There are a lot of ways around those fiber backbones. ie: there is an entire array of similar fiber paths around the world. No need to shoot a signal directly from NYC to LA when you can route through Europe - Russia - China and pop into LA via the Mexican cell system. There are also private satellites, WiFi links that can be stacked to jump hundreds of miles, digital cell connections, and good old fashion patching through on ham radio. Point being anyone wanting to limit information can slow it by controling the main fiber links but they can't, not without a huge amount of trouble, eliminate it entirely.
Even assuming that the transatlantic and transpacific fat pipes were still available, if you look at Internet map
http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/wp-content/upload/webmap07-telegeography.jpgthe direct route takes you fom NYC to LA via Washington via 500Gbps and 250Gbps links. If you were to route your packets the long way around, then getting to Europe isn't a problem from NYC going via 500Gbps links. You then either route through the middle east (Russia is a dead end), India, Asia (Hong Kong to Tokyo) etc all of which are on less than 10Gbps links before crossing the Pacific again back to LA on 250Gbps link once more. Thats a 50-1 bottle neck just for a single fibre link lost internally within the US, not even including the normal Europe/Asia traffic using these <10Gbps links. Thats virtually equivalent to putting 10 lane motorway LA rush hour traffic on the
B955 to Glen Clova. (yes the B955 does have passing places every quarter mile or so)
Previous Topic
Index
