Meta Unveils Project Waterworth: The World’s Longest Sub-Sea Internet Cable

G. Mudalige, Jadetimes Staff

G. Mudalige is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Technology & Innovation

---

Image Source : Meta

Meta has announced an ambitious plan to construct a 50,000-kilometer (31,000-mile) sub-sea cable system named Project Waterworth, aiming to revolutionize global internet connectivity. The cable will connect major regions, including the United States, India, South Africa, and Brazil, marking a significant step in Meta’s efforts to expand beyond social media and into digital infrastructure. With a growing focus on artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing, Meta’s investment in global connectivity is expected to support its AI-driven initiatives and improve internet access across multiple continents.

As one of the largest digital infrastructure projects to date, Project Waterworth will incorporate advanced 24-fiber pair technology, providing higher data capacity than previous undersea cables. With over 95% of the world’s internet traffic dependent on undersea cables, this project is set to enhance the reliability and speed of digital communication, enabling better economic cooperation and technological advancement. The initiative aligns with Meta’s broader goal of improving digital inclusion and ensuring that emerging markets have the connectivity required to support growing digital economies.

The project reflects a broader trend where major technology firms, rather than national telecommunications companies, are taking the lead in financing and deploying sub-sea cable networks. Companies such as Google have already invested heavily in similar projects, including a planned sub-sea cable connecting Africa and Australia, as well as a $1 billion investment in new cables to improve connectivity between Japan and the Pacific region. This shift in infrastructure development signals the increasing influence of tech giants in global internet governance, prompting discussions among policymakers about market concentration and digital sovereignty.

Meta’s decision to fund and develop Project Waterworth independently highlights its strategic ambition to dominate digital connectivity. By directly integrating hardware, software, and platform services, Meta is positioning itself as a leader in internet infrastructure, further strengthening its influence in the global digital economy. This approach not only enhances the company’s ability to support high-bandwidth applications like AI and cloud computing but also allows it to maintain a competitive edge over rivals in the tech industry.

The increasing reliance on sub-sea cables has also raised concerns regarding their security and resilience. In recent years, there have been incidents of cable damage due to both accidental and intentional interference, making undersea infrastructure a key area of geopolitical tension. NATO has heightened surveillance in response to threats to critical communications networks, particularly in the Baltic Sea, while the UK has initiated discussions on national resilience against potential disruptions. The strategic importance of undersea cables makes them a potential target during times of heightened conflict or diplomatic tensions.

To address these risks, Meta has designed Project Waterworth with advanced security measures, including laying cables at depths of up to 7,000 meters and using enhanced burial techniques in high-risk coastal areas. By avoiding traditionally contested routes such as the Suez Canal and the South China Sea, Meta’s project appears to prioritize stability and minimize exposure to geopolitical vulnerabilities. Furthermore, by strengthening internet connectivity in the Southern Hemisphere, Project Waterworth may contribute to reinforcing U.S. economic influence in emerging markets, further shaping the future of global digital infrastructure.

JPMorgan Chase vs. Frank: A Court Fight Over a $175 Million Purchase

Pankaj Singh Bisht, Jadetimes Staff

Pankaj is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Business News.

---

Image Source : youtube.com

One of the world's biggest financial institutions, JPMorgan Chase, is in a high-profile court fight over its 2021 purchase of the financial aid startup, Frank. The lawsuit, which is ongoing in a New York federal court, is about claims that the founder of Frank's, Charlie Javice, faked numbers to overstate the company's user base, prompting JPMorgan to overprice the acquisition for $175 million. The case brings into question the risks involved in mergers and acquisitions, and the due diligence of large firms.

The Background of the Acquisition

Frank was launched in 2017 as a pioneering platform designed to make it easier for students to apply for financial aid. The company was soon in the spotlight for making it easy for students to get financial aid, and it became a disruptor in the education finance space. JPMorgan Chase acquired Frank in 2021, believing that it would add to its portfolio of financial products aimed at young consumers and college students.

When the acquisition was made, JPMorgan executives lauded Frank's reported 4.25 million student users. A few months later, though, after closing the deal, the bank initiated an investigation into inconsistencies in the user numbers given by the startup.

JPMorgan's suit alleges Charlie Javice manipulated user data to mislead about the company's actual value. The bank, in court papers, says that Javice and her group fabricated accounts to exaggerate the platform's appeal and reach. The financial titan contends these false representations caused them to overestimate Frank's potential in the marketplace, eventually losing money and hurting their reputation.

Javice has refuted the claims, however, and insisted that JPMorgan is suffering from "buyer's remorse" and utilizing these claims as a means of explaining why the deal failed. Her attorney contends that JPMorgan did not do proper due diligence in moving forward with the acquisition and is now trying to deflect blame.

Legal and Financial Implications

This case has major financial and legal consequences for both the bank and the duo. For JPMorgan, the suit points to possible defects in its due-diligence process during acquiring startups. If the court sides with the bank, then it could establish a standard for more rigorous due-diligence practices in corporate acquisitions.

Conversely, however, if Javice prevails in fending off the allegations, it may create doubts regarding JPMorgan's strategy of making acquisitions and internal decision-making. Moreover, the ruling on this matter might affect how financial institutions and investors assess startup valuations going forward.

The Broader Impact on Startup Acquisitions

The JPMorgan v. Frank lawsuit highlights the need for transparency in startup valuations. Venture-backed startups have been under more scrutiny in recent years regarding inflated valuations and deceptive user metrics. This case is a warning to investors and entrepreneurs alike, as it highlights the need for accurate financial reporting and due diligence.

With or without the outcome of the trial, this case will make future acquisitions in the startup and fintech industries likely to be treated differently. With regulatory authorities and financial institutions increasingly monitoring due diligence processes, startups in search of acquisition might also have to contend with more rigorous screening and filing requirements.

The JPMorgan Chase v. Frank lawsuit is a case that has the potential to redefine the startup acquisition landscape and the way due diligence is done in corporations. As the trial runs, industry commentators, investors, and entrepreneurs too will eagerly observe how the judicial system addresses the complex crossroads of finance, technology, and corporate responsibility.

Nissan Weighs Production Shift During Tariff Negotiations

Pankaj Singh Bisht, Jadetimes Staff

Pankaj is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Business News.

---

Image Source : asia.nikkei.com

Nissan, a top global automaker, is considering shifting its production strategy due to the proposed tariffs by former U.S. President Donald Trump. Nissan CEO Makoto Uchida has said that the tariffs would compel the company to shift some of its manufacturing bases from Mexico. Today, Nissan ships about 320,000 units of vehicle per year from Mexico to the U.S., and hence it is a major contributor in North American trade. If tariffs are levied, Nissan might have to re-negotiate its supply base and manufacturing locations so that it can remain profitable and competitive in the market.

The Impact of Tariffs on Nissan's Production Strategy

The suggested tariffs on Mexican imports would significantly change Nissan's cost structure. Mexico has been a desirable manufacturing base for automakers for years because of its lower labor costs, well-established supply chains, and proximity to the U.S. But if tariffs raise the cost of importing cars from Mexico, Nissan might need to relocate production to prevent losses and maintain competitive pricing in the American market.

A possible approach would be to raise production in the U.S. This action could support the Biden administration's initiative to increase domestic manufacturing and employment. Nevertheless, such a change would necessitate huge investment in new manufacturing plants or enlargement of existing ones, possibly impacting Nissan's overall cost of operations.

Looking into Alternative Production Sites

In addition to the U.S., Nissan might consider realigning manufacturing to other more trade-friendly zones. Nations already having automotive factory infrastructure, such as Canada or Brazil, would be potential sites. Nissan could also look into reconfiguring its supply line by sourcing components from areas less impacted by proposed tariffs.

Over the past few years, Nissan has already diversified its production base, having operations in Japan, China, the U.K., and elsewhere. By using these plants, it is possible to minimize the effects of hypothetical tariffs and maintain an assured supply of cars to the North American market.

Possible Consequences for Consumers and the Motor Industry

If Nissan shifts production, U.S. consumers may face price fluctuations for vehicles. Higher manufacturing costs would result in more expensive cars, making them less affordable for consumers. Alternatively, Nissan could pass on some of the extra costs to retain market share, but this strategy could affect the profitability of the company in the long term.

In addition, a shift in production could have industry-wide implications for the auto sector. Other automobile manufacturers that depend on Mexico for manufacturing could also experience similar issues, resulting in industry-wide adjustments to supply chain tactics.

As Nissan dances around the unknowns of possible tariffs, the automaker needs to balance the economic and logistical costs of a change in production. Regardless of whether the company invests in U.S. manufacturing, looks for other places, or reconfigures supply chain dynamics, the moves will have a major and lasting impact on its operations, pricing, and market presence. The entire auto industry will be paying attention as Nissan and other makers of vehicles deal with changing trade policy.