Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dunant subsea cable

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#151

Post by rorykoehler »

intrasight wrote: post #113
throw0101a wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially the linked blog post, as it doesn't render unless you allow JavaScript from gweb-cloudblog-publish.appspot.com (per uMatrix). Webdevs: is there a reason why a page would be designed so that JS being on is mandatory? Especially for something as prosaic as a couple of paragraphs of text.

I got a blank page when I opened the web site. So as usual I looked at HN comments to see what it was about. Here's an idea: add some HN logic to automatically move a comment that begins with "TL;DR" to the top of the thread.

That will just be abused

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#152

Post by potiuper »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #130
idlewords wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gotta bore for that sweet latency win. A chord tunnel between San Francisco and Hong Kong would save 1300 miles (20% improvement right there), and if you drill it straight enough, you won't even need a cable.

Please don't give the HFT's ideas, they'll probably do it and cause a half dozen tsunamis in the process.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-frequency-traders-push-clo...

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#155

Post by aynyc »

tzs wrote: post #149
aynyc wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assuming the underwater cable itself is 10 times as expensive as regular cable, its about $150 million for 9000 km. Looking at what I can find, it looks like way more than 10 times the cost. https://i.imgur.com/7Dm7EEp.jpg

My estimate came to around $22k/kilometer for the cable itself plus the laying it in deep ocean. I didn't estimate the costs of repeaters. The Google project was $33k/kilometer, so I don't think I could have been too far off on the cable itself. Looking at other undersea fiber projects, that seem about typical. For example, this one [2] estimated $27k/kilometer [1]. Here's an Alibaba seller with submarine fiber for $…

This's so freaking cool!

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#156

Post by lifeisstillgood »

john37386 wrote: post #112
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #107

Old timer story - years ago, Demon Internet (my old employer) was beginning to enter super-growth and wanted to really set itself up for trans-atlantic connections. So they decided to buy a T1 - 45Mbps link across the atlantic. Now it turns out that BT had only ever resold fractions of T1s - they had never actually had anyone want a whole one. And as such their sales commissions did not cap out. So, we rang up, a sal…

T1 maximum speed 1.544 Mbps T3 is about ~45 Mbps Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-carrier

My memory is very hazy - too many beers in North London pubs far too many years ago to remember clearly :-0

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#157

Post by throwaway3699 »

obiefernandez wrote: post #35

> will deliver record-breaking capacity of 250 terabits per second (Tbps) across the ocean—enough to transmit the entire digitized Library of Congress three times every second. Damn. Anyone else just agog at this figure?

It's not that much in the grand scheme of things. A couple of data centres will saturate the link easily.

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#158

Post by iptrans »

aynyc wrote: post #148
iptrans wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10x is a fair estimate of cost vs regular armored fiber cable. Source: I've laid subsea cable.

Just to be sure, you mean 10x between subsea cable and regular armored fiber cable, not cat6 I can get from best buy.

Yes, not that there's a large difference. Best Buy has pretty large markups, especially on short CAT6 cables.

You can buy subsea cable for $10-$20 per meter.

EDIT: the cost depends on how many layers of armoring you require. Deep sea cable requires less, shallow sea cable more.

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#159

Post by dgritsko »

atonse wrote: post #139
adriancooney wrote: post #88

Excellent related Ars Technica article related to deep-sea cables if you want to learn more: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/how-t...

Mother Earth Mother Board is one of my all time favorite articles, which chronicles the laying of a cable. https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/

Another recommendation in this vein is Arthur C. Clarke's "How the World Was One", it provides some fascinating historical context for how we got to where we are today (or rather, where we were in 1992).

Re: The Dunant subsea cable

#160

Post by nerdkid93 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #80
throw0101a wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially the linked blog post, as it doesn't render unless you allow JavaScript from gweb-cloudblog-publish.appspot.com (per uMatrix). Webdevs: is there a reason why a page would be designed so that JS being on is mandatory? Especially for something as prosaic as a couple of paragraphs of text.

> Webdevs: is there a reason why a page would be designed so that JS being on is mandatory? I think in the case of Google, it's because they've been told they are the best developers, the top 1% of SWE's, they went through rigorous interviews, are paid a small fortune twice as much as they would get at a regular coding job, etc. So it's dick shaking. They need to show to the world that they're better than plain HTML…

Polymer is used by real people... even more-so if you include the spiritual successor to Polymer, LitElement. That's not to say either are incredibly popular, but still, that seems intentionally demeaning.

[0] https://www.npmjs.com/package/@polymer/polymer

[1] https://www.npmjs.com/package/lit-element

Post reply on HN