Talk:Submarine communications cable

message: 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)
thread_title:  April 2005

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lagrange? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Operation PLUTO and Siemens Brothers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Depth? 

message: 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 If I am out of date then please restore.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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Technological Developments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added cleanup tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jacobi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wiretapping 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 6 is copper, 7 is petroleum jelly. We know what Rarelibra means. Reg nim (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Usage of each part of submarine communication cable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contemporary Data? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Splicing cables? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Cable Construction 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Anyone" includes you of course. SpinningSpark 09:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History much lacking 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough. It could use a citation, though. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Titantic info

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cable Repair Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links to Terabit consulting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links to maps 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mid ocean ridges? 

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

message: In the section titled ″Importance of submarine cables″, second paragraph, the following reference is present:
 Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2010, February 5). Submarine telecommunications cables.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for your insight Aethalides (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Submarine communications cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Wiki - my first comment.
Can someone with access to reference 6 Haigh, Kenneth Richardson (1968). Cable Ships and Submarine Cables. London: Adlard Coles. ISBN 9780229973637. 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 http://atlantic-cable.com//Article/Brett/index.htm 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies in "First commercial cables" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regenerative repeaters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK I'll change the text a bit "to submerged  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)
thread_title:  Convert template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notable events