Talk:Submarine communications cable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the class scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. WLDtalk|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." WLDtalk|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.WLDtalk|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.WLDtalk|edits 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)