Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

Global Crossing (Nearly) Sold To Singapore 179

Posted by timothy from the true-to-the-name dept.
sQuEeDeN writes "According to money.cnn.com, the sale of Global Crossing to STT (Singapore Technologies Telemedia) has been permitted by the administration. There originally were concerns about this sale by the DoD/ DOHS but, by what I assume to be much behind-the-scenes negotiating, such concerns have been alleviated. Ultimately this shouldn't [knock] matter much but it's always interesting to see where your bandwidth comes from. We'll see what it means for the U.S. to have it's global bandwidth be owned by, well, someone else."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Crossing (Nearly) Sold To Singapore More

Global Crossing (Nearly) Sold To Singapore

Comments Filter:
  • Much like Microsoft gulping up smaller companies, this kind of thing pisses me off.

    Anyone else upset by this? I value freedom, open source/documentation, and honesty.

    Is that what we're seeing here? I doubt it.
    • IP Connectivity is rapidly becoming/is already a commodity. As a result providing basic IP services does not come with high margins. In order to demand and justify premium prices for a commodity product one must be able to show that the product is superior to the competitor. In the case of the telcom industry this usually starts with "How big/fast/reliable is your network?" - In global crossings case they have a massive global network - an expensive one to. Much like the air lines telcom providers don't pay
    • No I am not upset.

      What does this have to do with freedom, open source/documentations and honesty?

      Let us know please, it is always interesting to visit the deluded world of a paranoid mind.

  • This could be a good thing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dimensio ( 311070 ) <darkstarNO@SPAMiglou.com> on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:17PM (#7015254)
    Global Crossing is a notorious spam-haven. Perhaps, if it goes to Singapore, that will change for the better with spammers being sentenced to canings.
    • As long as Singapore knows that it's bad to spam, MMMM-kay?
    • Singapore has _absolutely_ no spam laws... in fact, selling bulk email contact lists is perfectly legal there.

      • Maybe it's because good 'ol Lee Kuan Yue is so intrigued by the 1000's of mailers he gets everyday from 'concerned' citizens pointing him to herbal HGH/Viagra/youth pills to keep him going.

        Pot shots at old Mr. Lee aside, it has to be pointed out that Singapore is actualy very US friendly. It has very strong trade relations with the US, strongly supports US anti-terror policies, has the only port that is open to US military ships this part of the world. Aside from that, Singapore's military buys most of it

        • If that doesn't stand up on it's own, consider that Singapore is the only nation flanking the Strates of Malacca that doesn't have a pot of home brewed muslim extremists (no offence to level headed muslims) hidden in a corner causing trouble, I'd say Singapore is about as good an alley over here as it gets.

          Bzztt! Wrong... one of the first cells of the Jemaah Islamiyah was discovered in Singapore, with plans to blow up the US and Israeli embassies as well as the Yishun MRT Station (because for some reaso

          • Well, I'll have to agree with you on the "all they do is use what's already available" part. JI isn't home brewed singaporean, it's an Indonesian import. Not like PAS my side of the Causeway.

            Yea, I do see your point about cheap, and belive me, it's a disease of this region and infects every sector. I'm in design and the horror stories of companies that have no problems paying, yet seem to want killer designs for ads and so on for peanuts.

    • I thought in Singapore you got caned for not spamming.

      KFG

  • Grammar nazis: Ready, set... (Score:3, Funny)

    by achurch ( 201270 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:22PM (#7015271) Homepage
    ... go!

    We'll see what it means for the U.S. to have it's global bandwidth be owned by, well, someone else.

    • So why aren't the articles proofread? I've often wondered.
      • Because Rob and the rest of the "editors" feel that by not giving a shit about typos, incomplete sentences, run-on sentences, duplicates, and spelling mistakes it gives the site the amateurish feel that it had when they first started it for the hell of it in 1997. Of course, a lot of people argue that since now they're PAID to run slashdot and since the site has become huge, some level of actual "editing" should be required of these people that claim to be "editors" yet seem to have no idea what the job of
    • It's not just a good idea, it's the law!
    • I think you meant spelling nazis.
    • What does "The US's Global Bandwidth" mean? It's *no* the US's, it's *global*. GBLX was originally a Bermuda corporation that was trying some new ways to finance the construction of undersea cables, and they've revolutionized the cost basis of the whole field by rolling out a lot of kilometers of new technology, which has essentially infinite bandwidth. Unfortunately, *lots* of people were trying new ways to finance things during the dotcom boom and the accompanying telecom boom, so GBLX is dead now.

      Bei

  • Can you say 'Treason'? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by pedro ( 1613 )
    [mr rogers]
    I knew ya could!
    [/mr rogers]

    • Re:Can you say 'Read the friggen law'? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:40PM (#7015365)
      Inter alia, note the use of the words "ONLY IF",

      " President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:
      (1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
      (2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security. "

      http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affai rs/exon-florio/ [ustreas.gov]

      "TREASON" has a very specific definition in the Constitution:

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

      Clearly, despite all his faults, and they are legion, the glorious leader has done nothing wrong in this case.

  • In other news (Score:4, Funny)

    by shaldannon ( 752 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:29PM (#7015312) Homepage
    Global Crossing now provides free open relays for spammers... (OK, not really, but I'm gonna have nightmares about it tonight)

  • Let's just hope (Score:3, Funny)

    by media_whore ( 695970 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:31PM (#7015316) Homepage Journal

    that Bush doesn't do anything to piss Singapore off in the near future.

    In other news (OT), does anyone know what the hell STFU means on a dishwasher LCD readout? I opened my dishwasher just then and it didn't stop running, therefore entirely covering me in water and bits of food. I closed it quickly and now it's blinking STFU on the LCD readout.

  • Thinking outside the box (U.S.) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smack_attack ( 171144 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:32PM (#7015326) Homepage
    I bet carnivore or whatever the hall it's called these days reared it's ugly head somewhere in this deal.

    Can't wiretap you country because it's unconstitutional or ISPs won't play? Let an overseas developer buy it in exchange for snooping access.

    Just a theory, nothing provable yet, but the deal sounds shady.
    • Actualy if I remember the NSA's job they can tap all overseas phone lines they just cant use it if it's an american talkign to an american. I would suspect that the same is true for data lines.
      • Thats the CIA ( Foreign aspect only, not allowed to gather intelligence domestically).

        FBI is domestic.

        NSA is anything it damn well pleases. I dont know if it was closed, but there was a loophole in the lawsthat set it up which basically said that no laws applied to the NSA unless they specifically mention the NSA within the law. NSA is both domestic and foreign, and can cover anything from terrorism to lil old granny ripping off the IRS if its bored one day.

  • What is Global Crossing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:33PM (#7015328) Homepage
    What is it and why should I care? The article doesnt explain it very well

    • Re:What is Global Crossing? (Score:5, Informative)

      by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:52PM (#7015411)
      Despite the fact that this has been covered in the "major media outlets" ad nauseum for the past five years, did you venture to type this in your browser?

      http://www.globalcrossing.com/ [globalcrossing.com]

      Or, maybe:

      http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=glo bal+crossing&btnG=Search+News [google.com]

      For the truly adventurous, there is the text from the house oversight and investigation committee, regarding the effects of the GC bankruptcy:

      http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba78601 .000/hba78601_0.HTM [house.gov]

    • What is it and why should I care? The article doesnt explain it very well

      Oh really? I suggest you read more carefully at the bottom of the page:

      ...Global Crossing, which operates a high-speed fiber optic network in 27 countries and went bankrupt in January 2002 after amassing $12.4 billion in debt amid sagging demand.

      Now I hope you can see why Dept of Homeland Security have worries on securities thing.

    • im in favor with Kevin Conway [slashdot.org] here, rather than post a smart alec snidfull remark (or godforbid i RAFA) yes ive heard of MCI, AT&T ect.. but no ive never heard of global crossing, 27 countries? sorry.. not in Canada. (least not that i know of??) so what do these guys do and why should i care??
      • OMFG. Are you serious? Could you abuse the English language some more? Please?

        im in favor with Kevin Conway here, rather than post a smart alec snidfull remark (or godforbid i RAFA) yes ive heard of MCI, AT&T ect.. but no ive never heard of global crossing, 27 countries? sorry.. not in Canada.

        First off yes Global Crossing does operate in Canada. Try googling for the answer to your questions, or thinking. GC is a US company that operates in 27 countries... hmmmm it might make sense that they operate

        • holy take a chill pill dude

          fuck.. its /. its not like any of this has an relivance on anything? are you new here? you expect a /. reader to RTFM or Google something? thats what shleps like you are for (thanx for telling me there in Canada BTW, why google when i have peons like you to answer my questions?)

          what are you some global crossing employee.. calm down there buddy.. relax

          p.s. im maxed out on my karma, i dont post for mod points, thats not the point of posting, the point is to encourage discussion a

    • Re:What is Global Crossing? (Score:5, Informative)

      by macwhiz ( 134202 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @07:50AM (#7016957)

      Global Crossing's biggest claim to fame is its undersea cables. It was one of a very small number of companies -- two or three -- to own ships capable of laying undersea cable. Global Crossing's original mission was to build a network of modern, high-speed undersea cables linking the major continents. Not only would this be useful as part of their own network, but they could resell capacity to other companies that didn't have a fleet of their own.

      The missing part of that plan was a connection across the continental U.S., so they set out to acquire a landline fiber network. They purchased Frontier Corporation for their nationwide fiber. Frontier was formerly Rochester Telephone of Rochester, NY, one of the largest local telephone companies that was never part of the Bell System.

      I can remember the days when transferring a file from overseas was done only as a last resort, because the Internet links across the oceans were low-bandwidth copper or satellite links. Global Crossing's undersea fiber, and the competition it spurred, brought that era to an end.

      Technically, Global Crossing is a Bermuda corporation; that's a tax dodge used by a number of companies because of Bermuda's very liberal attitude towards incorporation and taxes. (The prerequisite "corporate presence" in the company can consist of a mailbox, for example. It's not a major hardship for a Board of Directors to hold at least one meeting annually in Bermuda, either.)

      The reason that Global Crossing's sale to a Singapore concern is of national interest is Global Crossing's contracts with the U.S. Government. Because of its undersea fiber, Global Crossing is one of a few companies that can provide the government with a worldwide communications network that isn't sub-leased. The Department of Defense has several contracts with Global Crossing. They were concerned about their calls and data being sent over a network owned by ST Telemedia, which is itself owned by the Singapore government.

      More worrisome was the original plan, in which ST Telemedia would share ownership with Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., a company controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, believed to be closely tied to the Chinese government. ST Telemedia bought out Hutchinson's share in the reorganization plan, probably helping clear the way for the approval. It's hard to imagine the U.S. government permitting Department of Defense communications networks to be partly owned by the Chinese.

  • When will it end (Score:4, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:34PM (#7015333)
    Just another entry in the logbook of the continuing saga of America selling itself off piecemeal to the highest bidder. By the way, I have an extra video monitor for sale if anyone wants it.
  • Is there a "Letter of Understanding" between the DoJ / DHS and Global Crossing? Can the DHS demand connection details from a specific (muslim/strange/terrorist) IP adress?

    I am sure there is such thing. The "Deutsche Telekom" singed such a deal with the FBI because the FBI did not want to loose the ability to wiretap "bad guys" that used VoiceStream.

    NoSuchGuy

  • This is not a big loss for the US (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eponymous Cowboy ( 706996 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:39PM (#7015360)
    You have to remember that even though Global Crossing seems ubiquitous, the company is only four years old (formed in 1999 from a merger between a Bermuda-based fiber-optic company and a local US telecom operator), and really died at the age of two--it was run into the ground by the end of 2001, buried in accounting scandals, and filed for bankruptcy in January of 2002. All it has going for it is a widespread physical infrastructure (most of which it doesn't even own outright, with liabilities in the tens of billions of dollars). I say good riddance; let Singapore have them. The only unfortunate thing is that GC's public shareholders will get nothing--that's a big fat $0--from this deal.
    • Yah, it's funny how their stock keeps trading at the rate of millions of shares a day (around $.02 - a true penny stock!) but if you look at their 8K or even their website [globalcrossing.com] it says:

      "...Global Crossing does not contemplate participation of existing equity holders of the company in distributions to be made upon emergence from bankruptcy. "

      So WTF are all these shares being bought/sold for?!? They are literally worthless!
      • So WTF are all these shares being bought/sold for?!? They are literally worthless!

        The same reason WCOM was still trading. While there's little chance the shares would ever have any real value, they're nearly free, and some people will buy on the miniscule chance they'll actually get something out of it.
    • It was never the US's to start with. It was Global.

      The *important* part of Global Crossing wasn't the Frontier fiber network and hosting centers - it was the huge underseas fiber network they built using modern technology, which had close-to-infinite bandwidth because of multiplexing. They and some of the other consortium-structured fiber companies were tying the globe together, which was a Great Thing, except they weren't financially sustainable, and the price of bandwidth has been in free-fall for a c

  • Capitalism and low cost broadband don't mix (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zymano ( 581466 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:40PM (#7015362)
    Only the future of low cost broadband will be realized through municipal run companies like the electric company. We are lagging behind the rest of the world. Doubters ,ask yourself this, how much would electricity cost if the electric companies were privatized ? The folks California could help you out there. The big businesses who are always one step ahead of regulators were price fixing and gouging. Broadband internet access is too important now to let companies like AT&T and Time Warner to control. If the public and local governments would take control of the cable lines and implement WI - Fi Network over them then we would see some real fireworks. Leasing these lines to big business who put stupid shows and infomercials for the dumbest percentage of the population is not smart.
    • I dunno about that ... I had @Home for two years before AT&T took it over, and I had 4 Mbit/sec symmetric access (damned fast, my friend) for $39.95/month. Granted AT&T cut me off at the balls to 1.5 Mbit/sec down / 256 Kbit/sec up, so maybe your point isn't so far off the mark. Oh well. At least AT&T isn't a media company like Time Warner.
    • You're conflating about 5 different issues and arguing everything poorly. I think this is a shame, because at least a couple of those issues deserve attention. If you'd shut up and think, for once, you might make more sense.

      That said, A couple of points.

      Municipal broadband isn't actually that bad of an idea. If you think phones make sense, bandwidth to houses might, too (I'm thinking of Universal Access here.)

      The parent clearly has no idea what actually happened in California wrt power. Nice, pat ans

    • Deregulation, US style (i.e. helping croonies and oozing over future campaign donations) does not work as your example shows, but do not blame capitalism for that.

      In the UK electricity, phone, gas and other utilities were deregulated but in a way that promotes competition and prices have been falling in absolute (and thus real terms) for several years now. i.e your bill is getting smaller. Same for broadband (which comes as a consequence of Telcos deregulation).

      When the UK tried the deregulation US style

  • Approval terms (Score:4, Funny)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:46PM (#7015389)
    There originally were concerns about this sale by the DoD/ DOHS but, by what I assume to be much behind-the-scenes negotiating, such concerns have been alleviated.

    Here are the ammended contract terms finally approved by DoD/DOHS:

    Cable Maintenence: Purchaser acknowledges that the communications system comprises many thousands of miles of optical fiber, and that this fiber will require periodic maintenence.

    ADDENDUM: Purchaser's employees may from time to time encounter a splice in said optical fiber. These splices may occasionally connect to black boxes and/or satellite dishes, or other equipment or devices. Purchaser acknowledges that such equipment or devices are NOT included in this transaction and are NOT the property of the purchaser. Purchaser agrees that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THE PURCHASERS EMPLOYEES TO DISTURB, DISABLE, INTERFERE WITH OR DISCLOSE THESE DEVICES TO ANY PARTY. Purchaser's employees will at all times ignore these devices and deny their existence to any party that may inquire about such devices. If purchaser violates the terms of this clause, purchaser acknowledges that the entire communications network may be vaporized by a controlling third party without notice and without any compensation to the purchaser, and the security deposit will not be refunded.

  • Garbage story (Score:1, Interesting)

    by amerinese ( 685318 )
    How is this news? Certainly it is significant that a foreign company almost bought a major telecommunications company based in the US, because it's never happened before, but do other countries complain that we own so much of what is critical to the survival of their countries. We supply weapons, telecommunications equipment, food, and more. The only things other countries are not dependent on us for are oil and coffee. Are we the moral elite that it's okay we can leverage grain for political reasons, b
    • It's not a non story. It's actually a ploy by Ashcroft to get a pipeline to Malayasia and Indonesia's interent to track down those evil muslim terrorists. Those being the 2 largest muslim countries in the world having a sympathetic SG government overseeing all the spying on them and all the doemstic US trafic in one stop will be just wonderful. It gets around all those pesky constutional laws and civil rights if a country besides the US does it then just happens to tell Ashcroft and the FBI all about it. Th

  • Worst that outsourcing... (Score:3, Funny)

    by CodePyro ( 627236 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:59PM (#7015438)
    it was bad enough when people lost jobs because they were outsourced now we're going to lose ever more job because of foriegn takeovers...if this isn't stopped i think its about time we start considering the option to outsource our congress...
    • Outsourcing Congress is a GREAT IDEA! :)
    • I would be more than happy to purchase your congress from you. Shall we start negotiations on Monday?

      ;)

      Sivaram Velauthapillai
    • Global Crossing got themselves into this mess by making accounting fraud their main business over configuring and reselling bandwidth and network services.

      I've spent 12 weeks waiting for them to allocate a VPN access point in NJ. It's bee unbearable - they seem to have laid out all the identifiable milestones sequentially. Wait for line allocation, wait for router delivery, wait for port allocation, wait for router config, wait for tech to show up to load router config (he never showed up, we did it ours
  • Good Luck, its harder to find more F...Uped people than them of the Singapore
    The small error is that they also think that they are gods gift to humanity and can do every thing better? that will surly not be a issue for a general US person, yes I'm not having a good day....

  • Singapore? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bingo Foo ( 179380 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:33PM (#7015548)
    I guess that means no more chewing gum [chewing-gum-removal.com] while online.
  • Had an acquaintance named John who sat on the board of Global Crossing, at least in 1997 - 98 he did... he spent most of the year in Singapore as it was... wonder where he is now?

    He kept telling me all I needed was 20k and a ticket to Singapore and I could live like a king... still thinking about it.

    • If you love capitalism and love totalitarianism, you'll love Singapore. Most capitalistic country on earth (according to CATO institute) while being a totalitarian...

      Disclaimer: I have never livd there nor do I ever want to. I would rather live in EVIL Cuba than Singapore...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      • You're right that Singapore does have an odd combination of an authoritarian government and a (mostly) free market. I haven't lived in Cuba but I did work in Singapore for 2.5 years, and I'm pretty sure it is a far nicer place for the average citizen to live. The economic standard of living is almost as good as a typical western country ..

        Oh, and 20k wouldn't buy much in Singapore. The tax on an average car alone is about that!

        • If economics is all you care about, it's a great place. Probably in the top 10 countries in the world (in terms of wealth)...

          Just make sure you stay clear of politics...for politics does not even exist there...

          Sivaram Velauthapillai
    • You could live like a King anywhere for 20K. The issue is for how long. In Singapore, 20K goes a long way towards family living, but not very far for living like a King. Your aquaintence was probably reporting from the fog of executive expense account and work days that consisted of having people doing nothing but kiss his ass.

  • So the US owns all the bandwidth, huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonbrewer ( 11894 ) * on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:35PM (#7015559) Homepage
    "We'll see what it means for the U.S. to have it's global bandwidth be owned by, well, someone else."

    Southern Cross is the biggest pipe in the South Pacific. It's not exactly US owned.

    Telecom Corp. of New Zealand Ltd. 50.0%
    Optus 40.0%
    WorldCom, Inc. 10.0%
    • It's also not exactly US bandwidth, is it? From memory it's two places on the west coast, a stop off in Hawaii, then Auckland and Sydney.

      Trust me, we need it, not the US. That's what southern hemisphere corporations are doing owning the thing.

      Dave

    • Re:So the US owns all the bandwidth, huh? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Optus is owned by sing-tel (singapore telecom) so it looks like singapore may be the new bandwidth king soon
    • And it has enabled New Zealand to have some of the best priced, fastest broadband in the world.

      And then I woke up...
    • I would like to point out that people might be starting to notice that New Zealand is quite a guttsy little country except, as a shareholder in Telecom New Zealand, I am sure I read in the reports they are owned (well, controlled) by some guy in Hong Kong or something.

      As the person commenting about waking up about decent bandwidth - at least it appears telecom could be unbundled soon and we MIGHT finally see some decent action.

      - traskjd

  • Not Likely But.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:44PM (#7015581) Homepage Journal
    I doubt it would ever happen but I'm sure more than a few network security analysts in the govt have many misgivings about a forein company controlling the largest telecom carrier in the US.

    I'm sure many would point out that we've had no problems with the Panama Canal yet. But what happens if China saw it in it's interest to block passage of US ships. What would the US do? Go back and take it over again?

    Now that can be easy enough. But what do you do when the company controlling the network your work across just changes the passwords across the whole network and then shuts down nearly the entire US network grid? What army of engineers will go out and replace each and every network device that's blocked?

    It's obvious that nobody asked Bush the hard questions or maybe since he does not even use a cell phone, knows how vital these systems really are.
    • I'm sure many would point out that we've had no problems with the Panama Canal yet.

      Since Panama is a US proxy state, it would shock me if there were any more problems...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai
    • The problems weren't the Chinese interfering with shipping - they were Bush Sr's buddy Manuel Noriega getting too greedy and interfering with the cocaine trade. And all my politically liberal friends with their "Bush and Noriega in 1988 - A Crack Team!" bumperstickers helped increase the political embarassment he was causing, which led to a war that killed about 6000 Panamanians and helped rehabilitate the US military's political power.
    • -Panama is not part of the US. It was occupied territory stolen from Colombia by means of creating a puppet country (Panamanians friends: sorry, but you know it is true) to ensure control of ship routes.

      -What does China have to do with this? Are you on crack?

  • Moot point (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EchoMirage ( 29419 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:46PM (#7015591)
    The holdup in the fed was over a foreign business interest owning and operating a piece of "critical infrastructure" like a fibre optic grid. Big deal. There are two relevant counter-points to such an argument:

    First, there are several other large backbone companies that are still very much U.S.-owned: Qwest, Level3, UUNet/WorldCom/MCI, C&W, etc. In fact, a handy breakdown of major backbone providers is available at http://navigators.com/isp.html [navigators.com]. Global Crossing is a small piece in a big pie.

    Second, regardless of who "owns" the network, what finally matters is who has access to the physical equipment. If, in some bizarre act of twisted politics the government of Singapore decides to use STT to hijack the American telecom system, all the U.S. government has to do is break down the doors of the buildings housing all the routers. It's impossible for a foreign company to provide "remote" cable connectivity because of the physical element - all they're really doing is paying people to run the network and taking in the profits.

    Regardless, however, it's reasonably certain that whatever "deal" was brokered between the U.S. government and STT probably involves an open-ended permit for monitoring traffic on the wire. Yet another gift brought to you by the Department of Homeland Security...

    • To nitpick - C & W - Cable & Wireless is British owned.

    • The holdup in the fed was over a foreign business interest owning and operating a piece of "critical infrastructure" like a fibre optic grid. Big deal. There are two relevant counter-points to such an argument

      You missed the third argument in favor of it: We're already outsourcing most hardware production to other countries, and we're already working on moving all the software development to other countries; why not outsource the infrastructure too!
    • Global Crossing is a small piece in a big pie.

      Perhaps, but how many of the others that you list have the trans-oceanic fiber infrastructure of GBLX?
  • Get a load of SGs mind set by reading some of these posts. SG local Yahoo Boards [yahoo.com]

    You thought /. was bad? ROTFLMAO
  • This isn't the first sale of telecommunications infrastructure to an SG company owned by the SG gov't. Optus, the second largest telecom company in Australia was sold to Singtel which the Singaporean government has a 70% stake in, meaning it basically owns it, and I think the CEO is the PM of Singapore's relative. They kept it quiet in the Australian media that Singtel is government owned, and I've spoken to an executive at Optus who's told me that their company is being run into the ground internally. So

  • This is nothing new (Score:3, Informative)

    by Snake_Plisken ( 666881 ) on Sunday September 21, 2003 @12:33AM (#7015788)
    This occured already over three years ago with Verio being bought out by NTT, which is the major Japanese telecom. Clinton had to sign off of the deal, and Verio has a bigger backbone than Global Crossing. Anyone that is petrified about some offshore company handling US traffic is about three years too late in worrying.

    • Re:This is nothing new (Score:1, Informative)

      by texwtf ( 558874 )
      Clinton had to sign off of the deal, and Verio has a bigger backbone than Global Crossing Having worked for both Global Crossing and Verio, I can assure you that that this is an incorrect statement, or at least was at the time of the NTT deal.
      • Telling someone they are wrong without saying why makes you look ummm stupid - lookie here: Here [navigators.com] is where Verio is bigger than Global - here [ecommercetimes.com] and 883 other google related articles which I won't subject all of ./ to talks about when Clinton signed off on NTT buying them.

  • I, for one, welcome your new Singaporean bandwidth overlords. And I don't even live in the United States...

    *g,d&r*

    np: Bogdan Raczynski - Ahou Bouken (Samurai Math Beats)

  • Don't forget, Verio is a Tier-1 provider that was bought by NTT a couple of years ago. No, they don't actually own any fiber, but most of these questions and concerns were exactly the same, especially considering how large Verio's hosting business was at the time.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close