More BW, Less Taxes

Joe Abley jabley at
Wed May 30 04:15:09 UTC 2001

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

More information about the NANOG mailing list