To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
cables?

Off-topic troll...

--
Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: The Internet.
> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:34:29 +1000
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 3
> Message-ID: <pbjsbh5llspc2km3a42fs3c96hoahfpvs5@4ax.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5dac535ab0ade276992903f1660ed867";
> logging-data="2269722"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TMqjJFrS1b5kRbG5NocHe"
> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:f0cD/ecrAMfXPeLDSJXo6P7BX40=
> X-Received-Bytes: 857
>
> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
> cables?
>

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Dope stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 66.8% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
least 2524 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1511 have been John Dope "troll format" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Fri, 01 Jul 2022 02:21:26 GMT in message-id
<GSsvK.252409$VPw7.174166@usenetxs.com>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

F2DtacoQ97Nl

Eddie, the Astraweb nym-shifting forger is trolling off-topic and other posts
with its copy of my ID, then replies (or not) to its own post.

See also...
Edward H. <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
John Doe <always.look message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Bertrand Sindri <bertrand.sindri yahoo.com> (unlikely but possible)

--
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: John Doe <always.look@message.header>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: The Internet.
> Followup-To: alt.test.group
> References: <pbjsbh5llspc2km3a42fs3c96hoahfpvs5@4ax.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:21:25 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="aefae07b417003b570527823e77a9930"; logging-data="29200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QBXYPJWay5G0R7zD10mjY5gUD5xOvt6I="
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
> Lines: 26
> Message-ID: <GSsvK.252409$VPw7.174166@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 02:21:26 UTC
> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 02:21:26 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1746
> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:166528 free.spam:20180
>
> Off-topic troll...
>
> --
> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>> Path: not-for-mail
>> From: Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
>> Subject: The Internet.
>> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:34:29 +1000
>> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
>> Lines: 3
>> Message-ID: <pbjsbh5llspc2km3a42fs3c96hoahfpvs5@4ax.com>
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5dac535ab0ade276992903f1660ed867";
>> logging-data="2269722"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TMqjJFrS1b5kRbG5NocHe"
>> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
>> Cancel-Lock: sha1:f0cD/ecrAMfXPeLDSJXo6P7BX40=
>> X-Received-Bytes: 857
>>
>> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>> cables?
>>
>
>
>

John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164904625100) posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022
08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
> except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
USENET (**) has been 67.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
least 2542 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1529 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Dope troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Fri, 1 Jul 2022 04:54:34 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t9lum9$266h3$14@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

dRLaat9e56ka

On 6/30/2022 9:34 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
> cables?
>

Once you see a map of the underwater stuff,
yes, it's important. As important as one picture
can be, compare two pictures to see how many
connections are not getting reported. We don't
know how complete these maps are.

https://assets.weforum.org/editor/QDOQWfd0A3Gr1ju8U6yahPw1TU4y8cnkwbrcjL-chu4.PNG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable#/media/File:Submarine_cable_map_umap.png

There used to be a web site, which gave an
"Internet Traffic Report", and at one time,
some paths between continents were in perpetual
bad shape. Since that time, the number of
fibers running in parallel has increased.

"All green at the moment..."

http://www.internettrafficreport.com/

The fiber optic cables are also unique, in the wavelength
division multiplexing and DSP methods used for
modulation. They are miles ahead of the land
implementations, in terms of bulk capacity.

There are amplifier modules, and series-connected power
sources (like 5000V DC powers fifty 100V drop devices).
So in addition to the fiber or fibers in a bundle, there's
likely to be at least one power conductor. It means the
cable must keep the payload dry, or there will be trouble.
The signal must be boosted every X kilometers, and the
value of X is getting to be pretty good now.

It is the case of continents joined by a single fiber,
which are of most concern. It's not the unaided reliability
of concern, but the concern about submarine attack by nation
states. There have already been cases where a cable looks
like an attack involved more than just a fishing boat
trawl damaging the cable.

There can be all sorts of events to damage the cabling,
and it's pretty safe to say that a cable is under repair
pretty well constantly. Like, underwater landslides would
be a way to damage a cable.

But the last time I looked at the Internet Traffic Report,
I was no longer seeing the bad numbers that have been
present in the past. Back in those days, if the traffic
report said "70%", you could feel some foreign sites
getting "hard to reach" or "flaky".

While the map picture has "that official look to it", I would
expect some things are missing from the map. But the
general "density" is likely correct.

And whatever cable laying ships are available, I don't
think those sit idle in port for very long. They will
always be laying new cable. This picture is a bit silly
looking, but at least it's easy to see how it works. The
cable reels can be larger than the one depicted, and some
spools sit in the belly of the ship and rotate horizontally
as the cable pays out.

https://www.marineinsight.com/guidelines/how-undersea-cables-are-laid-by-cable-ships/

I'm willing to bet, that whatever that ship lays, is not
on the map. That ship might run from the mainland to some
island you can see, and not be part of any global map. There is
more cable laying on the bottom, than the map shows. The
map only shows the "expensive/important bits", and not every
last piece of glass.

Paul

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
> cables?

Almost completely.

On 01.07.22 3:34, Peter Jason wrote:
> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
> cables?
>
slightly less than 100 %

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 11:34:29, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>cables?
>
Why do you ask?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We no longer make things, but sell each other consultancy on how to run
consulatancies better. (Michael Cross, Computing 1999-3-4 [p. 28].)

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 20:23:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 11:34:29, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote (my
>responses usually FOLLOW):
>>To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>>cables?
>>
>Why do you ask?

I'm concerned how easily these could be snipped by Russian submarines,
and in several places too.

High-tension electricity towers could be a target as well, costing
heaps of time and dollars to repair.

Are there satellite (albeit slower) backups for the Internet?

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 04:21:50 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/30/2022 9:34 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
>> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>> cables?
>>
>
>Once you see a map of the underwater stuff,
>yes, it's important. As important as one picture
>can be, compare two pictures to see how many
>connections are not getting reported. We don't
>know how complete these maps are.
>
> https://assets.weforum.org/editor/QDOQWfd0A3Gr1ju8U6yahPw1TU4y8cnkwbrcjL-chu4.PNG
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable#/media/File:Submarine_cable_map_umap.png
>
>There used to be a web site, which gave an
>"Internet Traffic Report", and at one time,
>some paths between continents were in perpetual
>bad shape. Since that time, the number of
>fibers running in parallel has increased.
>
>"All green at the moment..."
>
> http://www.internettrafficreport.com/
>
>The fiber optic cables are also unique, in the wavelength
>division multiplexing and DSP methods used for
>modulation. They are miles ahead of the land
>implementations, in terms of bulk capacity.
>
>There are amplifier modules, and series-connected power
>sources (like 5000V DC powers fifty 100V drop devices).
>So in addition to the fiber or fibers in a bundle, there's
>likely to be at least one power conductor. It means the
>cable must keep the payload dry, or there will be trouble.
>The signal must be boosted every X kilometers, and the
>value of X is getting to be pretty good now.
>
>It is the case of continents joined by a single fiber,
>which are of most concern. It's not the unaided reliability
>of concern, but the concern about submarine attack by nation
>states. There have already been cases where a cable looks
>like an attack involved more than just a fishing boat
>trawl damaging the cable.
>
>There can be all sorts of events to damage the cabling,
>and it's pretty safe to say that a cable is under repair
>pretty well constantly. Like, underwater landslides would
>be a way to damage a cable.
>
>But the last time I looked at the Internet Traffic Report,
>I was no longer seeing the bad numbers that have been
>present in the past. Back in those days, if the traffic
>report said "70%", you could feel some foreign sites
>getting "hard to reach" or "flaky".
>
>While the map picture has "that official look to it", I would
>expect some things are missing from the map. But the
>general "density" is likely correct.
>
>And whatever cable laying ships are available, I don't
>think those sit idle in port for very long. They will
>always be laying new cable. This picture is a bit silly
>looking, but at least it's easy to see how it works. The
>cable reels can be larger than the one depicted, and some
>spools sit in the belly of the ship and rotate horizontally
>as the cable pays out.
>
>https://www.marineinsight.com/guidelines/how-undersea-cables-are-laid-by-cable-ships/
>
>I'm willing to bet, that whatever that ship lays, is not
>on the map. That ship might run from the mainland to some
>island you can see, and not be part of any global map. There is
>more cable laying on the bottom, than the map shows. The
>map only shows the "expensive/important bits", and not every
>last piece of glass.
>
> Paul
>
>
I remember how one large ship clogged the Suez canal a while ago,
causing great delays in supplies.

On 7/1/2022 7:07 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 20:23:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 11:34:29, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote (my
>> responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>>> cables?
>>>
>> Why do you ask?
>
> I'm concerned how easily these could be snipped by Russian submarines,
> and in several places too.
>
>
>
> High-tension electricity towers could be a target as well, costing
> heaps of time and dollars to repair.
>
> Are there satellite (albeit slower) backups for the Internet?
>

There's two approaches.

There is currently Starlink.

Hughes Satellite, an account there has a 2GB per month cap.
Which is not enough for a minimal usage of the Internet.
Just the adverts take 2GB.

Starlink is lower down, in LEO.

Hughes is geosynchronous (GEO), so in the outside orbit.

If a solar storm comes along, of sufficient intensity,
both could be in trouble.

Everything we own is fragile.

Paul

Peter Jason wrote:

> I'm concerned how easily these could be snipped by Russian submarines,
> and in several places too.
>
> High-tension electricity towers could be a target as well, costing
> heaps of time and dollars to repair.
>
> Are there satellite (albeit slower) backups for the Internet?

If you think it comes to the point where Russia will snip the subsea fibres
(which they could) don't you think they'll also shoot down the satellites and
bomb the power stations?

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 20:23:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 11:34:29, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote (my
>> responses usually FOLLOW):
>>> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>>> cables?
>>>
>> Why do you ask?
>
> I'm concerned how easily these could be snipped by Russian submarines,
> and in several places too.

Easily is a massive overstatement. Just think how hard it would be to
intentionally find and then cut am armoured underwater cable that is
sitting hundreds if not thousands of metres below the surface. Submarines
aren't designed for that.

Also the whole strength of TCP/IP is its redundancy. Cutting a few cables
ain't gonna make huge difference.

>
> High-tension electricity towers could be a target as well, costing
> heaps of time and dollars to repair.

That would be an act of war.

> Are there satellite (albeit slower) backups for the Internet?
>

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| If a solar storm comes along, of sufficient intensity,
| both could be in trouble.
|

A solar storm of sufficient intensity could send us
back to the Middle Ages. Except that most of us no
longer know how to farm. But for people who can't imagine
Facebook going offline, that sounds like Chicken Little.

I have a brother whose only choice was satellite until
recently. He lost signal, or found it severely degraded,
on most rainy days.

This reminds me of the AT&T scandal a few years ago.
I think there was a Frontline about it. The US gov't (NSA?)
split a cable coming onto the beach in S. California so they
could copy every phone call coming from Asia. The engineer
tasked with setting up the branch copier thought it was
suspicious and became a whistleblower.

As I recall, that cable was only for phone, but I'm not
sure.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 08:46:31, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 20:23:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 11:34:29, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote (my
>>> responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>>>> cables?
>>>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> I'm concerned how easily these could be snipped by Russian submarines,
>> and in several places too.

Depends what you mean by "the internet". I suspect the contiguous
continental United States could continue to _function_ in the absence of
such cables, though obviously would lose contact - and thus trade - with
the rest of the world. (I might be wrong about that; I'm in UK.)
>
>Easily is a massive overstatement. Just think how hard it would be to
>intentionally find and then cut am armoured underwater cable that is
>sitting hundreds if not thousands of metres below the surface. Submarines
>aren't designed for that.

Yes, but any such cable isn't _all_ at those depths - it has two ends!
Which are probably not too hard to find - courtesy of Google Earth and
other such, even if they don't have their own satellites which I'm sure
they do.
>
>Also the whole strength of TCP/IP is its redundancy. Cutting a few cables
>ain't gonna make huge difference.
>
A lot of the world _doesn't_ have much high-capacity backup; I've seen
plenty of prog.s on our equivalents of the Discovery Channel about a
cable being laid, that will "bring high speed internet" to this or that
country/area. Yes, there _would_ be redundant connections, _if_ the WWW
didn't expand - with adverts, but mainly with sloppy coding and scripts
- to use all the capacity available (and then some). Multi-megabit
webpages are the norm these days - and yet don't in most cases actually
give you anything a page a tenth - or even a hundredth - the size could.
(Imagine using dialup nowadays.)
>>
>> High-tension electricity towers could be a target as well, costing
>> heaps of time and dollars to repair.
>
>That would be an act of war.

Yes. (Though instigator countries call it something else - I forget the
exact phrase Russia is using to tell its own people about the Ukraine
one, and I have a feeling a certain far eastern one was called a "police
action" for some time.)
>
>> Are there satellite (albeit slower) backups for the Internet?
>>
For the trunking data - yes, I think so, though as you say of
considerably lower capacity. For private individuals, see Paul's answer
(basically yes but its slower, costly, and not that reliable).
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

At the end of the day, I wasn't asking to kill the pandas, I was simply asking
for an audit in terms of conservation resources, and I stand by every word.
-Chris Packham, quoted in Radio Times, 29 May - 4 June 2010

On 7/2/2022 7:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> | If a solar storm comes along, of sufficient intensity,
> | both could be in trouble.
> |
>
> A solar storm of sufficient intensity could send us
> back to the Middle Ages. Except that most of us no
> longer know how to farm. But for people who can't imagine
> Facebook going offline, that sounds like Chicken Little.
>
> I have a brother whose only choice was satellite until
> recently. He lost signal, or found it severely degraded,
> on most rainy days.
>
> This reminds me of the AT&T scandal a few years ago.
> I think there was a Frontline about it. The US gov't (NSA?)
> split a cable coming onto the beach in S. California so they
> could copy every phone call coming from Asia. The engineer
> tasked with setting up the branch copier thought it was
> suspicious and became a whistleblower.
>
> As I recall, that cable was only for phone, but I'm not
> sure.

The cable would not be for just phone.

There would have been a time, where the SONET/SDH
was just for TDM timeslots. But I would think today,
the timeslot usage for trunking would be vanishingly small,
and most all of it is packet data on an ocean fiber cable.

If a cable is 1 terabit per second, how many phone
conversations at 64Kilobits per second would that be ? :-)

Remembering that phone switches themselves, have limited
call handling capacity. And only a portion of their capacity
would be directed to LD trunking (most calls are local numbers).

To decode what's on the cable, you'd need a channel map.
The info might be in CCS7, but I don't know if that spells
out internal configuration data every step of the way in
a call setup.

Even the phone company itself today, would choose to use
packet data for phone calls, as it's more flexible. And
then tapping the cable for a specific phone conversation
would be a lot harder.

The best place to do crypto, is on terminal equipment. A POTS
phone, contains a microphone and a speaker, and zero processors.
Whereas a VOIP phone, like the one I use, it has a processor,
it supports eight different CODECs for phone carriage, and it
would be trivial for someone to add crypto to the path if
they wanted, in a standard for such things. I would hold out
hope for "less tap-able" phoning in future, because more
processors are involved in VOIP.

Paul

Mayayana wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> | If a solar storm comes along, of sufficient intensity,
> | both could be in trouble.
> |
>
> A solar storm of sufficient intensity could send us
> back to the Middle Ages. Except that most of us no
> longer know how to farm. But for people who can't imagine
> Facebook going offline, that sounds like Chicken Little.
>
> I have a brother whose only choice was satellite until
> recently. He lost signal, or found it severely degraded,
> on most rainy days.
>
> This reminds me of the AT&T scandal a few years ago.
> I think there was a Frontline about it. The US gov't (NSA?)
> split a cable coming onto the beach in S. California so they
> could copy every phone call coming from Asia. The engineer
> tasked with setting up the branch copier thought it was
> suspicious and became a whistleblower.
>
> As I recall, that cable was only for phone, but I'm not
> sure.
>
>
A few decades ago.
Mark Klein ex-ATT employee
- incident of initial activty circa 2002
- coincidental possibly after 9/11
- supposedly more than phone calls(i.e internet)
- unclear regarding Asia specific
- Klein wrote a book 'Wiring Up The Big Brother Machine...And Fighting
It.'
- Class Action suits earlier(2006...) and since(apparently dismissed)
- Class Action primary filing organization - Electronic Frontier
Organization(non-profit, 79 employees)

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 7/2/2022 4:46 AM, Chris wrote:

> Easily is a massive overstatement. Just think how hard it would be to
> intentionally find and then cut am armoured underwater cable that is
> sitting hundreds if not thousands of metres below the surface. Submarines
> aren't designed for that.

This happens all the time.

War my ass.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/norways-strategic-underwater-research-observatory-has-cables-cut-removed-in-suspicious-act

This has also been done in the Mediterranean.

It's quite simple. An anchor, a chain, you make it look
like "a fishing vessel wot done it". Don't leave hack saw
marks at 6000 meters, and you'll be fine :-) Some
fiber optic cables have been dragged hundreds of meters
out of position. You can't tell me the captain of
the vessel doing that, hasn't "noticed the steering on
the vessel needs significant correction" :-) The engines
on the vessel doing this, would be "flat out".

That's why, when I show a map of fibers around the world,
I am not convinced the map is complete. And it's pretty
well a given, that whatever fleet of cable laying ship
is out there, it is 100% booked. There are ships for doing
repairs, that are also 100% booked - they just go from
one failure to the next.

There are national submarines that carry their own ROV,
and can do anything that needs doing, at virtually
any depth. The sub might dive to only 1000 feet or so,
but the ROVs can reach 6000 meters now. Some of these
can be bought commercial off the shelf, and would not
be considered quite as custom.

"Deepest Dive

On May 31, 2009, the deep-sea vehicle Nereus successfully
reached the deepest part of the ocean, diving to 6.8 miles
(10,902 meters) in the western Pacific Ocean's Mariana Trench."

You might have suspicions about who has a motivation to
damage something, but it's quite another thing to catch
them in the act.

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On 7/2/2022 4:46 AM, Chris wrote:
>
>> Easily is a massive overstatement. Just think how hard it would be to
>> intentionally find and then cut am armoured underwater cable that is
>> sitting hundreds if not thousands of metres below the surface. Submarines
>> aren't designed for that.
>
> This happens all the time.

Not intentionally. The internet is used by everyone including russia,
attacking it would affect them as well.

> War my ass.

I only mentioned war in terms of attacking electrical infrastructure.

> https://nationalpost.com/news/world/norways-strategic-underwater-research-observatory-has-cables-cut-removed-in-suspicious-act
>
> This has also been done in the Mediterranean.

There are a few choke points around the world and eastern end of the
mediterranean by the Suez canal is one of those places. There's lots of
ships there too so chances are high.

> It's quite simple. An anchor, a chain, you make it look
> like "a fishing vessel wot done it". Don't leave hack saw
> marks at 6000 meters, and you'll be fine :-) Some
> fiber optic cables have been dragged hundreds of meters
> out of position. You can't tell me the captain of
> the vessel doing that, hasn't "noticed the steering on
> the vessel needs significant correction" :-) The engines
> on the vessel doing this, would be "flat out".
>
> That's why, when I show a map of fibers around the world,
> I am not convinced the map is complete. And it's pretty
> well a given, that whatever fleet of cable laying ship
> is out there, it is 100% booked. There are ships for doing
> repairs, that are also 100% booked - they just go from
> one failure to the next.

Exactly why it's futile to even try.

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 08:46:31, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 20:23:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 11:34:29, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote (my
>>>> responses usually FOLLOW):
>>>>> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
>>>>> cables?
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>
>>> I'm concerned how easily these could be snipped by Russian submarines,
>>> and in several places too.
>
> Depends what you mean by "the internet". I suspect the contiguous
> continental United States could continue to _function_ in the absence of
> such cables, though obviously would lose contact - and thus trade - with
> the rest of the world. (I might be wrong about that; I'm in UK.)
>>
>> Easily is a massive overstatement. Just think how hard it would be to
>> intentionally find and then cut am armoured underwater cable that is
>> sitting hundreds if not thousands of metres below the surface. Submarines
>> aren't designed for that.
>
> Yes, but any such cable isn't _all_ at those depths - it has two ends!
> Which are probably not too hard to find - courtesy of Google Earth and
> other such, even if they don't have their own satellites which I'm sure
> they do.

The shallow parts will be in national waters. Not somewhere a russian
submarine will be welcomed.

>> Also the whole strength of TCP/IP is its redundancy. Cutting a few cables
>> ain't gonna make huge difference.
>>
> A lot of the world _doesn't_ have much high-capacity backup; I've seen
> plenty of prog.s on our equivalents of the Discovery Channel about a
> cable being laid, that will "bring high speed internet" to this or that
> country/area. Yes, there _would_ be redundant connections, _if_ the WWW
> didn't expand - with adverts, but mainly with sloppy coding and scripts
> - to use all the capacity available (and then some). Multi-megabit
> webpages are the norm these days - and yet don't in most cases actually
> give you anything a page a tenth - or even a hundredth - the size could.
> (Imagine using dialup nowadays.)

It would be horrible. Even dropping to 3G on my phone feels almost
unusable.

>>>
>>> High-tension electricity towers could be a target as well, costing
>>> heaps of time and dollars to repair.
>>
>> That would be an act of war.
>
> Yes. (Though instigator countries call it something else - I forget the
> exact phrase Russia is using to tell its own people about the Ukraine
> one

"Special military operation". It doesn't matter what they call it, it's
definitely a war.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 15:48:41, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 08:46:31, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote (my
>> responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>>> Easily is a massive overstatement. Just think how hard it would be to
>>> intentionally find and then cut am armoured underwater cable that is
>>> sitting hundreds if not thousands of metres below the surface. Submarines
>>> aren't designed for that.
>>
>> Yes, but any such cable isn't _all_ at those depths - it has two ends!
>> Which are probably not too hard to find - courtesy of Google Earth and
>> other such, even if they don't have their own satellites which I'm sure
>> they do.
>
>The shallow parts will be in national waters. Not somewhere a russian
>submarine will be welcomed.

No, but you've got to detect them.
>
>>> Also the whole strength of TCP/IP is its redundancy. Cutting a few cables
>>> ain't gonna make huge difference.
>>>
>> A lot of the world _doesn't_ have much high-capacity backup; I've seen
>> plenty of prog.s on our equivalents of the Discovery Channel about a
>> cable being laid, that will "bring high speed internet" to this or that
>> country/area. Yes, there _would_ be redundant connections, _if_ the WWW
>> didn't expand - with adverts, but mainly with sloppy coding and scripts
>> - to use all the capacity available (and then some). Multi-megabit
>> webpages are the norm these days - and yet don't in most cases actually
>> give you anything a page a tenth - or even a hundredth - the size could.
>> (Imagine using dialup nowadays.)
>
>It would be horrible. Even dropping to 3G on my phone feels almost
>unusable.
>
So we agree.
[]
>> Yes. (Though instigator countries call it something else - I forget the
>> exact phrase Russia is using to tell its own people about the Ukraine
>> one
>
>"Special military operation". It doesn't matter what they call it, it's
>definitely a war.

As, I'm sure, was the "police action" for most of its duration.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> posted this:

> To what extent is the Internet dependent on underwater (submarine)
> cables?

Yep... It is absolutely mind boggling how little control we have over our
*real* security while the USA body politic, news media, social media, and
deep state are obsessively concerned with asserting that the 2020 election
was legitimate while the one guy - orange man with mean tweets and a quick
temper - who was working to clarify the quagmire in which we are slowly
sinking needs to be addressed with an "America First" perspective needs to
be outcast and cancelled.

<http://tinyurl.com/2p9cuykn>

But relax, *maybe* Putin doesn't realize he can disrupt worldwide
communications and throw our entire civilzation into chaos by simply
sabotaging a few underwater cables before conquering the remnants of a few
floundering governments...

Yeah, right.

Shortened Links Always Guaranteed Safe* by This Author:

*DISCLAIMER:

Exceptions may occur in the case of feeble-brained snowflakes who tend to
experience random idiopathic episodes of derangement, frothing, drooling,
and/or ire.

In other words: these links will never harm your computer with malware but
they may rearrange your brain cells into a more normal configuration.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

Old men in loaded geriatric diapers stalk me on the usenets
and call me pejoritive names, terms of endearment and high praise.

What's really weird is that some of these perverts keep a scrapbook
that is all about me.