3 ms·
Agreed on the difficulty: you would aim first at the low hanging fruit for placing the taps, the easiest being the onshoring spots. But... for the MEMS, I cons
by philprx 9y ago
Agreed on the difficulty: you would aim first at the low hanging fruit for placing the taps, the easiest being the onshoring spots.
But... for the MEMS, I consider this as one way only (public, probably crude/basic) and very possibly we'll learn of other techniques that are usable in say, 5, 10 or 20 years. That's what our taxes are financing in the end ;-) research on fundamental new ways to tap the neighbour/hostile country's fiber.
Lastly, I wouldn't sweat it too much on data/speed capacity but more on power needed to process and Y-split this datafeed to exfil. If in the future we got to learn that micro/nano-nuclear powerstations were tied to submarine interception points, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
The data/speed capacity is probably the less difficult part compared to seamless insertion, power and exfil system.
Now all these are just guesses based on what's public so far thanks to Snowden & al.
- walrus01 9y agothe glimmerglass MEMS product is not really intended for tapping anything. it's a good example of non classified technology. in real world use by telecoms and ISPs it's used as a light-path crossconnect builder for 1 to 1 paths between arbitrary fibers in a meet-me room... something like a labor/time saver for automated testing and lab setups, or to remove the labor and time involved in running a 15 meter two strand fiber crossconnect across a room between two fiber patch panels. If I recall correctly there's four or five companies that make very similar motorized-mirror optical crossconnect boxes similar to it.