Talk:Submarine communications cable

April 2005

I've slapped a Stub template on this one. I am sure another kind of notice (a "work in progress" type of thing) would have been more appropiate, but I haven't found anything that convinced me enough. Unfortunately, being totally ignorant on the subject at hand, I cannot fill in the blanks and make the issue disappear althogether, which would be the way to go.--80.58.43.44 22:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lagrange?

I don't think there's any such thing as a "Lagrange" transform...should this not be Laplace? Or maybe Lord Kelvin did his differential equations the old-fashioned way? --Wtshymanski 01:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Map

Did someone consider creating a map of those cables ? This would definitely be more visually strinking than the list. Maybe I could do that, but does someone know of an automated (or scriptable) way to do it ? I assume the map will have to be changed often.

Yes, someone did. In my case, I've looked at various sources of mapping information that could be used under Wikipedia's GFDL licence, and realised that it is a *BIG* project to draw maps of all the submarine cable systems - especially if trying to draw them in a consistent style, and keep them in a format that can be easily edited and updated. I don't have the time to do that, unfortunately. By the way - it would be useful if you could sign your comments with four tildes like this ~~~~ (which will automatically put in your username (if you have one) or your IP address and date&timestamp the comment), or even better, register a username. Thanks for the comment. WLD 16:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could you then put here the list of sources you found, if you still have them ?

And do you know if it's at all possible to run scripts here on Wikipedia ? I guess it's not, but I'd like to know for sure.

I registered a username : Aftereight 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't got the list on the PC I'm using at the moment. However, there's one major mapping project that looked promising, but I don't remember its name. Amongst other things it seemed to be in use by epidemiologists, and used a command line interface to generate maps. One minor problem will be generating sensible cable routes - there's some, but not much, public information available. I would guess the obscurity helps to prevent those with malicious intent from finding out too much. Drawing some kind of curve that avoids coastlines to join landing points is probably 'good enough', but creation of the connectivity maps will require knowledge of where the branching points in some of the submarine cables is. Again, not easily get-attable information. Oh - I have no idea about scripting on Wikipedia. Thanks for registering - and welcome to the wonderful, if sometimes frustrating world of Wikipedia. WLD 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nice map [1], but I doubt we can use it on Wikipedia due to licensing lissues. It'd look great on this page, though. --Dantheox 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes - it's a Telegeography map. Not useable on Wikipedia. The project I was thinking about is this one http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/ - Generic Mapping Tools. One decision to make is the format to have the maps in - I think the obvious one is PNG format, unless Wikipedia (and browsers) support SVG. The ideal would be to have a template of the world's coastlines onto which cable routes could be plotted (and edited if necessary - which is why SVG would be good). WLD 23:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

GMT looks really fine, but I suspect that the amount of data needed to make an useful map is quite huge. What would you think we should have on the map ? The example at [2] looks fine, but not too informative in my opinion. I think cable names and bandwidth could be useful, along with cable landing points. Also, I'm creating a template Template:Submarine_communications_cable, so please have a look and fix it if you think it's utter crap :-)Aftereight 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the usage seems to be using Infobox in the template name for what I want to do, so I'm creating Template:Infobox_Submarine_communications_cable instead.

There's rather a lot of cable systems, so I don't think an overview map could have it all and still be small enough to render nicely on a screen. KDDI have a nice map here http://www.kddi.com/english/business/oversea/pdf/kddi_gnm_en.pdf - but to see the detail, it has to be expanded quite a bit.

I like the Infobox a lot. I was daydreaming about doing something similar. Ideally, we'd list the cable system technology (there are still some coax cables in use), the design capacity and currently lit capacity and have a map of the particular cable system's route. Ownership gets a bit complicated. Some of the newer cables have one or two owners, but the older ones were usually built by consortia with lots of members. Hmm mustn't get too enthusiastic - I'm meant to be taking a Wikibreak! WLD 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The KDDI map is really nice, although it lacks the bandwidth of each cable. But you're right about it being too large to fit on a screen. We should probably make several maps for each part of the world. Plus it could be nice to create separate pages for cables in each area.

But we do need some kind of specialized database to put all the map data in, don't we ?

As to the Infobox, feel free to add more cells. I put it on the TAT-14 page for a test, so you can try it there too until we settle on the bits of info we put in. Then we can start updating other pages to include it. Aftereight 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes - feel free to revert them if you wish. We're probably not following the correct protocol to create a new Infobox, but I guess we'll get there in the end. I'd like to suggest the Infobox name be Infobox_Submarine_communications_cable_system or Infobox_Submarine_telecommunications_cable_system, as some of the self-healing ring topologies are built from more than one physical cable (this is me being typically pedantic). As for the maps, I think they would have to be created offline and a PNG put up, with colours chosen carefully (so, for example, red/green colourblind people can read them). I'd expect GMT can output in a suitable format, which wouldn't take up too much space. WLD 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A map (most suitable, I hope) has been added. Rarelibra 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's a problem with the current map of submarine cables. There are 5 strands of cables shown leaving western United States towards the Pacific, but on the other side of the map, there seems to be only one strand going towards United States. What happened to the other 4? --Pavithran (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's called a work in progress, plus I did annotate that it is an 'example' (not complete) - nor is it the ACTUAL position of the cables. NONE of the maps out there (unless a smaller scale) show the cables in the actual position. Rarelibra (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Please feel free to use the pdf world map located at http://extranet-submarine.alcatel-lucent.com/ This has been updated for Suboptics 2010 event of May 2010 and represent all cables, even ones in construction (doted line). From Philippe Dumont, head of ALcatel Lucent Submarine Networks. July 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.3.197 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation PLUTO and Siemens Brothers

I don't really get this bit. First, Siemens was a Nazi company during WWII that allegedly employed contrentration camp slave labor, and secondly, the Operation Pluto article doesn't mention Siemens brothers at all. Confused.

A little bit of economic history can help. When the First World War was started the multinational German firm of Siemens & Halske, owned by several brothers, with branches in all of the war countries, in Germany, Austro-Hungaria, Russia, France, and Britain, split into national companies to avoid being treated as an enemy company. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_AG and better http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens (in German). So the British Siemens Brothers were not identical with Siemens & Halske. --Ft93110 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Depth?

I dont' seem to be able to find anything mentioning how deep these things go. I'm wondering if maybe they go all the way to the ocean floor? But I somehow doubt that. Any idea? --Phant 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How deep do you think they should go? Which is harder to believe: that they lie on the bottom, or somehow float or are suspended only a mile down? —EncMstr 01:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All the way down. The route is carefully chosen preferring a depth of between one and two kilometres, deep enough to escape the sharks and the trawlers, not so deep that the technology becomes excessively difficult.Reg nim 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Technological Developments

I removed the reference to powering the repeaters to the sea as this is not explained, it wasn't done like that 15 years ago and I can't see how it would be possible. If I am out of date then please restore. But if they are powered to the sea how does it work all the way along 5000 km of cable. There would be a horrendous voltage loss at the middle of the cable. Reg nim 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How was it done 15 years ago? As I understand it, the cable armour provides one path for the power current, and the earth (i.e. the sea) provides the return path. Shunt faults occur when the insulation on the armour breaks down. I could well be wrong, but I'd like to know how it is/was actually done. WLD^talk|edits 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that this pdf http://homepage.mac.com/ieee_oes_japan/ARENA/SSC03ARENAPower030527.pdf says "However there is only one electric conductor in the underwater optical telecommunication cable and the return current flows in the seawater. This feature strongly restricts the feasible power feeding system." WLD^talk|edits 16:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not then, and probably not now. The cable armour is high tensile steel, which is a poor conductor and has to be wet, else it would not be armour. Deep water cables needed no armour but they needed tensional strength to carry the catenary during laying and recovery. In the diagram at the top of the article there is a copper ring which contains the fibres, this has to be the conductor. The repeaters are powered by the same circuit as the lights on a Christmas tree. Returning power through the sea happens at each terminal station. TAT8 needed a total of 18 Kv at 1.6 A. Each end provided half. About half the power was dissipated in the repeaters and half was lost in transmission. But the separation of repeaters was only 15 Km. There was a cable from the UK to the Isle of Man which was 45 Km unrepeatered. To achieve this the lasers were powered to a level giving unacceptable reliability for the ocean bed. A shunt fault was water penetrating to the core conductor. Reg nim 17:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - so rather than the armour, it is the copper (or aluminium) core which is the (single) conductor. I'll update the Shunt fault article then.WLD^talk|edits 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I also put in a bit about the functions of a repeater. Can someone familiar with current practice please review this. Reg nim 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone knowledgeable sort out the paragraph which starts "Verizon ..." . It reads like a quote out of a promotional release, and I cannot understand why it need so many words. It seems like nonsense because three separate cables have the same tolerance. Is it a ladder design ? Reg nim 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it, and replaced with text that wasn't advertising copy. The system uses the Ciena Core Director to switch traffic (automatically) between different paths if one path fails. Verizon are not the only organisation using it, just the ones being most public about it.WLD^talk|edits 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Added cleanup tag

I've added a cleanup tag to the page, as I think that the "History" section ought to be downsized, and that the current technology should be pulled out of it and made a separate section. Also, the current table of contents is a bit too big at the moment. Maybe a separate page, something like "History of submarine communications cables", should be created ? Unfortunately I don't have enough time to do that right now, but I'll try to give a hand over the next few days/weeks. -- Aftereight 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I value the content of "History", so I hope that it will not be downsized. The subject is a branch of Transmission (telecommunications), mending this needs to create the network of articles from there down. Reg nim 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jacobi

The article claims that "India rubber had been tried by Moritz von Jacobi, the Russian electrician, as far back as 1811." In 1811 Jacobi was ten years old; this seems rather hard to credit.

The factoid about Jacobi was added in this edit, listing him as simply "Jacobi". The identification with Moritz von Jacobi was made later. I would guess that in all likelihood either the 1811 date is wrong, or another Jacobi is being referenced. Which is it? --Saforrest 22:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Date error

In the beggining it says "As of 1903, submarine cables link all the world's continents except Antarctica." This must be an error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.86.198.244 (talk) 15:02:55, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Wiretapping

This article makes no mention of wiretaping of submarine cables. If it's ever happened and is documented, I think it ought to be in this article, as it must be quite difficult to achieve, whether the original wire cables or the modern optical fiber cables. Jedwards05 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cables deep under the sea are considered secure. Tapping occurs using terminal equipment, as explained by evidence in a current US court action. A land based cable or a microwave link is not secure, which is why deep cables at enormous extra expense go so far alongside land. Reg nim (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This must have been the idea of the Soviet government, too, up to the moment when after the end of the Cold war the Americans showed that in operation Ivy Bell they had tapped the military cable at Kamchatka. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells The US Navy has even constructed several submarines to put the monitoring equipment in place. See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/23/2142216 and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ft93110 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Virginia Class SSNs are able provide facilities for equipment and technicians to tap into fiber optic cables. This is accomplished by bending the core to a index of refraction that allows the signal light to pass through the core sheath. Thus, no physical splicing is required. This is all classified of course, are there any other sources that might even give a hint of this? 142.16.22.18 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Usage of each part of submarine communication cable

Can someone tell me about the usage of each part of submarine communication cable? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan siow (talk • contribs) 07:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Rarelibra 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean the usage of each part of the cable--> the cross-section illustration of cable . Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan siow (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the illustration, Numbers 1 thru 5 are mostly for protection - while 6 and 7 are for conductivity and 8 are the actual fibers. Rarelibra 12:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

6 is copper, 7 is petroleum jelly. We know what Rarelibra means. Reg nim (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The politics of submarine cable networks

It's funny that noone writes about the political motives of laying entire global submarine cable networks in the late 19th century and early 20th century, especially at places where there was low demand, for instance from Canada to Australia, or from Germany to its African colonies. Submarine cables ar more than just technology. --Ft93110 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Submarine cables are technology, period. The laying of submarine cables may be strategic, political, economic in nature, etc. But to try to expand or elaborate on this is unnecessary IMHO. One would expect countries to connect to their colonies, or to allies or partners, or economic alliances, etc, etc. That would be like trying to have a section that would 'predict' the future expansion based on what factors? Rarelibra (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The entry is about submarine communications cable, not about cable technology. Any historian of technology contradicts you. Anyone selling submarine cables contradicts you. To understand why there are submarine cables you need to embed the technological understanding by the political, military, legal, economic ect. contexts. A cable does not fall from the sky but is developed by some actor (company, government, etc.)for some objectif. An engineers's view is just incomplete.

A car is a car is a car ??? --Ft93110 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it. Your logic fails you. It doesn't make sense to have it in there, period. Because then you can talk about cable companies and their "more than just technology" motives, and consortiums, and, and... get the point? Rarelibra (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention of latest 'accidents'?

Don't know if anyone else has been paying attention lately, but in the past week THREE major lines have been 'accidentally' broken. Two were off the coast of Egypt near Alexandria, with the third in the Suez. As a result, much of the middle east (and I think Pakistan, India and China as well) are without internet or have greatly reduced speeds. I believe phone lines have been affected as well.

Don't have the time to thoroughly research the situation, but I believe it probably deserves mention. --Lode Runner (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lode Runner - good point. We'll make an effort to get the information in there, properly sourced. Rarelibra (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So I filled in the event you mentioned, as well as two other particular events I remembered. If you think of any more, we can get those in as well. Rarelibra (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked those mentions a bit (the 2008 cut was mentioned in two different places, for no reason I could see), including links to the individual cable pages (all of which had information on the cuts). The caveat with all this is Wikipedia:Recentism and I suppose perhaps WP:NOT#INFO (or any other guideline about what kinds of lists make sense and what don't). I don't have an especially strong opinion about whether or not we should be trying to list cable breaks (or significant breaks), but I would say that people who come to this article in response to the news stories will probably want to see background information about how cables work, how they can break, how they are repaired, etc. Kingdon (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the real scoop on how those cables broke? Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this counts as OR - so don't put it into the article - but let's look at the statistics:

I read someplace (linked from Slashdot IIRC) that cables get cut at a rate of about one in every three days worldwide. The article says that transatlantic cables are cut 50 times per year. So the fact that five cables got cut in a space of a week or so is a little more than average - but not so much as to make one suspicious.

What's extremely surprising is that all five cables lead to one country. In List of international submarine communications cables there are 267 'international' submarine cables and a further 142 'domestic' submarine cables. So let's go with 400 cables worldwide...one of which typically gets cut every 3 days. Look at five consecutive cable cuts...what is the chance that the first cable to be cut this week is one of the five that lead to Iran? 5 in 400. What are the odds that one of the remaining 4 cables gets cut next? 4 in 399. The third cable has odds of 3 in 398, the fourth gets 2 in 397 and the fifth has odds of 1 in 396. Multiply those probabilities together. This makes the chance of all five cables leading to Iran being cut so close together in time about 83,000,000,000:1 against. The odds of this happening faster than the cables could be repaired are even higher than that because the frequency of breakages is also so much higher than chance. We've gotta be looking at odds of a trillion to one against overall.

So the idea that this is just coincidence really isn't tenable.

This statistic only applies if the cuts are happening randomly - ergo, we may deduce that it's almost certain that these events are not random. There (almost) certainly has to be some common cause. But the cuts were NOT all in one geographical area - some happened thousands of miles from Iran - so we can't use the increased odds of a cut happening in bad weather or it being due to negligance of some particular ship. Natural causes are pretty much ruled out...which leaves human involvement.

The numbers speak for themselves: I think the conspiracy theorists are on to something this time.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all a probability game. Conspiracy theories are for those with too much time. Companies would not tolerate such repeated actions - do you realize the costs involved? Rarelibra (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no "conspiracy theorist"; I am a transmission engineer. The official explanation for the first cable which was cut just outside of Alexandria harbour was it was an anchor. However, the on-shore CCTV cameras which monitor the area showed there were no ships close to the area 12 hours before and 12 hours afterwards. The cable was cut and an anchor conveniently left beside it. I have pictures from a recent cable "break" in Sardinia which is as obviously a cut cable as any I have ever seen; it was supposedly broken by fishing net - the picture still has the offending article attached. But one look at the "broken" end of the cable will tell any intelligent person everything they need to know about what really happened to it. Someone, somewhere, cuts submarine cables when it suits them. To claim this does not happen and that anyone who claims it does is a "conspiracy theorist" is to ignore reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.160.78 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

map?

The "Map of submarine cables throughout the world" doesn't make sense to me. As far as I understand it, there is a blue and a red line from Britain to Denmark. What's up with this? 85.227.226.235 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it a map of cables throughout the world? The thumbnail explains the depiction of the single cable map. Rarelibra (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And what's up with there being a real location and representative location? Why are they laid so strangely? --70.77.11.19 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused by this picture. I understand that here see the "real location" is twisted around because of movement, errors in laying, sea bed geology, maintenance, etc., but there is still something odd about it. The "real" route even goes overland for a while at one point, and has a long extra section that leaves the UK and goes nowhere. It also reaches land at different places from the "representative location". I think at the very least we need to understand what "representative location" is actually supposed to mean. Maybe we're better off without the red line? And a scale would be nice, too! • TheBendster (talk) 3 February 2008, 07:54 (UTC)

It is representative. The cable reflects actual GPS coordinates. If there is a problem with this - ask the cable owners why. I cannot explain why this is so - other than the bends and such are from the way the cable is initially laid, etc. Rarelibra (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So, do you mean to say that "representative location" means the location officially recognized or published by the cable owner? My problem is that without explanation, the term "representative location" is pretty much meaningless. Thanks. • TheBendster (talk) 4 February 2008, 08:13 (UTC)

The blue line looks completely fake, especially as it loops around on land. Regardless of how true the lines really are they just give the impression that they are not factual and this reflects badly on wikipedia. Is there a way of providing a link to where the GPS coordinates are mentioned, or otherwise a refrence/statement from the cable owners that states how badly laid the cables are compared to the red line? • Percz (talk) 4 February 2008, 10:40 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.229.164 (talk)

Percz - the link is on this website, the Kingfisher Information Service. You can go ahead and contact them with any questions regarding the actual placement and/or location of the cable, and the subsequent representation taken from the actual GPS coordinates. You have no background in cartography whatsoever, so it would be difficult for me to establish any meaning with your words about the blue line looking "...completely fake." The lines give no impression if a user understands maps and mapping concepts. For example, when you see a coastline on a map, it may be generalized and not include small islands, coves, etc. When you see a city on a map, you may view a dot and in your mind imagine that concept as a city... but the actual city has a polygon defining its limits and/or urban and/or rural area(s). This map simply shows a user two things - 1) the blue line, which is where the cable actually is (according to the GPS coordinates given by the referenced site), and 2) the red line, which is the representation of the cable in mapping terms. I could eliminate the blue line and you would automatically have no problem with the correlation that the red line represents the cable. But you would also assume that the red line is the actual location of the cable, which is not true. This map simply points out an interesting factual difference. Rarelibra (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem here is that while the graphic may be perfectly correct and understandable to an expert in cartography, to an average viewer it is confusing and can easily be misinterpreted. Given that the purpose of Wikipedia articles is to be a general reference to the public, I would therefore suggest that the caption is changed adequately to make the map generally intelligible. • TheBendster (talk) 4 February 2008, 15:50 (UTC)

What do you suggest, Bendster? Be part of the solution. ? Rarelibra (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you go and edit the caption to make the map understandable to the masses. Nobody else can do it, since you're the only one here who seems to know how to interpret it. Alternatively, we could remove the map completely. Even that would be better than having something that doesn't make sense. Personally, I would also like to see a return of the previous map (cable connections around the world). • TheBendster (talk) 4 February 2008, 17:03 (UTC)

I'll work on getting a worldwide map again - though without inviting any criticism like the crap you see above. Serious, I do this as a hobby not to take the kind of bs criticism about colored lines and such. Too many people are attempting to be expert analysts when they should look at it like any map in a newspaper article - supplementary, aiding in showing representative examples. Honestly, I don't see the disconnect as how the blue line and red line are confusing when they are so clearly spelled out in the title. Rarelibra (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool down, soldier. I only see comments from people who appreciate your work and want to help make it better with their constructive criticism. This is Wikipedia. You can expect comments from novices, you can expect to be "edited mercilessly", and the best thing you can do about it is to assume good faith and keep a thick skin. For myself I'm sorry if I wrote anything that you took offence at, but I have to say that I wouldn't take any of my points back. • TheBendster (talk) 4 February 2008, 19:30 (UTC)

The map is confusing because it makes no sense to a layperson why the cables would be laid that way. If that's the actual GPS data then more explanation is needed because it simply raises more questions than it answers. For example, why does it go out a quarter of the way into the sea then stop at one end? Why does it double around on itself so many times? Why does it cross over land at one point? I think this is probably because of insufficient data, they just don't have the gps info on enough points to make it clear. We're all trying to make an encyclopedia here, so we should never "look at it like any map in a newspaper article" (nor should you ever take a map in a newspaper article at face value).Mad031683 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Really - don't use a microscope on something so broad - you'll lose the trees for the forest. Serious. Maybe you should ask why the sky is blue, or why water is wet, or why clouds are white? Maybe you should ask what the meaning of life is, while you are at it. Rarelibra (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia article on sky does explain why it's blue, the article on water does explain why it's wet, and the article on clouds does explain why they're white. And yes, there's even a Wikipedia article on the meaning of life! ;-> Let's lighten up, respect each other, and just try to work together to make the best encyclopedia we can. Everyone has a right to ask questions and point out things they think could be better, and you have a right to disagree with them. Just assume good faith and keep it pleasant. • TheBendster (talk) 5 February 2008, 07:34 (UTC)

Tell you all what - I am removing the image from the article. So hope it makes you all happy and sleep better at night. Too many critics and not enough open interpretation. I also challenge someone to do it better. Rarelibra (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone more open to critics will make another map. Chillum 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is unappreciated. Really. "More open to critics" is crap. Critics are weak individuals who don't wish to do it themselves, yet wish to attempt expert testimony at something they don't really know. I will make another map of cables - and this time I won't listen to anyone that isn't experienced with cartography or knowledgeable of cartographic principles of simplification, generalization, typography, etc. Rarelibra (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Data?

The article seems to consist very heavily of historical information. While that definitely has a place in the article, I find it odd that very little mention is given to the cables that are in use today. I don't know enough to contribute anything on my own, but I think the article could be improved by adding more about the present infrastructure. Fogster (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Splicing cables?

Please add some details about how these cables are spliced during cable-laying and repair: In what lengths are they manufactured? How are the lengths of cable joined? How is it possible to splice a fibre-optic strand? What happens after a break when seawater gets into the cable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.123.235 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ever think of going onto Google and/or Yahoo and doing keyword searches to find the references and add them? Just a thought. Rarelibra (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cost

Does anyone know the cost to lay these things? How is it done? Is it one boat that drags one enormous cable across the ocean? What happens if there is a fault in the middle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.120.82 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ever think of going onto Google and/or Yahoo and doing keyword searches to find the references and add them? Just a thought. Rarelibra (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

History

Many of historicity informations in this article are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.233.216 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Current Cable Construction

The first picture on the article appears to show what current cables are made of, but there is no reference to the picture in the article. Can someone add a section that describes the construction of the cables and why each layer is used? Ost (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

History much lacking

There is very little said here of the impact that submarine communication cables had. I would imagine that the effects upon international politics, warfare, news gathering, etc would have been huge. It seems likely they changed how empires were run. Yet almost everything here is about the technology, rather than its results.

So this a request for anyone to contribute.--Mongreilf (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Anyone" includes you of course. SpinningSpark 09:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Titantic info

Does this - "The latter two were contracted to recover victims from the sinking of the RMS Titanic" - really merit mentioning? Unless they were repairing/laying cable when they called to the sinking ship, I don't really see why it's thrown in here an anything other than trivia. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable factoid that readers may find interesting, even if it is tangential to the subject. SpinningSpark 09:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It could use a citation, though. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Cable Repair Section

I looked through the references and didn't find the word "shark" once in any of them, so I went ahead and added a reference for the first sentence in the section (it mentions anchors and trawlers as a threat as well, but not earthquakes or avalanches). It mentions more threats such as water currents and dredging activities, but I didn't bother to add them to the article.--Jambeeno (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The shark problem was discovered in the first trial Submarine Fiber Optic cable layed (layed is used instead of laid) in the Azores by AT&T when it was discovered that the transition from the inshore cable Single Armored (SA) to the deepwater Light Weight (LW) cable would attract sharks that bit into the Polyethylene insulation causing a shunt fault in the system. A special type of cable was used to protect the cable called Fish Bite Protected (FBP) later changed to rebrand it as Special Application (SPA) in the US and elsewhere as Light Weight Screened (LWS). This cabe was normally installed at after the deepest deployment depth of the armored cable and a depth of around 2000m when the LW cable was again used for depths greater than that. 1SubCable (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Links to Terabit consulting

I have opened a discussion on inclusion of the Terabit Consulting presentations in the external links at EAR. SpinningSpark 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to maps

I would like to open a discussion on what external links to maps should be included in this article. The following is the list of maps that were there prior to the recent deletions. SpinningSpark 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alcatel Optical Fiber Submarine systems Map, 2007.
• Map and Satellite views of US landing sites for transatlantic cables
• Map and Satellite views of US landing sites for transpacific cables
• Positions and Route information of Submarine Cables in the Seas Around the UK
• World map of optical fiber cables
• World map of submarine cables by Telegeography
• World map of submarine cables by Guardian
• Interactive map of VSNL under sea cables

Much, if not most of the info contained in the maps and the Terabit Consulting presentation is difficult, if not impossible to find from other sources. The Telegeography maps are pretty much an industry-standard source. Kisca provides free, official maps. Shrug. Ignoramuses deleting stuff is one of the many reasons why I rarely contribute to Wikipedia these days. Don't bother replying. Verdreht (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mid ocean ridges?

How is the constant spreading of the Earth's crust at the mid ocean ridges compensated for with these cables? Have any of the ocean crossing cables broken due to the spreading? Anywhere cables cross moving plate boundaries should pose a problem for eventually. 66.232.94.33 (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Plate tectonics says the rate is under 100 mm per year. Spread out over the length of a cable, that's not going to create enormous tension. I suppose if submarine cables lasted for geologic time, we'd have to take them up and splice on a few metres of cable every 1000 years or so. I would guess that it hasn't been a practical problem. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely that any of them are going to survive trawlers/idiots/saboteurs/natural disasters long enough to have to worry about it. SpinningSpark 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Interwikis

I am not sure that this deletion was such a good idea. Sure, some of those articles cover wider ground than just communications cable, but they are a close enough match to make an interwiki link useful to the reader. SpinningSpark 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If you link en:Submarine communications cable to, for example, fi:Merikaapeli (which covers both communications and power cables), robots will then backlink fi:Merikaapeli to en:Submarine communications cable. I would think that fi:Merikaapeli is better linked to the disambiguation page Submarine cable which is about the same subject and from which the reader can find both kinds of submarine cables. — Now the reader who wants to navigate from fi:Merikaapeli to en is directed to communications cables, without so much as a hint that there is another article about power cables. So, do you think this is a great idea? --Jmk (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea to stop bots doing such stupid things. I further think it is a horribly bad idea to stop human editors inserting well though out and useful links on the grounds that a bot might do something stupid on another wiki. Deal with the problem with the bots, don't mangle the article to pander to them. SpinningSpark 12:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And how would you proceed to stop bots from doing such things? It appears that the modus operandi of interwiki bots is pretty much established (if A→B then surely B→A, and other such ingenious decision rules). I'm not saying it is good that they operate that way, I'm just observing that they do. If you complain to their operators, the usual reply will be something like "it's not the robot's fault, go fix the original links if you don't want them to propagate". --Jmk (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked interwiki bots in the past for edit warring with human editors and repeatedly inserting something that is wrong. Blocking generally works.

The concern of editors here is the articles on en.wiki. All power to those editors who are able to go and fix problems on other language wikis, but there is no reason we should have to. Our concern is only whether or not the information in the en.wiki article is correct. Bot owners are responsible for the edits of their bots as if they had done those edits themselves. If the bot makes errors then the owner is expected to put them right. It is simply not acceptable to say that the bot programming cannot cope with this or that scenario. If that is the case then either an unsuitable bot is being used, or else the task was not suitable for a bot in the first place. Anyway, this is getting way off the subject of the article. SpinningSpark 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Petroleum jelly

Can someone explain the purpose of the jelly in the cable, as described in the cross section diagram? Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The reasons are explained in the 1978 patent for this type of cable. SpinningSpark 17:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Outdated Link

In the section titled ″Importance of submarine cables″, second paragraph, the following reference is present: <ref>[http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_100223] Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2010, February 5). Submarine telecommunications cables.</ref>

That link goes to a 404 page. However, there is mention that they have archived their old page following a move to a new one.

The information can now be found http://archive.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_100223

I could have changed this myself but I am not familiar with Wiki's policy in this matter. Update links ad infinitum or keep things as is...?

Aethalides (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, update the link, that is always a useful thing to do. What should not be done is to delete altogether references that have gone dead. The deadlink remains the source of the information and it is always possible it can be repaired or replaced by an editor if the original source information is left in place. SpinningSpark 11:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your insight Aethalides (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Submarine communications cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130515124730/http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Telegraph/00000013.htm to http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Telegraph/00000013.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Submarine communications cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.techteledata.com/how-submarine-cables-are-made-laid-operated-and-repaired/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DUJ/is_9_105/ai_n27568414/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630105626/http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/SCI/osap/projects/tsunami/documents/1929.pdf to http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/SCI/osap/projects/tsunami/documents/1929.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Submarine communications cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Telegraph/00000013.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316161253/http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2009/21/frozen-out-of-broadband.cfm to http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2009/21/frozen-out-of-broadband.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110213044412/http://pakistantimes.net/2005/07/06/top5.htm to http://pakistantimes.net/2005/07/06/top5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in "First commercial cables" section

Hi Wiki - my first comment.

Can someone with access to reference 6 check and correct the first para of the "First Commercial Cables" section? The dates are inconsistent (which might just be a typo of 1859 for 1850) and the para says the first cable was not successful but according to reference 9 the first _trial_ happened in 1850 (no month given), and was successful the first day but failed overnight.Shandono (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

References

The date is just an error. It was changed in this copyedit in July (User:Jspiegler please be more careful to preserve facts in your copyedits). Yes, they "successfully" passed messages across the 1850 cable, but it lasted less than 24 hours before a fishing boat destroyed it. In no way can that be considered a commercial success. The quote about it being a successful trial comes from a document written by John Brett, the leader of this project, so it is not neutral. It was not a trial, this was always intended to be the permanent cable. You need to remember that Brett has now to explain to his investors why their money is permanently lost in broken equipment at the bottom of the Channel. Characterising it as a successful first step might just persuade them to put up more money to have another go. No independent reliable sources describe it in this way. SpinningSpark 12:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Regenerative repeaters

I think the use of regenerative repeaters should be described, as well as how they are powered. IanHJames (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Convert template

Hello User:Spinningspark, you reverted an edit where I used the Convert template to include kilometres in Submarine communications cable and gave the reason as poor English. If this is the case, can you please improve the English (maybe 2 miles of cable instead of wire) and include the Convert template which is required per MOS:UNIT instead of reverting. Thanks Avi8tor (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:UNIT does not require the use of conversion templates. It requires a conversion included to SI units. That doesn't have to be done with a template. The original text said "a two-mile wire". Your text reads "a 2 miles (3 km) wire". That is incorrect use of the plural and has lost the rather better number in words as well as the hyphen. I'm not a great fan of templates (because they continually cause problems like this) and it isn't essential to use them in this case when you could easily write "a two-mile (3 km) wire" in plain text. So no, I'm not going to spend my time trying to coax the template into outputting what I want to see. You can if you want, but I won't be surprised to see you give up on it. SpinningSpark 17:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

OK I'll change the text a bit "to submerged 3 km (2 mi) of wire". The article has SI primary so I'll keep the same for consistency, a hyphen is not necessary. Far too many conversions done manually are incorrect and can be overly precise. It is possible to have the text for both units but is it necessary? You seem to dismiss by your erasing the SI conversion the fact that many English speakers worldwide are not familiar with miles or other non SI units. It would be interesting to see what the original text actually stated. Avi8tor (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable events

All of these are problems with cables except in 2021 someone added planned cables. We don't have a section in this article for planned cables and it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the list. I suggest removing these from here and putting them on the list of cables - this information will quickly become outdated here as either they will be laid (and are no longer planned) or the concept will not receive funding. SandrinaHatman (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal. Planned anything – buildings, events, films – are only rarely notable and frequently never actually happen. SpinningSpark 17:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Arctic

I would like to expand on the Arctic section, specifically on the technical, cybersecurity, geopolitical, and legal aspects of current projects. I may draw back to the historic importance of the region for the cables and several security issues. Marwolf-Security (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you prefer, I can add the planned cables to the list and then refer to the list instead of talking about each project seperately. Marwolf-Security (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)