

      Encryption does not change whether people "can" and "can't" see your data (unless using OTP with a key size greater than the data size), it merely makes the complexity of reading that data greater than what can reasonably be achieved in modern day.

  16. Atheistic consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what the internet needs. Technology built on atheism.

  17. Not quietly or recent occurrence by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    They aren't doing this in secret, nor is this even recent news. It's not even recent on /. It was posted here in 2017

  18. Damn, he was right after all by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The internet is commonly described as a cloud, writes the consumer policy expert and editor at BroadbandNow, but "In reality, it's a series of wet, fragile tubes

    I guess this genius was just ahead of his time.

    Shame on you, those that laughed at him out of ignorance. Revere him as the god-like intelligence that resides on a plane of thought you cannot even comprehend.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. Corrected headline: Tech wants cheaper transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The issue is that the current pricing is high enough such that the large consumers of undersea transit (the tech giants) see that they can save billions by not paying someone else to run the tubes. Undersea cables are very expensive to install and maintain, but long term the tech giants see the savings to be good for their bottom line, at least to some locations either under-served, or over-priced.

    In actuality the existence of these undersea cables, and the willingness for the tech giants to build their own if they see a business case, will likely make the prices from the more entrenched providers go down due to the competition, or the threat of competition. So the more competition the better!

  20. No option to stop these.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only try and stake out somewhere for yourself and likeminded individuals where these cables don't currently treat and begin building out your own independent infrastructure towards the eventual goal of allowing an undoubtedly smaller internet more akin to the 1990s one to support what is left of the 'free minds' of the world. Because the fact is, most people's minds are shackled even more tightly today than many slaves are/were until chattel rules and physical bondage. The true lie about the abolishment was slavery was in ignoring the mental aspects of it and the hows and whys of marginalizing the slaves (also the indentured, at least prior to the formalization of slavery in America, which was the concession for eliminating indentured servitude of poor 'nice god fearing christians from europe, who had previously been manipulated into staying indentured far past their contracted times, much as the 'company store' did it later in mining towns.)

    If enough people band together we can have an independent place of our own, at least for a time, but until and unless we stage out both terrestrial borders on the Earth, and extraterrestrial claims in space, before the corporations or current governments take it for themselves, we will simply be kicking the can of future servitude to our children.

  21. In the United States it is by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    we pretty well get pounded in the skull with the idea that government is bad from grade school on. One of the big states (Texas) has it's school boards controlled by right wing extremists and because it's such a large market they've been able to control the contents of schoolbooks for decades. Anti-government sentiment is all over our media too. The main narrative you see over here is "Gov't can't do anything right, they just make things worse". It's mostly pushed on us by big corps that don't want to pay taxes, but it works.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: In the United States it is by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's some hilarious propaganda right there. Right-wing extremists printing our textbooks! The horror!

      Meanwhile, over in the real world, teachers are about twice as likely to be democrats as they are republicans, and over 70% describe themselves as either moderate, left, or far-left.

      http://www.edweek.org/ew/artic...

    2. Re: In the United States it is by Can'tNot · · Score: 3, Informative

      The parent is referring to the Texas Board of Education, which is not composed of teachers, has notable influence over the content of textbooks in not just Texas but other states as well, and is well known for such antics as promoting intelligent design, abstinence-only education, and removing any mention of Hillary Clinton. Literally writing her out of history.

    3. Re: In the United States it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And writing Abraham Lincoln out of history, too. My citation is the same one you used--it is well known.

    4. Re: In the United States it is by Hodr · · Score: 2

      You're information is half a decade out of date. Did you perhaps get it from a Texas textbook?

      Two things have significantly dimished the state's influence on textbooks. The first (smaller) influence is that they voted in 2013 or 2014 to allow individual school districts to choose and purchase their own books. The second, is that they banned common-core, so the 45 states that went with common-core will not be using the books made for the Texas marketplace by default.

  22. What a mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All companies eventually die. What happens to these cables when that happens? Do they simply go dead and the Internet as a whole suffers?

    1. Re: What a mess by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      They are a valued asset which gets liquidated, and operated by another company for profit.

      Did you think they lay thousands of miles of cable at the sea floor out of charity?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  23. What control? by RichardDavis4233 · · Score: 1
    " It's the same old consumer tradeoff; more convenience for less control "

    What is the author talking about? What control have I ever had about which undersea cable my packet happened to traverse? Its not like Google is putting 'mom and pop' undersea cables out of business! This article seems like it was written by a bot, it uses a bunch of anti-business tropes which don't make sense in this context.

    1. Re: What control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a handful of companies own all of the cable, a few companies have control. This isn't a complicated concept, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'business'. It is headed into territory that is illegal as shit, and our regulators are half-asleep, likely because their mouths are full of the teats.

  24. They build new cables to handle their own traffic by jhecht · · Score: 2

    Big data builds -- or partners in -- new cables to mirror their cloud computing centers around the world. More than half the traffic carried by transoceanic submarine cables is between big data centers, not to people using the Net.

  25. tele by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government takes away our weapons as our enemies build our prisons. Slaves never remember their history.

  26. Re:Buy? Bad. Lay? Good. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Of course it is. If the primary cable is damaged, telcos or the government will be able to lease bandwidth on Google's cables.

  27. Stick with Cisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could go wrong?

  28. We have faith in you WindBourne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have never lied, never linked to sites that contradict your claims, never even once have you pulled numbers from your ass.
    We wish the whole internet was like you.

  29. Regulators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regulators? Anyone?

  30. Re:Buy? Bad. Lay? Good. by Hodr · · Score: 1

    So the owners of this cable can't route their information over the other existing cables if needed? If so, it's still redundancy for them, and they represent a significant percentage of the data flowing between countries.

  31. But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't even run fiber to my house. ;(