Undersea Cables Cut: Oops or Uh-oh?

page: 15
31
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Hey, MSM is starting (last night) to report this. I suspect some MSM may be following the sitch here on ATS. At this time Tehran U is "up" and the isna and irna are not reporting the situation as a problem.

Me? Friday afternoon... Tehran prayer time, I'll be listening for the sound of the trigger being pulled. It may not happen, but we'll be listening if it does. Tagged up with a couple of speakers and writers-in-Arabic... never hurts to have a full quiver.

Vic




posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Todays Repair Update

Repair workers found a 5-6 ton ancor at this particular cable repair site.


07-Feb-08 - Update on Submarine Cable Cut Repairs - Daily Bulletin

Cut # 2: FALCON Cable cut between Dubai (UAE) and Al SEEB (Oman)

- The ship loaded with spares, marine experts, and optical engineers have reached the site yesterday. The crew has recovered the one end of the cable and cable joining work is in progress.

- The FALCON Cable cut between Dubai (UAE) and Al SEEB (Oman) is due to a ship anchor, an abandoned anchor (weighing 5-6 tonnes) was found.

- The cable cut was reported at 0559 GMT on February1st 2008 around 56 Km from Dubai, UAE on segment between UAE and Oman.

www.flagtelecom.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


The BBC has been reporting this since it happened. Depends what country your in I suppose as to what is deemed "News".



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Yeah, it was on CBC As It Happens last night. They interviewed the dude from TeleGeography... most in Canada are picking it up. No one is relating it (MSM to anything "special"). Wink. I bet they're thinkin' it though stu'. It is isnteresting to note the different media emphasis in different peopolitical spheres. Here's a link to the AIH homepage with pods and streams the story is "Internet Cable Cut", link.

Oops, STS-122 is closing out the white room... in the elevator...

Cheers,

Vic



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I'll re-iterate my point and re-phrase it.

It is very likely that we will see more cable breaks.

Cable breaks happen once every three days, on average, according to the source I posted.

Now, what will the reaction on this thread be when cable break numbers hit 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 over the next month or two?

Are you:

A) Going to realise that this is not an anomaly, but is in fact a regular occurence, as backed up by statistics.
.
B) Cite these breaks as more evidence that someone is purposefully going around cutting the cables in order to further some malevolent goal?

One every three days...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I have tried to keep up with this thread but it's pretty detailed. Sorry if this has already been posted. It's fairly illuminating:

Four Theories

It mostly implicates Tel-Com companies and excludes war in the traditional sense.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
AOL news is reporting approx 85 million users are without internet connection.

linky aol news

[edit on 8-2-2008 by White Chocolate]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Its official per CNN that the cables where all cut by a trolling anchor

edition.cnn.com...

What about the timing ... it looks as if it was done as a diversion for Iran to launch a missile.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Now I read its only one cable cut by an anchor ... what's with that?
www.chron.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
any updates?
are they still having internet issues?
I love the "we found an anchor!!!!" on the news... what about the other 8 wires that were cut?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Smokersroom
 


Hey Smokersroom,

Thank you for the links, especially the Wired.com Blog. The arguments you laid out for the statistical probability of these events occurring and Stumason's knowledge about the cables themselves have, in my eyes, pretty much proven this is nothing all that unusual, and definitely not a nefarious plot.

I do find it interesting though, and possibly even a comment on people's attitudes regarding current world events, that the speculating on the cause of the cable failures were so far reaching. As these cable cuts and service interruptions are being proven to be mundane events, the really story appears to be people's reaction to the news.


So again, thanks for your input, and thanks to Stumason as well.

Two thumbs up guys,

-Cypher



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Been away from this thread for some time, but this post made me chuckle.


Yeah, I feel your pain........



Originally posted by Yknot
Thank you, FINALLY someones says the obvious...
And what about the " 40g data rate needs some fantastically big boxes to handle the flow, ect ect"? I imagine they run 1.6 TERABIT thru some of those cable, as the equipment has been commercially avalaible over 10 years now,



No, they don't run 1.6 Tb as that is impossible, long haul. Show me the multiplexor that can do that speed over long-haul links. The largest commercial links are STM-256 and they are new. That is the largest they can go at current standards, no one is evenm thinking of STM-1024 or higher (so much higher to get 1.6 Tb!! Seriously, sooo much higher....).

Besides, 1.6 terabits isn't a valid STM-n speed anyway....

[edit on 6/2/08 by stumason]


www.lightreading.com...

www.lightreading.com...

www.lightreading.com...

www.lightreading.com...

Trust me, it's been available for years. 400G was the standard being deployed and orderd in the late 90's, 1.6 was being announced and deployed in early 2K as well. Since the dot-com bust of 1999-2000, most surviving large U.S. Carriers and Telcos decided to lay low, pick up the pieces of what was left of their competition for pennies on the dollar, buy off the FCC and give Americans the lowest common denominator of service in the industrialized world, (while charging the highest prices) using transmission gear basically left from the 90's. Nortel's Optera and Optera Metro gear basically won out over Lucent and Fujitsu in the domestic long haul and metro hub drop market btw, but I have never heard of the Optera 1600, Lucent ONS 1.6, Cisco,or Fujitsu products ever being installed in this country, only their 400Gb systems.
Overseas and transoceanic cable systems though, were/are an entirely different story...... I'll let you figure THAT one out though. Just try a little googling at least next time.


[edit on 13-2-2008 by Yknot]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I have tried to keep up with this thread but it's pretty detailed. Sorry if this has already been posted. It's fairly illuminating:

Four Theories

It mostly implicates Tel-Com companies and excludes war in the traditional sense.


Excellent link. Hadn't considered the telecom angle. I agree with the author that the Iranian oil bourse is a likely target.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I think this might be a good read, from 5 years ago.....

www.cpa.org.au...



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Yknot
 


Actually, you need to read your own links more thoroughly. There is a difference between the term "capacity" and the actual transmission speed of the links themselves.

Whereas a 400Gb capacity fibre is entirely possible, a single link at a data rate of 400 Gb/s is impossible. The DWDM links will be made of bundles of STM-64 or STM-256 links, which in TOTAL add up to 400Gb of capacity, but there is no individual link that can currently exceed STM-256 (or it's SONET equivalent).

There are also distance limitations to take into account and reading about Lucent's Wavestar equipment, it has issues going anywhere above 500Km, or 312 miles. Hardly able to traverse a US State, let alone an ocean. For long haul (proper long haul, as in trans-oceanic), your speeds are severely curtailed.

It also makes clear in the links provided that these systems are barely even deployed yet.

Another final nail in the coffin for you post is that these systems are Metro IP based systems, not SDH/SONET which is what undersea cable use, in that they are never meant for anything but within a confined area, such as a city. You can have fantastic data rates over such short distances, but that has bugger all to do with long haul SDH/SONET transmission, which does the bulk of the carrying for the worldwide telecoms network.

There is a world of difference between what you posted and it's relevance to this thread.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Yknot
 


Actually, you need to read your own links more thoroughly. There is a difference between the term "capacity" and the actual transmission speed of the links themselves.

Whereas a 400Gb capacity fibre is entirely possible, a single link at a data rate of 400 Gb/s is impossible. The DWDM links will be made of bundles of STM-64 or STM-256 links, which in TOTAL add up to 400Gb of capacity, but there is no individual link that can currently exceed STM-256 (or it's SONET equivalent).

There are also distance limitations to take into account and reading about Lucent's Wavestar equipment, it has issues going anywhere above 500Km, or 312 miles. Hardly able to traverse a US State, let alone an ocean. For long haul (proper long haul, as in trans-oceanic), your speeds are severely curtailed.

It also makes clear in the links provided that these systems are barely even deployed yet.

Another final nail in the coffin for you post is that these systems are Metro IP based systems, not SDH/SONET which is what undersea cable use, in that they are never meant for anything but within a confined area, such as a city. You can have fantastic data rates over such short distances, but that has bugger all to do with long haul SDH/SONET transmission, which does the bulk of the carrying for the worldwide telecoms network.

There is a world of difference between what you posted and it's relevance to this thread.


www.digitalmediaasia.com...



[edit on 18-2-2008 by Yknot]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Yknot
 


Actually, you need to read your own links more thoroughly. There is a difference between the term "capacity" and the actual transmission speed of the links themselves.

Whereas a 400Gb capacity fibre is entirely possible, a single link at a data rate of 400 Gb/s is impossible. The DWDM links will be made of bundles of STM-64 or STM-256 links, which in TOTAL add up to 400Gb of capacity, but there is no individual link that can currently exceed STM-256 (or it's SONET equivalent).

There are also distance limitations to take into account and reading about Lucent's Wavestar equipment, it has issues going anywhere above 500Km, or 312 miles. Hardly able to traverse a US State, let alone an ocean. For long haul (proper long haul, as in trans-oceanic), your speeds are severely curtailed.

It also makes clear in the links provided that these systems are barely even deployed yet.

Another final nail in the coffin for you post is that these systems are Metro IP based systems, not SDH/SONET which is what undersea cable use, in that they are never meant for anything but within a confined area, such as a city. You can have fantastic data rates over such short distances, but that has bugger all to do with long haul SDH/SONET transmission, which does the bulk of the carrying for the worldwide telecoms network.

There is a world of difference between what you posted and it's relevance to this thread.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Yknot
 


Again, that isn't going to have individual transmission speeds of 1 Tb/s, but rather, the whole bundle of fibres will in total have a capacity of 1Tb. It will have multiple systems on it, made up of many segments each dealing with the huge volume of traffic, not just one bit of kit at either end.

It isn't quite what you obviously think it is.

I really don't see why your trying to argue this with me, when this is my bread and butter. Go read up on SDH/SONET, then come back and discuss this. You might have a better understanding of how things operate.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Yknot
 


Again, that isn't going to have individual transmission speeds of 1 Tb/s, but rather, the whole bundle of fibres will in total have a capacity of 1Tb. It will have multiple systems on it, made up of many segments each dealing with the huge volume of traffic, not just one bit of kit at either end.

It isn't quite what you obviously think it is.

I really don't see why your trying to argue this with me, when this is my bread and butter. Go read up on SDH/SONET, then come back and discuss this. You might have a better understanding of how things operate.





Understand, THIS product was announced 10 years ago.
telephonyonline.com...

Now try a google for DWDM (DENSE wave division multiplexing) BASICS and get back to us.


Here, Ill help you;
www.cisco.com...



Increase the Number of Wavelengths

In this approach, many wavelengths are combined onto a SINGLE FIBER. Using wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) technology several wavelengths, or light colors, can simultaneously multiplex signals of 2.5 to 40 Gbps EACH (OC-192) over a STRAND OF FIBER. Without having to lay new fiber, the effective capacity of existing fiber plant can routinely be increased by a factor of 16 or 32. Systems with 128 and 160 wavelengths are in operation today, with higher density on the horizon. The specific limits of this technology are NOT YET KNOWN.


Let's count here... 10G x 160 wavelenghths OVER THE SAME FIBER = 1.6 TERABITs OVER THE SAME FIBER.

Case Closed.




[edit on 18-2-2008 by Yknot]



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Yknot
 


Yes, well done. I am aware of DWDM, it is used within SDH/SONET architecture and as stated, that is what I do for a living.

You also seem to be unaware of the difference between a link (such as STM-256) and a fibre. The 1.6 Tb system you describe will be made of multiple STM-256, each an individual link in it's own right.

The Asian Terabit system you linked to earlier is a network, in that it will have multiple elements and many links within it to give the terabit capacity, but you will not get a single link giving you 1.6 Tb/s in SDH/SONET, but rather that is the total capacity of the whole network.

Imagine a highway with multiple lanes. Each lane can only accommodate a certain amount of traffic, yet the whole highway has the capacity of every lane within it. What you seem to believe is that the highway has no lanes and is just an open pipe with breakneck speed.

This is not so, it will be made at it's most basic level of VC-12 (2Mb/s) channels (which themselves contain 30 64Kb/s channels, but aren't represented in SDH/SONET architecture), which are then multiplexed up into STM-1, STM-4, STM-16 etc up to STM-256 for transmission. There is no faster STM frame than 256, which is roughly 40 Gb/s. Each of these will be bundled together on a DWDM element down the fibre, giving a total transmission speed of every STM frame added together, which would be somewhere in the region of 1.6 Tb/s. Not the same as having a through 1.6 Tb/s link, as such a thing is not possible.

Again, go read up on SDH/SONET, which is the standard for transmission all over the world. Also, look up the difference between capacity (which is a network wide term) and then go look up the fastest individual SDH/SONET frame currently possible. Standards exist for STM-512, yet I do not know of any vendor currently supplying equipment that can do this transmission speed. Each STM frame will be a single wavelength and a single link in it's own right.

Just to make life easier for you:

Capacity: This is a measure of how much traffic a single network can carry in any given moment, but it is not an accurate description of the fastest transmission speeds for individual links, as the capacity is the TOTAL of all those links added together.

Rather like saying 5 cars can, between them, cover 500 MPH, but no single car can do that speed on it's own.

Now, I hope you can understand the above, as it seems that on this rather simple premise is what your basing you whole argument on.

[edit on 18/2/08 by stumason]





top topics
 
31
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join