New proposed cable linking Aus to Hawaii and linking a number of Pacific Islands (including NZ) along the way. Interesting timing! I can't really see the small islands forking our much for the cost though....
DonGould: http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2012/08/new-fibre-optic-plan-put-to-pacific-countries-at-forum/ bit more info there.
Wonder if it will all just be paid for by the pacific governments?
Don't you mean us via government "aid"? Or more likely Chinese money these days (not that I have a problem with it!).
Auckland makes sense from a commercial perspective for them to land the cable and its closer. Having it land somewhere else doesn't seem to be too concerning for ISPs - I guess they aren't too worried about the risk.
by the way it might be an idea not to use acronym.acronym as it may not make sense to that many people....
Clever move to get Govt. funding from multiple sources rather than rely on getting customer commitments to justify the business case. It stands a better chance of actually coming to fruition.
As for connecting via the SI rather than the NI. Yes one could argue a case for better redundancy as it provides a different isolated landing point.... but. Population base probably doesn't justify it, unless of course you can convince all those countries with bases in Antarctica that it'd be good for them too. ;-)
There was/is a French group going to do a cable around the pacific islands, I wonder if this is them increasing to nz to help their business plan after Pacific Fibre finished.
Population base of Christchurch alone should fund a new cable to Australia from Greymouth.
Cable life of 50+ years. $75 million dollars.
Do the really simple math... less than $4.50, or a cup of coffee a year.
I noted that in Wellington they're building a new over pass over the road coming out of the tunnel from the airport, that will cost $100 million.
As for Chinese investment, will the USA let them land a cable up there? Wasn't that the problem with the AXIA cable to Australia? The Australians have already blocked Chinese investment in their NBN roll out.
Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!
A cable landing in the south island will never happen simply because of latency. Why add ~7ms of latency for 1/3 of your users? You still have to build independent fibre distribution within NZ anyway (which we already have 3 companies providing) so landing in the south island doesn't actually provide any real benefit. Auckland has two coasts anyway so its not like auckland itself is a risk for the rest of the country. Southern cross lands a Takapuna and Whenuapai, and Pacific cable was going to do the same, and no doubt this project will too.
Publius: A cable landing in the south island will never happen simply because of latency. Why add ~7ms of latency for 1/3 of your users?
Because it removes latency for Christchurch and South Island users.
Publius: You still have to build independent fibre distribution within NZ anyway (which we already have 3 companies providing) so landing in the south island doesn't actually provide any real benefit.
Why do you think you need an independent distribution network?
Can you please explain your thinking as that comment just doesn't make any sense at all to me?
Publius:Auckland has two coasts anyway so its not like auckland itself is a risk for the rest of the country. Southern cross lands a Takapuna and Whenuapai, and Pacific cable was going to do the same, and no doubt this project will too.
Yes I agree. A cable to Australia should land in the Wellington area as well. So a branch unit off the coast to drop in Greymouth and Wellington areas.
This would be great news for Wellington as well, as then the greater Wellington area could have a clear path to Australia without having to purchase transit from Auckland.
Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!
Publius: A cable landing in the south island will never happen simply because of latency. Why add ~7ms of latency for 1/3 of your users? You still have to build independent fibre distribution within NZ anyway (which we already have 3 companies providing) so landing in the south island doesn't actually provide any real benefit. Auckland has two coasts anyway so its not like auckland itself is a risk for the rest of the country. Southern cross lands a Takapuna and Whenuapai, and Pacific cable was going to do the same, and no doubt this project will too.
I'd better correct my figures, it seems Sydney-Greymouth is 173km shorter than Sydney-Auckland, so my figure of 7ms is not correct. Greymouth-Auckland has a distance of 3.24ms (according to WolframAlpha) not 7ms. My point is still valid though. Auckland is 30% of the total population, the North Island is 75%. A new cable isn't needed for reducing risk of a cable fault within nz.
NZ has 3 companies providing fibre within NZ. Telecom and TelstraClear both have their own Akl-Wel-Chch fibre routes which each follow separate paths (ie each company have a fault tolerant backbone), plus FX Networks are working on their second redundant path or may have already built it by now. So fibre risk or capacity within nz is not a problem.
Since the demise of Pacific Fibre there seems to be many who are now thinking a link to AU is all that is needed. Most companies who serve a lot of data do host in AU (youtube, steam, google, etc) and seem to be willing to build data centers in AU so better to have a fibre cable to content ~20ms away than ~70ms away in US.
Yes, so there are or will be three networks that can deliver capacity from Christchurch to the rest of the country and as you say, with less than 7ms impact, so it makes great business sense for Christchurch to invest in a cable.
What doesn't make sense to me is landing more capacity in Auckland when 66% of the market is South. It may well make sense, but no one has explained the business case to me so far.
It does make sense to me that with 1 cable North, 1 cable South and 3 transit providers, we end up with a very balanced market.
At present the market is unbalanced with the northern transit being well under used as we know that consumers tend to download more than upload.
We also know that there are not large data centers in Christchurch pushing data back up to Auckland.
We also know that it doesn't make sense to build data centers in Christchurch to then push the data to Auckland to push it to Australia.
So from a Christchurch investment point of view (not a technical POV), it makes much more sense to build a new cable directly to Australia from Greymouth.
We also have endless on going comments about the cost of transit up and down the country. Having a branching unit dropping into Wellington means that we get more competition in that market as well.
This new cable seems like a great win for Auckland if it can be pulled off. But it does not seem to benefit anyone south of Auckland, it just seems like 'more of the same'.
Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!
Pacific Fibre's plan was direct NZ to US west coast no hops inbetween, with a NZ to AU branch, unprotected capacity.
This new cable is going to have lots and hops so probably higher latency, also not sure if it will be protected capacity or not?
na, branch units do optic drop off, not electronic, so there would be very little in the way of latency impact aiui other than any impact on additional distance along the path.
Going to Hawai does make sense to me though, rather than the west coast, same as PPC1 went to Gaum because you can pick up transit sooner to head where ever it is you really want to go.
Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!
Publius: Since the demise of Pacific Fibre there seems to be many who are now thinking a link to AU is all that is needed. Most companies who serve a lot of data do host in AU (youtube, steam, google, etc) and seem to be willing to build data centers in AU so better to have a fibre cable to content ~20ms away than ~70ms away in US.
One of the reasons I suggest Christchurch is better with a branch in to Wellington is because we should be looking at doing that hosting here.
We have power to burn in the South Island. We also have a much cooler climate, so it has to be cheaper to keep data centers cool down here.
We also have a much lower population down here. Auckland is filling up. It's soon going to be as full as the places that these people coming to New Zealand are trying to escape from.
To me, it makes sense to start putting infrastructure in place now to address where the population is going to go, not where it is currently.
Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
