Dave Taht's question about all the redundant fiber that was put down in the telecom bubble is a very interesting one. It would be nice if some folks on the list could provide some solid information, even if only for one large carrier.
My impression, from communications with various folks, is that much of that fiber from around 2000 was never lit. The reason is that better fiber came on the market. However, what was used (at least in some cases, again, this is something I would love to get real data on) was that some of the empty conduits that were put down then were used to shoot the new generations of fiber through. (It was quite common for carriers to put down 4 conduits, and only pull fiber through one of them, leaving the other 3 for later use.) Concerning the Doug O'Laughlin post that Dave cites, it is very good. For more on the myth of "Internet doubling every 100 days," my paper "Bubbles, gullibility, and other challenges for economics, psychology, sociology, and information sciences" published in First Monday in Sept. 2010, https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3142/2603 But O'Laughlin is too hard on Global Crossing, for example, when he says it "was essentially a fundraising scheme looking for a problem." Global Crossing had a real business plan, it was the first transatlantic cable that was not built by consortia of incumbent telcos, and it planned to take advantage of the rising demand for transmission by offering capacity to new players, who would otherwise be gouged by incumbents. (It did get into accounting shenanigans later on, as competition arose, but that was later.) What is most interesting is that their business plan was based on an assumption of demand about doubling each year (which is what was taking place), not doubling every 100 days. (This I learned when I was consulted on some of the litigation after the telecom crash, but by now the information is publicly available.) What killed them is that their assumption that it would be difficult for others to get the (special undersea) fiber, the cable-laying ships, the permits, ..., turned out to be wrong, and so a slew of competitors, inspired by the myth of astronomical growth rates, came on the scene. (Global Crossing's expansion into terrestrial fiber networks was also a major contributor.) One of the astounding observations is that while Global Crossing was assuming 100% annual growth rate in traffic, the industry as a whole (as well as the press, the FCC, and so on) were talking of 1,000% growth rates. And the only observer that I was able to find who noted this in print was George Gilder, who drew the wrong conclusion from this! (Details are in the paper cited above.) Andrew P.S. Some interesting materials from telecom bubble era are available at https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~odlyzko/isources/index.html _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
