Hacker News Reader

Comment by Scoundreller | Hacker News Reader

I believe it.

But I wonder how the line between Texas and Missouri got there.

And the one between California and Washington: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/pacific-... (I get that it's to complete a ring, but if subsea is so expensive, they couldn't put together an in-land route to make it a ring?). Or is it cheaper to make your sea cable 5% longer instead of licensing land-RightOfWays install/access?

And Perth+Sydney: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/indigo-c...

I guess they could end up being lower latency than following a road.

View on HN

> But I wonder how the line between Texas and Missouri got there.

Would not be surprised if there were an offshore oil drilling platform in the middle of it.

> And the one between California and Washington:

Pretty sure that's just how the map is drawn -- the consortium that laid the subsea lines to Japan probably bought six strands of terrestrial fiber between the two US endpoints to make the ring.

> Or is it cheaper to make your sea cable 5% longer instead of licensing land-RightOfWays install/access?

Yes.

Subsea cable is often cheaper and easier to install than an overland route. Octoberfranklin is just wrong on the economics.

This was my thought, particularly with the number of municipalities one would traverse by land, and all the varying local and state governnments one would encounter.

I think that’s why so many will follow a rail, pipeline or highway right of way. Often these are state or federally regulated, sometimes letting them do whatever they want. In Canada, the railways pre-date the country and have some interesting rights and privileges.

But if a subsea line is 6 fibres, you’d think they’d license one of the 288 strands on an existing run from some less else for less than that cost.

> But if a subsea line is 6 fibres, you’d think they’d license one of the 288 strands on an existing run from some less else for less than that cost.

This is easier said than done.

There may not be spare strands on the route in question, or if there is, it may not be available at a reasonable cost. Remember dark fiber is an unregulated asset, nobody can force network owners to play ball.

The available terrestrial routes between the landing stations may be suboptimal.

The route between landing stations may be required to be diverse from terrestrial route.

There's a whole another level of control between owning a full route and leasing some strands in somebody else's cable.

...

And the list goes on.

> Remember dark fiber is an unregulated asset, nobody can force network owners to play ball.

The fiber isn't, but the poles are. You can force the pole owners to play ball.

hahahaha. Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

For your edification, look up "malicious compliance".

I feel it must be similar to owning a private rail line.

That's why most telecom infrastructure is in the right-of-way along state highways or railroads. One landowner to deal with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com