smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran) wrote:
Examining this a bit more closely, since undersea capacity is terribly expensive, when there is adequate capacity available to a large aggregate of sites people want to get to, there will be an obvious market for access to that capacity.
Actually, i do not understand why undersea capacity is so expensive. Cable is more expensive, yes; but the paths are much straighter, and there's no need to purchase rights of ways (except for shore-side strips). There's no need to dig trenches -- you just drop the cable off the boat. I guess the real problem with undersea capacity is more in the fact that it was always considered a low-volume service (which it is, in terms of voice traffic); so there's no many competitive providers, and small-quantity pricing. --vadim
Undersea capacity is expensive for 3 reasons: 1) It's under the ocean 2) It's under the ocean 3) It's under the ocean For more information than you ever wanted and a great read check out Neal Stephenson's article: http://wwww.wired.com/wired/4.12/motherearth/ Transoceanic cables are actually designed with massive capacity. They're terribly expensive to lay and maintain though, and demand for communications has kept good pace with available space - keeping the price of transit high. You're right about the lack of competition. To undertake laying a cable PTT's will join together and divy out capacity, management responsibilities, etc., in proportion to their investment. This doesn't leave room for small-quantity pricing, as you'd have to aggregate "massive quantities" to reach the economies of scale necessary. -- JMC On Sat, 31 May 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Examining this a bit more closely, since undersea capacity is terribly expensive, when there is adequate capacity available to a large aggregate of sites people want to get to, there will be an obvious market for access to that capacity. Actually, i do not understand why undersea capacity is so expensive. Cable is more expensive, yes; but the paths are much straighter, and there's no need to purchase rights of ways (except for shore-side strips). There's no need to dig trenches -- you just drop the cable off the boat. I guess the real problem with undersea capacity is more in the fact that it was always considered a low-volume service (which it is, in terms of voice traffic); so there's no many competitive
smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran) wrote: providers, and small-quantity pricing.
Transoceanic cables are actually designed with massive capacity. They're terribly expensive to lay and maintain though, and demand for communications has kept good pace with available space - keeping the price of transit high.
Worldcom and Cable & Wireless are in the process of laying a 20 Gbps transatlantic sonet (DWDM) system which they claim doubles the current transatlantic capacity. The southern route should be done by November of this year with the first capacity available for the end of the year. The northern route, which will close the ring, will be done in '98. Before we bought them, MFS had already started working on a ring around europe and metro area networks in several cities over there. All this means that we should see a significant drop in trans- atlantic bandwidth (and even intra-europe) charges in the near future. The full press release on this (called project Gemini) should be available on www.wcom.com or nasdaq.com. regards,chris -- Chris Whittenburg Data Network Mechanic (918) 590-5845 Worldcom Inc. chris.whittenburg@wcom.com
Actually if you read that article (and everyone should..) the hardest part was the overland routes. That would indicate that it is much easier to lay cable under the ocean... Brian On Sat, 31 May 1997, Jesse Caulfield wrote:
Undersea capacity is expensive for 3 reasons: 1) It's under the ocean 2) It's under the ocean 3) It's under the ocean
For more information than you ever wanted and a great read check out Neal Stephenson's article: http://wwww.wired.com/wired/4.12/motherearth/
Transoceanic cables are actually designed with massive capacity. They're terribly expensive to lay and maintain though, and demand for communications has kept good pace with available space - keeping the price of transit high.
You're right about the lack of competition. To undertake laying a cable PTT's will join together and divy out capacity, management responsibilities, etc., in proportion to their investment. This doesn't leave room for small-quantity pricing, as you'd have to aggregate "massive quantities" to reach the economies of scale necessary.
-- JMC
On Sat, 31 May 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Examining this a bit more closely, since undersea capacity is terribly expensive, when there is adequate capacity available to a large aggregate of sites people want to get to, there will be an obvious market for access to that capacity. Actually, i do not understand why undersea capacity is so expensive. Cable is more expensive, yes; but the paths are much straighter, and there's no need to purchase rights of ways (except for shore-side strips). There's no need to dig trenches -- you just drop the cable off the boat. I guess the real problem with undersea capacity is more in the fact that it was always considered a low-volume service (which it is, in terms of voice traffic); so there's no many competitive
smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran) wrote: providers, and small-quantity pricing.
Vadim Antonov writes:
Actually, i do not understand why undersea capacity is so expensive.
Largely because to run a cable, you need to get permission from the government at the far end to land the thing, and they don't give out permission that freely.
Cable is more expensive, yes; but the paths are much straighter, and there's no need to purchase rights of ways (except for shore-side strips). There's no need to dig trenches -- you just drop the cable off the boat.
Not really that true -- you should read the "Hacker Tourist" article by Neil Stephenson in "Wired" from last summer in which he followed the laying of the FLAG cable. This was perhaps the only worthwhile article in "Wired" in the last two years... Perry
Undersea cable was expensive - the cable economics were geared to a return on investment linked to a high investment risk and relatively slow uptake of the cable,due to a linear phone growth model and an E1 cable transaction unit. More recent cable projects have large increase in available capacity for essentially the same project cost - which will trigger a steady decline in the lease price once the large cables come on line. Geoff
Actually, i do not understand why undersea capacity is so expensive. Cable is more expensive, yes; but the paths are much straighter, and there's no need to purchase rights of ways (except for shore-side strips). There's no need to dig trenches -- you just drop the cable off the boat.
participants (6)
-
Brian Horvitz -
chris.whittenburg＠wcom.com -
Geoff Huston -
Jesse Caulfield -
Perry E. Metzger -
Vadim Antonov