Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: More BW, Less Taxes
From: Joe Abley <jabley () automagic org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 00:15:09 -0400

On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 11:59:12PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

If you're across an ocean from the US, you have to factor in the cost of
running underwater cable.

If that is the case, why is it almost the same cost, if not more
expensive, to get a LA<>NY OC3 then a NY<>LND STM1?

Depends on the terrain, and the rights of way you might have to
purchase, but it's not uncommon for under-sea cable to be cheaper
km for km than terrestrial cable.

This is especially true in sparsely-populated island countries
where target markets are on the coast, and where you can drop
in for regen on land to avoid having to do it under the water [1].

I have heard of people ploughing fibre into riverbeds to extend
coastal under-sea networks inland, rather than doing conventional
in-ground builds.


[1] the expensive bits of under-sea deployment are at landing points,
and in the shallow waters approaching them. However, powering active
optics under the water involves dropping copper into the water to
carry DC, and upgrading regen equipment deployed at depth is far more
annoying than doing it on land.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]