Southern Cross Cable

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Collector_NZ, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. Collector_NZ

    Collector_NZ Guest

    After recent discussions here on the capacity of this system I decided
    to find out some details.

    First In Aug 2000 these where circuit costs as quoted in an article on
    internet.com
    [Sydney, AUSTRALIA] Southern Cross Cable Network has reduced the base
    prices for its trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman bandwidth services by 20
    percent, which are due to be operational by November 15.

    The base price for a 15 year 155Mb connection between Australasia and
    the U.S. has been reduced from $20.6 million to $16.6 million (US $12.9
    million to US $10.4 million). Connections from Hawaii to the U.S. have
    been reduced from $2.2 million to $1.8 million (US $1.4 million to US
    $1.1 million) and between Australia and New Zealand from $6.6 million to
    $5.2 million (US $4.1 million to US $3.28 million).

    This is the Cableoperators web site (noted it is designed for broadband
    users slow as shit on dial up)
    http://www.southerncrosscables.com/

    Interesting to note that it is 480Gb except for the sections from
    Hawahii to the US where it is 640Gb

    In the NZ Sections (two of) there are 3 Fibre pairs allowing 16 wave
    lengths per pair (3 x16 = 48) with a bit rate of 10 Gbits/s.

    The SX is actually a ring main, comprising two loops nz-aus and
    nz-hawaii with a link between both loops at Hawahii and then two links
    to the USA, sort of a figure eight arrangement.

    Capacity on the cable is sold in a number of different configurations eg
    1 loop/1circuit 2drop/1circuit and so on.

    Because capacity is sold to a wide range of customers in
    NZ/Aust/Hawahii/Mainland USA it is incorrect to assume that 480
    gbits.sec is available in NZ for our use. I have not as yet found a
    figure that indicates how much is available in NZ

    Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    major partner though.
    Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
    That said the folowing must also be noted..
    Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity purchasers?
    A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
    costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
    Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
    other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in capacity
    purchases on this basis.
    The cost of constructing the Southern Cross Cable Network, including
    project management and financing costs, and including the equipping
    level achieved for 240 Gbit/s, was approximately US $1.3 billion.
     
    Collector_NZ, Oct 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Collector_NZ

    Harry Guest

    Collector_NZ wrote:

    > Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    > major partner though.
    > Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    > Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).


    If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:

    Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    Gates doesn't own Microsoft

    I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    gives you complete control and ownership.
     
    Harry, Oct 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Collector_NZ

    Hmmm Guest

    Collector_NZ wrote:
    > After recent discussions here on the capacity of this system I decided
    > to find out some details.
    >
    > First In Aug 2000 these where circuit costs as quoted in an article on
    > internet.com
    > [Sydney, AUSTRALIA] Southern Cross Cable Network has reduced the base
    > prices for its trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman bandwidth services by 20
    > percent, which are due to be operational by November 15.
    >
    > The base price for a 15 year 155Mb connection between Australasia and
    > the U.S. has been reduced from $20.6 million to $16.6 million (US $12.9
    > million to US $10.4 million). Connections from Hawaii to the U.S. have
    > been reduced from $2.2 million to $1.8 million (US $1.4 million to US
    > $1.1 million) and between Australia and New Zealand from $6.6 million to
    > $5.2 million (US $4.1 million to US $3.28 million).
    >
    > This is the Cableoperators web site (noted it is designed for broadband
    > users slow as shit on dial up)
    > http://www.southerncrosscables.com/
    >
    > Interesting to note that it is 480Gb except for the sections from
    > Hawahii to the US where it is 640Gb
    >
    > In the NZ Sections (two of) there are 3 Fibre pairs allowing 16 wave
    > lengths per pair (3 x16 = 48) with a bit rate of 10 Gbits/s.
    >
    > The SX is actually a ring main, comprising two loops nz-aus and
    > nz-hawaii with a link between both loops at Hawahii and then two links
    > to the USA, sort of a figure eight arrangement.
    >
    > Capacity on the cable is sold in a number of different configurations eg
    > 1 loop/1circuit 2drop/1circuit and so on.
    >
    > Because capacity is sold to a wide range of customers in
    > NZ/Aust/Hawahii/Mainland USA it is incorrect to assume that 480
    > gbits.sec is available in NZ for our use. I have not as yet found a
    > figure that indicates how much is available in NZ
    >
    > Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    > major partner though.
    > Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    > Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
    > That said the folowing must also be noted..
    > Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
    > purchasers?
    > A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
    > costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
    > Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
    > other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in capacity
    > purchases on this basis.
    > The cost of constructing the Southern Cross Cable Network, including
    > project management and financing costs, and including the equipping
    > level achieved for 240 Gbit/s, was approximately US $1.3 billion.


    Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
    Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
    cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
    completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..

    Anyway yes its possible telecom are selling dedicated bandwidth to
    american companies or australian companies and nz might not have access
    to all 480 gbits but with that amount i don't really think there is
    shortage and if telecom own 50% then obviously nz could get its hands on
    248 gbits :) drool...

    be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
    internation bandwidth :)


    "Carriers' carrier, Nava Networks has appointed Fujitsu of Japan to
    supply cable for a new submarine fiber system linking Singapore;
    Jakarta, Indonesia; and Sydney, Australia.

    When it goes live, the 9000 km Nava-1 network will have a potential
    aggregate capacity of 2.56 Tbps.

    "Nava-1 will be the first Terabit-class system linking Singapore,
    Indonesia, and Australia," said Brett O'Riley, director of sales and
    marketing at Nava Networks. "It will also provide the first
    multi-terabit cable directly linking the major Australian cities of
    Perth and Melbourne."

    The repeatered system will use four fiber pairs, each carrying 64x10
    Gbps channels. Construction will begin in the second quarter of 2001,
    with completion expected by July 2002."
     
    Hmmm, Oct 19, 2004
    #3
  4. Collector_NZ

    Collector_NZ Guest

    Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 13:55:
    > Collector_NZ wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>major partner though.
    >>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).

    >
    >
    > If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >
    > Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    > Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    > Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    > Gates doesn't own Microsoft
    >
    > I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    > gives you complete control and ownership.
    >

    Failed again to read the whole posted didnt you.

    "That said the folowing must also be noted..
    Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity purchasers?
    A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
    costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
    Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
    other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in capacity
    purchases on this basis."

    Just the keep providing the evidence of your halfwitted brain.
     
    Collector_NZ, Oct 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Collector_NZ

    Harry Guest

    Collector_NZ wrote:

    > Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 13:55:
    >> Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>>major partner though.
    >>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).

    >>
    >>
    >> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >>
    >> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    >> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    >> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    >> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
    >>
    >> I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    >> gives you complete control and ownership.
    >>

    > Failed again to read the whole posted didnt you.
    >
    > "That said the folowing must also be noted..
    > Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
    > purchasers? A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the
    > associated costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make.
    > However, the Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same
    > basis as other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in
    > capacity purchases on this basis."
    >
    > Just the keep providing the evidence of your halfwitted brain.


    You said:

    "Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"

    Did you not?
    Or are you saying that you said that, but meant something else?

    BTW I read the whole post, but I wasn't talking about the whole
    post - I was talking about your:

    "Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"

    So there - Mr aka Collector_NZ.
     
    Harry, Oct 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Hmmm wrote:
    > Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
    > Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
    > cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
    > completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..


    It heads north to Asia.

    > be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
    > internation bandwidth :)


    at one point a while ago it was cheaper if you had Telstra as an
    upstream to route via Oz and back to NZ for "domestic" traffic.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Collector_NZ

    Hmmm Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Hmmm wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
    >> Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
    >> cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
    >> completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..

    >
    >
    > It heads north to Asia.


    Yeah sorry i didnt mean it was from nz to australia.. was just meaning
    that if we are well connected to australia with the southern cross and
    the cables are interconnected there, then there is probably loads of
    bandwidth out of australasia, i just read about yet another cable from
    australia to japan that is being completed...

    >
    >> be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
    >> internation bandwidth :)

    >
    >
    > at one point a while ago it was cheaper if you had Telstra as an
    > upstream to route via Oz and back to NZ for "domestic" traffic.


    Heh bizzare but believable, wouldnt be so great for latency dependant
    applications such as gaming though hehe
    >
     
    Hmmm, Oct 19, 2004
    #7
  8. Collector_NZ

    Ripping Silk Guest

    Harry wrote:
    > Collector_NZ wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>major partner though.
    >>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).

    >
    >
    > If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >
    > Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    > Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    > Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    > Gates doesn't own Microsoft
    >
    > I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    > gives you complete control and ownership.
    >


    50% gives you half ownership and no control.

    51% will give you total control and essentially the same ownership as 50%.
     
    Ripping Silk, Oct 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Collector_NZ

    Harry Guest

    Ripping Silk wrote:

    > Harry wrote:
    >> Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>>major partner though.
    >>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).

    >>
    >>
    >> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >>
    >> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    >> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    >> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    >> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
    >>
    >> I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    >> gives you complete control and ownership.
    >>

    >
    > 50% gives you half ownership and no control.


    No, it gives you complete control.
    Because you are the largest shareholder and by making an alliance
    (even temporary) with 1 other shareholder you have all voting power.

    And you can completely block anyone else having control.

    But only a genius like myself can figure that one out.

    >
    > 51% will give you total control and essentially the same ownership as 50%.


    Even less than 50% nearly always gives you complete control.
     
    Harry, Oct 19, 2004
    #9
  10. Collector_NZ

    thing Guest

    Hmmm wrote:
    > Collector_NZ wrote:
    >
    >> After recent discussions here on the capacity of this system I decided
    >> to find out some details.
    >>
    >> First In Aug 2000 these where circuit costs as quoted in an article on
    >> internet.com
    >> [Sydney, AUSTRALIA] Southern Cross Cable Network has reduced the base
    >> prices for its trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman bandwidth services by 20
    >> percent, which are due to be operational by November 15.
    >>
    >> The base price for a 15 year 155Mb connection between Australasia and
    >> the U.S. has been reduced from $20.6 million to $16.6 million (US
    >> $12.9 million to US $10.4 million). Connections from Hawaii to the
    >> U.S. have been reduced from $2.2 million to $1.8 million (US $1.4
    >> million to US $1.1 million) and between Australia and New Zealand from
    >> $6.6 million to $5.2 million (US $4.1 million to US $3.28 million).
    >>
    >> This is the Cableoperators web site (noted it is designed for
    >> broadband users slow as shit on dial up)
    >> http://www.southerncrosscables.com/
    >>
    >> Interesting to note that it is 480Gb except for the sections from
    >> Hawahii to the US where it is 640Gb
    >>
    >> In the NZ Sections (two of) there are 3 Fibre pairs allowing 16 wave
    >> lengths per pair (3 x16 = 48) with a bit rate of 10 Gbits/s.
    >>
    >> The SX is actually a ring main, comprising two loops nz-aus and
    >> nz-hawaii with a link between both loops at Hawahii and then two links
    >> to the USA, sort of a figure eight arrangement.
    >>
    >> Capacity on the cable is sold in a number of different configurations
    >> eg 1 loop/1circuit 2drop/1circuit and so on.
    >>
    >> Because capacity is sold to a wide range of customers in
    >> NZ/Aust/Hawahii/Mainland USA it is incorrect to assume that 480
    >> gbits.sec is available in NZ for our use. I have not as yet found a
    >> figure that indicates how much is available in NZ
    >>
    >> Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >> major partner though.
    >> Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >> Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
    >> That said the folowing must also be noted..
    >> Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
    >> purchasers?
    >> A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
    >> costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
    >> Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
    >> other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in
    >> capacity purchases on this basis.
    >> The cost of constructing the Southern Cross Cable Network, including
    >> project management and financing costs, and including the equipping
    >> level achieved for 240 Gbit/s, was approximately US $1.3 billion.

    >
    >
    > Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
    > Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
    > cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
    > completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..
    >
    > Anyway yes its possible telecom are selling dedicated bandwidth to
    > american companies or australian companies and nz might not have access
    > to all 480 gbits but with that amount i don't really think there is
    > shortage and if telecom own 50% then obviously nz could get its hands on
    > 248 gbits :) drool...
    >
    > be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
    > internation bandwidth :)
    >
    >
    > "Carriers' carrier, Nava Networks has appointed Fujitsu of Japan to
    > supply cable for a new submarine fiber system linking Singapore;
    > Jakarta, Indonesia; and Sydney, Australia.
    >
    > When it goes live, the 9000 km Nava-1 network will have a potential
    > aggregate capacity of 2.56 Tbps.
    >
    > "Nava-1 will be the first Terabit-class system linking Singapore,
    > Indonesia, and Australia," said Brett O'Riley, director of sales and
    > marketing at Nava Networks. "It will also provide the first
    > multi-terabit cable directly linking the major Australian cities of
    > Perth and Melbourne."
    >
    > The repeatered system will use four fiber pairs, each carrying 64x10
    > Gbps channels. Construction will begin in the second quarter of 2001,
    > with completion expected by July 2002."
    >
    >


    Its no faster than a dialup if all you send is 1 packet, its not speed
    but capacity...2.56Tb is hefty.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Oct 19, 2004
    #10
  11. Collector_NZ

    Craig Shore Guest

    Anyone know what the SCC power bill is each month? Don't they have 10kV power
    lines along with the fiber to run the repeaters?
     
    Craig Shore, Oct 19, 2004
    #11
  12. Collector_NZ

    Collector_NZ Guest

    Ripping Silk said the following on 19/10/2004 17:44:
    > Harry wrote:
    >
    >> Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>> major partner though.
    >>> Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>> Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >>
    >> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    >> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    >> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    >> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
    >>
    >> I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    >> gives you complete control and ownership.
    >>

    >
    > 50% gives you half ownership and no control.
    >
    > 51% will give you total control and essentially the same ownership as 50%.


    Actually despite the shit that drips out of the corner of Harry Halfwits
    mouth None of the shareholders in SX actually have any control of the
    operation and policy of the company. There money is a straight
    investment in the management company with no representitive control.
     
    Collector_NZ, Oct 19, 2004
    #12
  13. Collector_NZ

    Collector_NZ Guest

    Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 14:44:
    > Collector_NZ wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 13:55:
    >>
    >>>Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>>>major partner though.
    >>>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >>>
    >>> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    >>> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    >>> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    >>> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
    >>>
    >>>I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    >>>gives you complete control and ownership.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Failed again to read the whole posted didnt you.
    >>
    >>"That said the folowing must also be noted..
    >>Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
    >>purchasers? A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the
    >>associated costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make.
    >>However, the Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same
    >>basis as other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in
    >>capacity purchases on this basis."
    >>
    >>Just the keep providing the evidence of your halfwitted brain.

    >
    >
    > You said:
    >
    > "Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"
    >
    > Did you not?
    > Or are you saying that you said that, but meant something else?
    >
    > BTW I read the whole post, but I wasn't talking about the whole
    > post - I was talking about your:
    >
    > "Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"
    >
    > So there - Mr aka Collector_NZ.
    >
    >

    LMFAO Well Halfwit Harry is trying to spam someone by posting an email
    address, oh dear what a pity it isnt me. Must foward a copy of this post
    to that address so the person can take action.
     
    Collector_NZ, Oct 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Collector_NZ

    Ryan_Jacobs Guest

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:44:31 +1300, Collector_NZ
    <> provided this moment of wisdom:

    >Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 14:44:
    >> Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 13:55:
    >>>
    >>>>Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>>>>major partner though.
    >>>>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>>>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >>>>
    >>>> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
    >>>> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
    >>>> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
    >>>> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
    >>>>
    >>>>I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
    >>>>gives you complete control and ownership.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Failed again to read the whole posted didnt you.
    >>>
    >>>"That said the folowing must also be noted..
    >>>Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
    >>>purchasers? A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the
    >>>associated costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make.
    >>>However, the Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same
    >>>basis as other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in
    >>>capacity purchases on this basis."
    >>>
    >>>Just the keep providing the evidence of your halfwitted brain.

    >>
    >>
    >> You said:
    >>
    >> "Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"
    >>
    >> Did you not?
    >> Or are you saying that you said that, but meant something else?
    >>
    >> BTW I read the whole post, but I wasn't talking about the whole
    >> post - I was talking about your:
    >>
    >> "Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"
    >>
    >> So there - Mr <snip email addy> Collector_NZ.
    >>
    >>

    >LMFAO Well Halfwit Harry is trying to spam someone by posting an email
    >address, oh dear what a pity it isnt me. Must foward a copy of this post
    >to that address so the person can take action.


    Or, forward it to his ISP. Surely, it's a deliberate misuse of his net
    connection? Given that spam is universally despised by everyone -
    Harry's attempt at causing an innocent party to receive spam - must be
    breach of his ISP's Terms.



    --
    --------------------------------------------------------
    /Begin Sig
    Welcome to RJ's house of idiots
    #1. Redbaiter - lights are on, but noone's home
    #2. Harry - monkey see, monkey do
    #3. Mr Scebe - proof of Darwin's theory
    #4. <Position vacant>
    /End Sig
    --------------------------------------------------------
     
    Ryan_Jacobs, Oct 19, 2004
    #14
  15. Collector_NZ

    Hmmm Guest

    thing wrote:
    > Hmmm wrote:
    >
    >> Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>> After recent discussions here on the capacity of this system I
    >>> decided to find out some details.
    >>>
    >>> First In Aug 2000 these where circuit costs as quoted in an article
    >>> on internet.com
    >>> [Sydney, AUSTRALIA] Southern Cross Cable Network has reduced the base
    >>> prices for its trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman bandwidth services by
    >>> 20 percent, which are due to be operational by November 15.
    >>>
    >>> The base price for a 15 year 155Mb connection between Australasia and
    >>> the U.S. has been reduced from $20.6 million to $16.6 million (US
    >>> $12.9 million to US $10.4 million). Connections from Hawaii to the
    >>> U.S. have been reduced from $2.2 million to $1.8 million (US $1.4
    >>> million to US $1.1 million) and between Australia and New Zealand
    >>> from $6.6 million to $5.2 million (US $4.1 million to US $3.28 million).
    >>>
    >>> This is the Cableoperators web site (noted it is designed for
    >>> broadband users slow as shit on dial up)
    >>> http://www.southerncrosscables.com/
    >>>
    >>> Interesting to note that it is 480Gb except for the sections from
    >>> Hawahii to the US where it is 640Gb
    >>>
    >>> In the NZ Sections (two of) there are 3 Fibre pairs allowing 16 wave
    >>> lengths per pair (3 x16 = 48) with a bit rate of 10 Gbits/s.
    >>>
    >>> The SX is actually a ring main, comprising two loops nz-aus and
    >>> nz-hawaii with a link between both loops at Hawahii and then two
    >>> links to the USA, sort of a figure eight arrangement.
    >>>
    >>> Capacity on the cable is sold in a number of different configurations
    >>> eg 1 loop/1circuit 2drop/1circuit and so on.
    >>>
    >>> Because capacity is sold to a wide range of customers in
    >>> NZ/Aust/Hawahii/Mainland USA it is incorrect to assume that 480
    >>> gbits.sec is available in NZ for our use. I have not as yet found a
    >>> figure that indicates how much is available in NZ
    >>>
    >>> Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
    >>> major partner though.
    >>> Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
    >>> Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
    >>> That said the folowing must also be noted..
    >>> Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
    >>> purchasers?
    >>> A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
    >>> costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However,
    >>> the Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same
    >>> basis as other customers, and each has made a significant commitment
    >>> in capacity purchases on this basis.
    >>> The cost of constructing the Southern Cross Cable Network, including
    >>> project management and financing costs, and including the equipping
    >>> level achieved for 240 Gbit/s, was approximately US $1.3 billion.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
    >> Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
    >> cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
    >> completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..
    >>
    >> Anyway yes its possible telecom are selling dedicated bandwidth to
    >> american companies or australian companies and nz might not have
    >> access to all 480 gbits but with that amount i don't really think
    >> there is shortage and if telecom own 50% then obviously nz could get
    >> its hands on 248 gbits :) drool...
    >>
    >> be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
    >> internation bandwidth :)
    >>
    >>
    >> "Carriers' carrier, Nava Networks has appointed Fujitsu of Japan to
    >> supply cable for a new submarine fiber system linking Singapore;
    >> Jakarta, Indonesia; and Sydney, Australia.
    >>
    >> When it goes live, the 9000 km Nava-1 network will have a potential
    >> aggregate capacity of 2.56 Tbps.
    >>
    >> "Nava-1 will be the first Terabit-class system linking Singapore,
    >> Indonesia, and Australia," said Brett O'Riley, director of sales and
    >> marketing at Nava Networks. "It will also provide the first
    >> multi-terabit cable directly linking the major Australian cities of
    >> Perth and Melbourne."
    >>
    >> The repeatered system will use four fiber pairs, each carrying 64x10
    >> Gbps channels. Construction will begin in the second quarter of 2001,
    >> with completion expected by July 2002."
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Its no faster than a dialup if all you send is 1 packet, its not speed
    > but capacity...2.56Tb is hefty.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >


    Yes, that was rather obvious i think :)


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Hmmm, Oct 19, 2004
    #15
  16. Collector_NZ

    David Preece Guest

    Harry wrote:
    > If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >
    > Gates doesn't own Microsoft


    Bill Gates doesn't own Microsoft. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

    Dave
     
    David Preece, Oct 19, 2004
    #16
  17. Collector_NZ

    David Preece Guest

    Harry wrote:
    >>50% gives you half ownership and no control.

    >
    > No, it gives you complete control.


    Both wrong. If I owned 25% of Southern Cross Cable and you as a 51%
    owner decided to reduce the cost of pipes to $1 per 155Mbit then I'd be
    able to haul you up in court for, effectively, damaging the value of my
    property. A small shareholder's ... something.

    Anyway, you can't. And as the director of a publically owned company you
    have the legal obligation to run it in the best interests of it's
    shareholders - and generally this means in such as way as to make as
    much money as possible. This is why both Telecom and Microsoft are such
    complete bastards.

    > But only a genius like myself can figure that one out.


    Yeah, right. Not planning on running any major public companies soon, I
    hope.

    Dave
     
    David Preece, Oct 19, 2004
    #17
  18. Collector_NZ

    Ryan_Jacobs Guest

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:43:48 +1300, David Preece
    <> provided this moment of wisdom:

    >Harry wrote:
    >>>50% gives you half ownership and no control.

    >>
    >> No, it gives you complete control.

    >
    >Both wrong. If I owned 25% of Southern Cross Cable and you as a 51%
    >owner decided to reduce the cost of pipes to $1 per 155Mbit then I'd be
    >able to haul you up in court for, effectively, damaging the value of my
    >property. A small shareholder's ... something.
    >
    >Anyway, you can't. And as the director of a publically owned company you
    >have the legal obligation to run it in the best interests of it's
    >shareholders - and generally this means in such as way as to make as
    >much money as possible. This is why both Telecom and Microsoft are such
    >complete bastards.
    >
    >> But only a genius like myself can figure that one out.

    >
    >Yeah, right. Not planning on running any major public companies soon, I
    >hope.
    >
    >Dave


    Rumour has it that Harry is starting a new business venture. The
    business's "mission statement" is "how to baffle with bullshit". The
    company will be called "Idiots R Us". The other rumour is that his
    business partner is (the soon to be unemployed) John Tamahere.

    --
    --------------------------------------------------------
    /Begin Sig
    Welcome to RJ's house of idiots
    #1. Redbaiter - lights are on, but noone's home
    #2. Harry - monkey see, monkey do
    #3. Mr Scebe - proof of Darwin's theory
    #4. <Position vacant>
    /End Sig
    --------------------------------------------------------
     
    Ryan_Jacobs, Oct 19, 2004
    #18
  19. Collector_NZ

    Ryan_Jacobs Guest

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:29:28 +1300, David Preece
    <> provided this moment of wisdom:

    >Harry wrote:
    >> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
    >>
    >> Gates doesn't own Microsoft

    >
    >Bill Gates doesn't own Microsoft. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
    >
    >Dave



    Ironically, BG doesn't need to own Microsoft - because he owns the
    human race <sarcasm>.


    --
    --------------------------------------------------------
    /Begin Sig
    Welcome to RJ's house of idiots
    #1. Redbaiter - lights are on, but noone's home
    #2. Harry - monkey see, monkey do
    #3. Mr Scebe - proof of Darwin's theory
    #4. <Position vacant>
    /End Sig
    --------------------------------------------------------
     
    Ryan_Jacobs, Oct 19, 2004
    #19
  20. Collector_NZ

    Harry Guest

    David Preece wrote:

    > Harry wrote:
    >>>50% gives you half ownership and no control.

    >>
    >> No, it gives you complete control.

    >
    > Both wrong. If I owned 25% of Southern Cross Cable and you as a 51%
    > owner decided to reduce the cost of pipes to $1 per 155Mbit then I'd be
    > able to haul you up in court for, effectively, damaging the value of my
    > property. A small shareholder's ... something.


    You are completely wrong. You would be wasting your time going to court
    because it would be thrown out instantly. Lowering the price can be
    a perfectly legitimate way of gaining market share.

    >
    > Anyway, you can't. And as the director of a publically owned company you
    > have the legal obligation to run it in the best interests of it's
    > shareholders - and generally this means in such as way as to make as
    > much money as possible. This is why both Telecom and Microsoft are such
    > complete bastards.


    In the best interests of which shareholders?
    And why does having effective control somehow magically mean that
    the interests of all shareholders are no longer served?

    This is why you are a complete idiot.
    Telecom and Microsoft are not bastards.

    >
    >> But only a genius like myself can figure that one out.

    >
    > Yeah, right. Not planning on running any major public companies soon, I
    > hope.


    Well,at least I know that you aren't!
    Because you are full of spiteful hate for successful companies.
    Not exactly CEO material. LOL!
     
    Harry, Oct 19, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. One-Shot Scot

    Duel: Southern California Tour.

    One-Shot Scot, Aug 25, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    462
    One-Shot Scot
    Aug 25, 2004
  2. Ivica Letunic

    Southern Sinai photo gallery

    Ivica Letunic, Aug 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    430
    Ivica Letunic
    Aug 19, 2004
  3. TheNewsGuy(Mike)

    Southern Ontario - Henry's Digital/Imaging Show??

    TheNewsGuy(Mike), May 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
    TheNewsGuy(Mike)
    May 4, 2005
  4. Shane

    Southern Cross Cable

    Shane, Jun 16, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    683
    Jonathan Walker
    Jun 20, 2007
  5. Malcolm

    Southern Cross Cable capacity to double

    Malcolm, Aug 23, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    363
    Gordon
    Aug 24, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page