From owner-nanog@merit.edu Tue Aug 24 08:01:15 2004
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:57:29 +0100 (WEST)
From: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt>
To: Bruce Campbell <bc-nanog@vicious.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
Subject: Re: More on Sri Lanka fiber outage....>
>
> > Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence
> > charges...
>
> The crew of the ship for having dropped anchor presumably in defiance of
> 'Undersea cable, Do not anchor here' signs, or the telco for having sited
> a critical communications cable near/beneath a busy port ?
>
> --==--
> Bruce.
>
> ( Of course, I don't know the specifics, but if you have a choice, running
> your very-special undersea cable beneath a port would seem to be a bad
> idea )
>...an alternative ISP would have made big bucks during those blockout
days using some satellite gear, no?
subject to the availability of:
uplink stations
adequate bandwidth _to_ the uplink stations
available satellites in 'line-of-sight'
available transponder time on useable satellites.
cost of that time.
available 'downlink' earth receiving station(s)
adequate bandwith connectins _from_ downlink points.
cost of the downlink service
Getting significant bandwidth on a satellite link, for any extended
period, takes a *lot* of advance negotiation and arrangements.