SubTel Forum Issue #35 - Defense & Non-traditional Cable Systems by Submarine Telelecoms Forum

Submarine Telecoms Forum is published bi-monthly by WFN Strategies, L.L.C. The publication may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publishers.

Submarine Telecoms Forum is an independent commercial publication, serving as a freely accessible forum for professionals in industries connected with submarine optical fibre technologies and techniques.

Liability: while every care is taken in preparation of this publication, the publishers cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information herein, or any errors which may occur in advertising or editorial content, or any consequence arising from any errors or omissions.

The publisher cannot be held responsible for any views expressed by contributors, and the editor reserves the right to edit any advertising or editorial material submitted for publication.

Contributions are welcomed. Please forward to the Managing Editor: Wayne F. Nielsen, WFN Strategies, 21495 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 2-B, Sterling, Virginia 20166 USA

Tel: +[1] 703 444 2527

Email: wnielsen@wfnstrategies.com

General Advertising

Email: sales@wfnstrategies.com

Designed and produced by Unity Marketing

November’s issue marks our sixth anniversary in publishing Submarine Telecoms Forum. Unlike some past anniversaries, today’s cable projects are not only coming together or being awarded, but we are in a time when real, substantive system building is at hand.

The few principles Ted and I established in the beginning, are still held dear. We promised then, and I continue to assure you, our readers:

1. That we will provide a wide range of ideas and issues;

2. That we will seek to incite, entertain and provoke in a positive manner.

This issue’s theme, Defense & Non-traditional Cable Systems, comes at a point when the Korean Peninsula and Middle East seem less disconcerting than this year’s new vernacular, sub-prime, while the internal politics of Pakistan keep policy makers hopping. It is a time when we are also learning how high oil can go, or how low the US dollar can complement.

This edition provides some excellent insight into this complimentary, tangential submarine cable market.

We profile the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, which uses among other things, cable systems to verify compliance to nuclear non-proliferation, as well as the Australian telecoms authority, ACMA, and its approach to cable protection zones. Alan Mauldin examines current internet traffic trends, while Doug Burnett outlines current Law of the Sea thinking on cables. Daryl Chaires discusses available unrepeatered system upgrades, while Catherine Creese reveals the US Navy’s office for cable support. John Horne invites advice for the next SubOptic. Jean Devos returns with his ever-insightful observations, and of course, our ever popular “where in the world are all those pesky cableships” is included as well.

STF is not a perfect medium, and we have surely made our share of mistakes, but we continue to hope that in the long run we have helped our industry in some small way.

Good reading.

What do Australia, Gulf of Mexico, and South Pole have in Common?

A synopsis of current news items from NewsNow, the weekly news feed available on the Submarine Telecoms Forum website.

AAG Construction Ready to Begin

Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications (VNPT) has announced that marine surveys are nearly completed and that construction of the Asia America Gateway (AAG) transpacific cable will begin soon. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

Alcatel-Lucent Completes Submarine Cables for Interoute

Alcatel-Lucent rolled out its core optical transport solution in Italy for Interoute, the UK-based pan-European operator. Extending the reach of Interoute’s existing infrastructure, Alcatel-Lucent commissioned two new submarine links. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/4_november_2007.htm

Alcatel-Lucent to Supply Mediterranean Portion of MENA

Alcatel-Lucent has signed a turnkey contract with Orascom Telecom to lay the Mediterranean Sea segment of a new 3,850 km submarine cable network, named Middle East North Africa (MENA). www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/28_october_2007.htm

Asia Netcom and C2C Complete Operational Merger

Connect Holdings Limited has announced the successful operational merger of Asia Netcom’s EAC system and the C2C network, with Asia Netcom taking full operational control of both entities.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/23_september_2007.htm

Australia Declares Protection Zone Off Perth

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which has made submarine cable protection a centerpiece of its telecom strategy, has declared a protection zone over a submarine telecommunications cable of national significance off Perth, Western Australia.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/14_october_2007.htm

C&W’s Dark Fiber Network in Singapore Up and Running

Cable & Wireless (C&W) has announced that its dark fiber network in Singapore is now fully operational.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/28_october_2007.htm

Azea Announces Bermuda - Us Cable System Contract

Following the announcement on 29 March 2007 by Cable & Wireless International (CWI) of a US$22 million investment in a next generation fibre optic cable which will link Bermuda with the USA, CWI has selected Azea Networks to provide its NX10 terminal equipment and Management System solution for this new route.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/9_september_2007.htm

Bookham Submarine Pump Laser Completes Full Qualification

Bookham, Inc., a leading provider of optical components, modules and subsystems, has announced that its OceanBright™ submarine pump module has achieved full qualification.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/16_september_2007.htm

CTC Announces Launch of New Telecommunications Group

CTC Marine Projects Ltd (a DeepOcean ASA subsidiary) has announced the launch of a separate Group that will focus on developing business activities in the submarine telecommunications market.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/9_september_2007.htm

DeepOcean Announces New Build Vessel Name

DeepOcean ASA has announced the name of its new build vessel which is being built in partnership with Volstad Maritime.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/16_september_2007.htm

Etisalat Highlights African Expansion Strategy

Ahmed Abdulkarim Julfar, Chief Operating Officer, Etisalat, delivered a presentation called “Reaching to Africa,” at the Financial Times Telecom World event in London. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/11_november_2007.htm

FLAG Telecom Awards Fujitsu US $1.5 Billion Turnkey Contract

FLAG Telecom, a unit of Reliance Communications, has announced it has signed a multi-million dollar turnkey contract with Fujitsu for the construction of FLAG NGN cable, a multiterabit, new generation DWDM submarine cable system. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/9_september_2007.htm

Fujitsu Wins Upgrade Contract to Expand PC-1 Network Capacity

Fujitsu Limited has announced the signing of an agreement with Pacific Crossing Limited (PCL) to increase the transmission capacity of its trans-Pacific submarine cable network (PC-1 Network).

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/9_september_2007.htm

Glo-1 Nearing Completion

Nigerian carrier Globacom has announced that its Glo-1 submarine cable linking Nigeria to the United Kingdom is nearing completion.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/21_october_2007.htm

GCI Files for License for Alaska Cable

GCI Communication Corp. (GCI) has filed with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a license to land and operate a non-common carrier fiber-optic submarine cable network, known as the Southeast Alaska Fiber-Optic System (SEAK), connecting the Alaska communities of Angoon, Hawk Inlet, Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Sitka and Wrangell with the existing Alaska United West system (which is owned by GCI’s affiliate, Alaska United Fiber System Partnership (AUFSP)). www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/11_november_2007.htm

Hibernia Atlantic Adds New Vice President of Finance

Hibernia Atlantic has announced they have hired a new Vice-President of Finance, John Pittenger. The hiring of Mr. Pittenger comes in response to Hibernia Atlantics’ record growth in the U.S. and European markets. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

Hibernia Atlantic and Industria Host Icelandic Prime Minister

Dublin-based TransAtlantic data transport provider, Hibernia Atlantic, and Industria, a total-broadband solutions provider and systems integrator, hosted the Prime Minister of Iceland, H.E. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/23_september_2007.htm

Hibernia Atlantic Announces Industry First –Bandwidth Ordering Online

Hibernia Atlantic has announced it will offer direct Ethernet connection from telx, 60 Hudson Street in New York City to Telehouse London, in 50 Mbps increments, to their online buyers.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/16_september_2007.htm

Hibernia Atlantic Calls for Support of Law of the Sea Convention

Hibernia Atlantic has announced its support of U.S. accession to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/4_november_2007.htm

NEC Wins Alaska Cable Project

General Communications Inc., (GCI), an Alaska-based company providing voice, video and data communication services to residential, commercial and government customers, has announced that NEC Corporation has been awarded a contract to supply the submarine cable, amplifiers and line terminal equipment for the company’s Southeast submarine fiber optics project.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/14_october_2007.htm

New Financial Director on Board at Global Marine Systems

Global Marine Systems Limited (“Global Marine”), the independent market-leading subsea cable installation and maintenance company, today announced that it has appointed Peter Wilson as its new financial director who will report directly to Gabriel Ruhan, CEO Global Marine Systems. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/28_october_2007.htm

New Submarine Cable Announced for Iceland

The government of Iceland approved a new submarine cable, Danice, between Iceland and Denmark. The cable will be laid by Farice Inc., which is 80% Icelandic and 20% Faroese owned. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/14_october_2007.htm

Nexans Supplies Denmark’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm

Nexans has recently signed a contract with DONG Energy

A/S, Denmark’s largest energy supplier founded in 2006 by merging six Danish power utilities, to supply a total of 70 km of medium-voltage (MV) subsea power cables for the Danish offshore wind farm Horns Rev 2 to be constructed over the next two years.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

Nigerian Carrier Partners with Benin Telecom on SAT-3

Suburban Telecommunications, a private Nigerian carrier, has recently partnered with Benin Telecom, the national operator of the Republic of Benin, to serve as an alternative for SAT-3 submarine cable capacity into Nigeria and other West African markets.

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/21_october_2007.htm

New Submarine Cable Announced for Iceland

Nexans Supplies Denmark’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm

Nexans has recently signed a contract with DONG Energy

www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

Nigerian Carrier Partners with Benin Telecom on SAT-3

Protection Zones for Submarine Cables Off Sydney Go into Effect

Activities that could damage submarine communications cables will be prohibited or restricted in protection zones off the Sydney beaches Narrabeen and Tamarama/Clovelly from 1 October 2007, following their declaration by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

Publication Recognizes Asia America Gateway

` The Asia America Gateway (AAG) submarine cable network received the Most Innovative Project award by the UKbased publication Global Telecom Business in a ceremony held in London on September 17, in the presence of major representatives from the telecom industry. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/23_september_2007.htm

Singapore Exchange Selects Asia Netcom

Asia Netcom and the Singapore Exchange Limited (SGX) have announced the signing of an agreement for Asia Netcom to provide connectivity solutions to SGX’s global traders. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

Sparkle Launches IP Backbone in Singapore

Telecom Italia Sparkle has announced that it has strengthened its presence in Asia with the launch of a new network infrastructure in Singapore. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/28_october_2007.htm

SPC Describes New Submarine Cable Projects

American Samoa’s Governor Togiola Tulafono met recently with Dr. Jimmie Rodgers, Director General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) based in Noumea, New Caledonia, concerning submarine fiber optic cable networks serving the southwestern and southeastern Pacific region. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

SPC Members Welcome Digital Strategy at Meeting

Member countries and territories of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) have welcomed two major initiatives that are aimed at bridging the communication divide in the region. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/11_november_2007.htm

Submarine Cable to Connect Tahiti with Hawaii in 2009

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is scheduled to sign an agreement during his visit to Tahiti before the end of the year that will launch work on a submarine telecommunications cable connecting Tahiti with Hawaii. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/9_september_2007.htm

Sweden-Finland Submarine Power Cable Announced

The Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry has granted a cross-border line permit to the extension of the submarine cable link between Finland and Sweden. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/21_october_2007.htm

Tyco Telecom Picked for Black Sea Network

Independent Georgian telecommunications provider Caucasus Online and Tyco Telecommunications, a business unit of Tyco Electronics, announced the signing of a contract to construct an undersea fiber optic system that will provide high bandwidth connectivity between Poti, Republic of Georgia, and Varna, Bulgaria. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/16_september_2007.htm

Tyco Telecom to Build Alaska-Lower 48 Cable

Alaska Communications Systems Group Inc. and Tyco Telecommunications have signed a contract to construct an undersea fiber-optic cable system that will provide high-bandwidth connectivity between Anchorage, Alaska, and Florence, Oregon. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/4_november_2007.htm

WFN Strategies Contracted by Lighthouse for Engineering Support

WFN Strategies has been contracted by Lighthouse R&D Enterprises of Houston, Texas for the provision of engineering support for a subsea fiber optic network capable of serving both underwater science nodes and offshore platforms. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/14_october_2007.htm

WFN Strategies’ Jim Case Presented

Marine

Technology Society Award

Jim Case of WFN Strategies was presented the Marine Technology Society’s “Outstanding Service Award” at the annual MTS/IEEE Oceans 2007 Conference in Vancouver, BC recently. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/7_october_2007.htm

WFN Strategies to Support Ochre Services for Australian O&G System

WFN Strategies has been contracted by Ochre Services Pty Ltd of Perth, Western Australia for the provision of telecoms engineering support of the oil and gas inter-platform submarine cable system to be located on the Northwest Shelf of Australia. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/4_november_2007.htm

WFN Strategies To Support South Pole Telecoms Effort

WFN Strategies has been subcontracted under US Government contract N65236-03-D-3827, for the provision of a South Pole Broadband Feasibility study. www.subtelforum.com/NewsNow/21_october_2007.htm

A Look Behind the Scenes: Internet Traffic Trends

By Alan Mauldin

Submarine cable operators around the world continue to benefit from the insatiable demand for bandwidth. It is worthwhile to take a look behind the scenes of this growth to see what the drivers are and how likely they may be to persist. It is common knowledge that the demand placed on the international submarine cables is predominantly due capacity used by Internet backbones. The traffic carried by the global Internet has surged in recent years as the number of broadband subscribers exploded and new high-bandwidth applications and services have transformed how the Internet is used.

Based on data collected directly from providers during 2007, TeleGeography found that aggregate average international Internet traffic grew 57 percent between 2006 and 2007. International capacity growth has largely mirrored growth in international Internet traffic; however, traffic growth and capacity growth seldom move in perfect symmetry. Since TeleGeography began tracking Internet traffic data in 2003, average and peak traffic on most international links increased at faster rates than the capacity of the links, causing utilization rates to rise. However, during 2007, carriers were faced with rising utilization levels and, in anticipation of future growth, deployed new international Internet capacity at a faster pace (68 percent) than average traffic levels rose

Traffic Drivers

The total amount of traffic generated by Internet end-users has increased dramatically as consumers migrate to higher bandwidth technologies such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) and cable broadband. Broadband users tend to spend more time using the Internet and use bandwidth-intensive applications more frequently than narrowband users. During 2006, the total number of broadband subscribers in the world rose 33 percent compared with 2005, to more than 275 million. In 2006, the pace of annual growth continued to slow compared to the three preceding years (subscriber growth was 44 percent in 2005, 55 percent in 2004, and 61 percent in 2003). TeleGeography expects that the rate of broadband subscriber growth will continue to slow to 24 percent in 2007.

In addition to reporting total volumes of traffic, carriers surveyed by TeleGeography were also asked to report the share of Internet traffic that various end-user applications accounted for on their networks. The applications driving traffic on IP networks vary substantially among providers. However, it is

clear that video content, whether downloaded from the Web, accessed through a file-sharing application, or streamed live, has become the largest consumer of network capacity. The most commonly used applications to transmit video content are the Web and peer-to-peer (P2P) applications. Not surprisingly, TeleGeography’s survey of backbone operators reveals that Web and peer-to-peer (P2P) are the two dominant types of traffic, accounting for more than two-thirds of total Internet traffic on many networks.

The share of peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic on Internet providers’ networks varies widely. In TeleGeography’s survey sample, P2P traffic ranged from 10 to 42 percent of provider’s total traffic. What accounts for the broad variance in P2P traffic levels? A major factor influencing P2P traffic levels is broadband access. Internet providers that operate primarily in countries with fewer high-speed access users have much less P2P traffic on their networks. In addition, providers that focus on enterprise customers also reported little P2P traffic. Finally, it is possible that many providers may not be completely aware of the true P2P traffic levels on their networks, since P2P applications often masquerade as other types of traffic to avoid detection.

Not all P2P file-downloading applications are illicit. Many companies are exploring the use of P2P distribution for software patches and similar content. Further, BitTorrent, the company that employs a P2P file downloading technology widely used to pirate illegal content, has entered into agreements with many studios and content providers, including 20th Century Fox, Paramount, and MTV Networks, to distribute legal video and music content.

The share of total Internet traffic created through P2P file downloading has decreased slightly (down from over 60 percent in 2004). However, the change is not nearly as dramatic as might be expected given increased copyright enforcement and the emerging availability of high-quality, cheap, legal content. The lower share of P2P traffic is a reflection of increased webbased traffic, discussed below, than a decrease in the amount of P2P traffic.

While P2P file downloading applications remain a huge source of Internet traffic, P2P streaming media applications could have a significant upward effect on bandwidth demand in the future. Unlike standard server-to-client file downloading, streaming

P2P applications caches content on a user’s computer while viewing and discards the content afterward. As with all P2P technology, the content is at least partially sent from other users on the network. Joost, Babelgum, and SopCast are examples of applications deploying this technology. Joost states that the application can consume 320 MB of download and 105 MB of upload bandwidth in an hour of watching its programming. The large upload number is due to the P2P technology used for content distribution.

Video content available through what is typically understood as the Web—HTTP stack traffic—has recently gained much attention through services like YouTube and Apple’s iTunes store. YouTube streams more than 70 million low-resolution videos to users around the world daily. The sheer volume of the low-resolution videos adds up to a significant amount of bandwidth on the network backbone—quality and size of these videos notwithstanding.

Ranking below Web and P2P, streaming audio and video account for approximately 2 to 10 percent of total Internet traffic based on TeleGeography’s interviews with carriers. Streaming audio and video are high-bandwidth applications that can account for a large share of traffic for short periods of time; however, this traffic is small when compared to overall traffic levels. A few carriers surveyed by TeleGeography reported much higher shares of streaming traffic. One Asian carrier indicated that 30 percent of its traffic was from streaming and a European carrier reported that streaming was 35 percent of its traffic. Streaming video continues to experience rapid growth, fueled primarily by live events. For example, the Live Earth series of concerts in July 2007 generated 9 million streams according to Microsoft.

Online game traffic is often cited as one of the fastest-growing applications driving traffic on long-haul networks. Based on data collected by TeleGeography, game traffic represents less than 5 percent of total traffic on many carriers’ networks. However, two carriers reported that gaming was 10 percent of their traffic and a large Asian carrier indicated that online gaming accounted for 20 percent of its traffic. The traffic generated by most online games is small, but highly latencysensitive. As a result, providers of online games try to place their servers as close to the end-users as possible so latency remains low.

Traffic Outlook

Predicting the pace of future Internet traffic growth is complicated given the myriad factors that influence the volume of traffic traversing international Internet links. Although the continued growth of broadband subscribers, increased access speeds, and the rise of video content will continue to fuel considerable traffic growth, the degree to which international capacity will be utilized is uncertain.

As mentioned earlier, P2P traffic has emerged as a sizable portion of many carriers’ Internet traffic. However, several factors could limit the growth of P2P traffic on international bandwidth demand. As P2P traffic levels surge, some ISPs are employing new devices that cache P2P content locally or encourage file sharing between users that are in closer proximity. In the U.S., cable broadband provider Comcast has recently come under fire for interfering with subscribers’ P2P traffic on its network. Notable companies working in the area of P2P traffic management include Sandvine and PeerApp. These approaches reduce an ISP’s bandwidth cost by curtailing the amount of P2P traffic entering and exiting an ISP’s network and could potential travel over international Internet links. Of the backbone operators surveyed by TeleGeography, 12 percent responded that they employ some method to block, shape, cache, or otherwise manage P2P traffic, while only 19 percent had plans to begin doing so in the future. The remaining carriers had no plans to manage P2P traffic.

In addition, regulatory authorities around the world are continuing to target illicit P2P file search sites, such as The Pirate Bay. Blocking access to these sites—and instilling fear among visitors to the sites that they could have their IP addresses logged—could, at least temporarily, lead to substantial declines in P2P traffic volume. However, as observed in the past, once applications like Napster and sites such as Suprnova were shut down, replacements quickly emerged.

Even when video is not P2P-based, the effect on international traffic demand is being reduced somewhat by using caching and localized distribution—a concept popularized by content delivery networks (CDN) like Akamai and Limelight. This type of distribution model makes it possible for companies to move their video sources closer to the end user, saving the companies money and the user time. This is not to say that growth of web-based videos will fail to boost international

Internet traffic, though. Simply populating and refreshing the cache creates demand on the network. Further, not all videos will be cached locally. The sheer volume of different videos on YouTube, for example, makes caching everything impractical with currently available technology.

Fortunately, the persistent, video-fueled traffic growth has not overwhelmed Internet infrastructure as some predicted. Instead, traffic growth has resulted in new network investments by Internet backbone operators to accommodate demand, both present and future. However, continued deployment of content delivery networks and increased use of P2P traffic management could reduce inefficient uses of international capacity. Even with improved network management and routing of Internet traffic, international submarine cable operators will continue to benefit from soaring demand for international connectivity.

Since joining the company in 2000, Mr. Mauldin has served as a principal analyst in many areas of TeleGeography’s research, including international Internet infrastructure, submarine cable systems, and bandwidth demand modeling. Mr. Mauldin heads TeleGeography’s Global Bandwidth Forecast and Global Internet Geography research services. He holds a degree from Baylor University.

At submarine depths, Nexans goes deeper

Nexans was the first to manufacture and install a 384 fibre submarine cable. Nexans has qualified and installed their URC-1 cable family for fibre counts up to 384 fibres.

For further information please contact:

Nexans Norway AS P.O. Box 6450 Etterstad

N-0605 Oslo Norway

Phone: +47 22 88 61 00

Fax: +47 22 88 61 01

Erik Rynning Sales & Project Manager Offshore:

“We produced the so far world’s deepest umbilical which was installed at 2350 metre in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Telecom: Rolf Bøe

Phone: +47 22 88 62 23

E-mail: rolf.boe@nexans.com

Oil & Gas: Jon Seip

Phone: +47 22 88 62 22

E-mail: jon.seip@nexans.com

Australian Protection Zones Around Submarine Cables of National Significance

In late September 2007, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) made a declaration for a submarine cable protection zone off the coast of Perth, which will take effect on 1 February 2008. This protection zone is around a cable that is regarded as nationally significant—the SEA-ME-WE3 cable, which links Australia to South East Asia, the Middle East and Western Europe. On 1 February 2008, the protection zone, known as the Perth Protection Zone, will commence, extending from City Beach to 51 nautical miles offshore and extending one nautical mile either side of the SEA-ME-WE3 cable. The Perth Protection Zone

stretches from City Beach, Perth, to 51 nautical miles offshore (or to a depth of 2000 metres). The zone extends one nautical mile either side of the SEA-ME-WE3 cable, which links Australia’s communications network with South East Asia, the Middle East and Western Europe.

In early July 2007, ACMA made two declarations for submarine cable protection zones off the Sydney coast which both take effect on 1 October 2007. The protection zones set out in the declarations have been developed around two cables that are regarded as nationally significant:

• the Southern Cross Cable—which links Australia’s communications network with New Zealand, Fiji and the United States, and

• the Australia Japan Cable—which links Australia with Guam, Japan and Asia

The declarations and the protection zones take effect on 1 October 2007, as follows:

• the Northern Sydney Protection Zone extending from Narrabeen beach to 40 nautical miles off shore covering northern branches of the Australia Japan Cable and Southern Cross cable, including the area between these two cables; and

• the Southern Sydney Protection Zone extending from Tamarama and Clovelly beaches and extending 30 nautical miles off shore covering the southern branches of the Australia Japan Cable and Southern Cross cables, including the area between these two cables.

Background

Submarine telecommunications cables are the underwater infrastructure linking Australia with other countries.

Australia’s submarine communications cables carry the bulk of our international voice and data traffic and are a vital component of our national infrastructure. We are becoming increasingly reliant upon these submarine cables—in fact, Australia’s use of international bandwidth has tripled since 2004. These cables are now worth more than $5 billion a year to the national economy.

Submarine cables are vulnerable to damage and breakage, which can cause serious consequences for the flow of information to and from Australia. In recent years, trawling and anchoring has severed key submarine cables off Sydney. Such cable damage can cause data loss, significant delays, and severe financial loss to businesses, cable owners and individuals who rely on communication links with other countries.

Submarine cable legislation

Because of the increasing importance of submarine cables, the Australian Government introduced legislation designed to protect our most critical submarine cables—the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Protection of Submarine Cables and Other Measures) Act 2005.

The Australian Government developed the legislation following a lengthy consultation process involving key stakeholders and relevant industry experts.

The legislation allows ACMA to declare submarine cable protection zones in Australian waters over submarine cables of national significance. Within these protection zones, activities that could damage submarine cables will be prohibited or restricted. Within protection zones, it is an offence to damage a submarine cable, to engage in prohibited activities, or to contravene a restriction. Penalties include fines of up to $66,000 and/or ten years imprisonment for an individual, or up to $330,000 for a corporation.

Before declaring a protection zone, ACMA is required to publish a proposal, review all public submissions, consider the advice of an

advisory committee composed of stakeholder representatives, and consult with the Environment Secretary (Department of Environment and Water Resources). ACMA must also consider a range of matters before declaring a protection zone.

If ACMA declares a protection zone, the location of that zone will be noted on relevant hydrographic charts and details of the prohibited or restricted activities will be circulated widely to affected parties.

The legislation also provides for ACMA to issue permits for the installation of submarine cables either:

• within submarine cable protection zones, or

• outside of submarine cable protection zones (other than in coastal waters)

Prohibited Activities within the Protection Zone

Marine activities that pose a serious risk of damage to submarine cables are prohibited within the Perth Protection Zone. From 1 February 2008, it will be an offence to undertake the following prohibited activities throughout the Perth Protection Zone.

Marine activities that are prohibited in both protection zones are:

• Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship trawl gear designed to work on or near the seabed, or a mid-water trawl

• Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a dredge, including for scallop dredging

• Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a demersal longline, including setlines or trotlines

• Establishing, maintaining or using a spoil ground or other ocean disposal point (including dumping materials at sea)

• Scuttling or attempting to scuttle a ship

• Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a structure moored to the seabed with the primary function of attracting fish for capture (such as a fish aggregating device (FAD))

• Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a Scottish or Danish seine

• Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a type of net, rope, chain or other object used in fishing operations that is capable of contacting the seabed, other than those activities listed in the restrictions

Restricted

Activities within the Protection Zone

Within the Perth Protection Zone, certain activities are restricted to the extent to which they pose a risk of damage to a cable. For example, some activities cannot damage a cable if they are conducted close to shore where the cables are buried several metres below the seabed and housed in metal conduit. To provide for the reduced risk to cables located close to shore, some restrictions on marine activities will vary with either distance from shore, water depth or both.

Activities with restrictions that vary depending on distance from shore and/or water depth

Activity 0 to 500 metres from low-water mark

Anchoring Permitted

Lowering, raising or suspending from a ship a shotline

Demersal fishing using J-hooks

Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a demersal dropline

Permitted

Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a single pot or trap (eg. for fish or lobster trapping)

Permitted

500 metres from low-water mark to 00 metres water depth

Is permitted, providing

• the anchor is fitted with a trip release mechanism; and

• the anchor line has a maximum breaking strain of 1,090 kg or less; and

• the ship uses a danforth anchor, or sand and reef (SARC) anchor that weighs less than 15 kg; or

• the ship uses a plough anchor, or reef pick anchor, that weighs less than 25 kg

Is permitted, providing

• the shot weighs 20 kg or less; and

• the shotline has a maximum breaking strain of 2.7 tonne* or less

Is permitted, providing the fishing line has a breaking strain of 50 kg or less

Is permitted, providing

• only circle-type hooks are used; and

• the dropline has a breaking strain of 2.7 tonne* or less; and

• the dropline does not use a wire snood, trace, dropper, branch line or mainline;

• the breaking strain of each branch line is 500 kg or less; and

• the weight used to sink the dropline is 15 kg or less

Is permitted, providing

• the base of the trap is 2 metres or less in length, width or diameter; and

• the trap rope is not composed of wire and has a breaking strain of 2.7 tonne* or less

Waters of greater than 00 metres depth

Not permitted

Is permitted, providing the fishing line has a breaking strain of 50 kg or less

Is permitted, providing

• only circle-type hooks are used; and

• the dropline has a breaking strain of 2.7 tonne* or less; and

• the dropline does not use a wire snood, trace, dropper, branch line or mainline;

• the breaking strain of each branch line is 500 kg or less; and

• the weight used to sink the dropline is 15 kg or less

Is permitted, providing

• the base of the trap is 2 metres or less in length, width or diameter; and

• the trap rope is not composed of wire and has a breaking strain of 2.7 tonne* or less

Activity 0 to 500 metres from low-water mark

Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship multiple pots or traps (eg. as often used in octopus and crab fisheries)

Permitted

Harvesting the benthos Permitted

Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a net anchored to the seabed

Permitted

Use of or towing, operating or suspending from a ship a grapnel Permitted

* Commercially available ‘silver dan’ rope, with a diameter of 11 millimetres, has a breaking strain that does not exceed 2.7 tonne

500 metres from low-water mark to 00 metres water depth

Is permitted, providing

• multiple pots, or traps, are fixed to a single mainline; and

• each individual pot, or trap, is 15 kg or less in weight when dry; and

• the base of the trap is 2 metres or less in length, width or diameter; and

• the branch line has a maximum breaking strain less than 500 kg; and

• the mainline is not composed of wire and has a breaking strain of 2.7 tonne* or less

Not permitted, unless harvesting is conducted by hand

Permitted providing

• anchors or weights are not used during the fishing operation; and

• the net is composed of individual lines that have breaking strength of 2.7 tonne* or less; and

• fishing is retrieved vertically, to the greatest extent practicable, so that the net does not drag on the seabed

Not permitted, except in waters more than 500 metres from the low water mark if it is used in the course of work on electricity, oil or gas pipelines and cables, installations for the use of ships, civil engineering, mining or petroleum operations or in conducting research that involves contact with the seabed

Waters of greater than 00 metres depth

Is permitted, providing

• multiple pots, or traps, are fixed to a single mainline; and

• each individual pot, or trap, is 15 kg or less in weight when dry; and

• the base of the trap is 2 metres or less in length, width or diameter; and

• the branch line has a maximum breaking strain less than 500 kg; and

• the mainline is not composed of wire and has a breaking strain of 2.7 tonne* or less

Not permitted, unless harvesting is conducted by hand

Not permitted

Within the Perth Protection Zone certain activities may continue, including those relating to marine and energy infrastructure, providing notification and consultation with cable owners occurs before engaging in the activity and where the activity occurs in a manner that is unlikely to cause damage to a cable.

Activities that must not occur unless:

• notification and consultation with cable owners is initiated at least 21 days before engaging in the activity; and

• the activity occurs in a manner that is unlikely to cause cable damage

Installing, maintaining or removing an electricity cable, an oil or gas pipeline, any like cables or pipelines and using any associated equipment

Constructing, maintaining or removing an installation for the use of ships

Conducting civil engineering work, including constructing and removing navigation aids

Exploring or exploiting resources (other than marine species)

Conducting research that involves contact with the seabed

Marine Activities Not Affected by the Protection Zone

ACMA has sought to protect Australia’s key submarine cables in a way that minimises impact upon marine users.

Many activities will be unaffected by the Perth Protection Zone, such as those that do not contact the seabed, and any recreational activity that occurs within 500 metres of the shore. Recreational fishers that target large bottom-dwelling fish offshore will be able to use any size circular hook, because they cannot hook on a cable, and can continue using Jhooks provided that their line has a breaking strain of 50 kg or less. Recreational fishers that target mid or upper water fish will not be affected by the Perth Protection Zone.

Some commercial fishing methods will also be unaffected by the protection zone, such as purse seining, beach seining, squid jigging, pelagic longlining and haul netting. Shark netting around beaches is also not affected by the protection zone.

Offences and Penalties in Protection Zones

The protection zone legislation sets out a number of criminal penalty provisions in relation to protection zones, which are aimed at deterring behaviour that poses a risk of damage to submarine cables. These penalties will apply in the Perth Protection Zone from commencement on 1 February 2008. Within any protection zone, it is a criminal offence to:

• cause damage to, or to sever, any submarine cable within the zone,

• engage in negligent conduct that results in damage to a cable; or

• engage in an activity that is prohibited or restricted in a protection zone declaration

Penalties for engaging in these activities may result in imprisonment for a period of up to 10 years and/ or a fine of $600,000

Developing the Western Australia Protection Zone

On 23 October 2006, ACMA published a proposal for a protection zone over a key submarine cable that lands near Perth, the SEA-ME-WE3 cable. This cable links Australia’s communications network with South East Asia, the Middle East and Western Europe and is regarded as nationally significant.

ACMA proposed to declare a protection zone that extends one nautical mile (1,852 metres) either side of the SEA-ME-WE3 Cable. The proposed protection zone would extend from the shore, out to around 51 nautical miles (or to a water depth of 2,000 metres).

A protection zone one nautical mile either side of the cable was proposed to ensure an appropriate level of protection for the cable, while minimising the impact on other marine users.

Public Comments on the Protection Zone Proposal

ACMA called for public comments on the proposal from 23 October 2006 to 16 February 2007.

During this period, ACMA received 52 public submissions on the Western Australian proposal from an array of stakeholders:

ACMA prepared a detailed Discussion Paper which provides background to the Western Australia protection zone proposal.

The Discussion paper contains:

• a description of cables of national significance within Australian waters

• the rationale behind the area and shape of the protection zone

• information about the design and installation of submarine cables

• detailed information explaining the rationale behind each proposed prohibition and restriction

• issues relating to the proposal that ACMA would especially welcome feedback on

• an overview of the legislative requirements of the proposal

• geographic coordinates of the submarine cable protection zone, and

• maps depicting the areas of the proposed protection zone

• For more information or queries, please contact:

• Email: subcablesenquries@acma.gov.au

• Phone: (+61) 1300 856 337 or 03 9963 6859

• Fax: (+61) 03 9963 6979

• Post: PO Box 13112 Law Courts Melbourne Victoria Australia 8010

CALL FOR PAPERS

The ICPC is holding its next Plenary meeting in Reykjavík, Iceland during the period 22 - 24 April 2008 inclusive.

The theme of this Plenary will be:

Submarine Cables: Enabling a Global Economy

Presentations that address the following topics are invited:

• Impact on Global & Regional Economies

• Legal / Regulatory Challenges & Solutions

• Ensuring Cable Resilience & Reliability

• Submarine Cables and the Environment

Abstracts must be submitted via email to plenary@iscpc.org no later than 31 January 2008. For more information about this Call for Papers and opportunities for exhibitors please visit the ICPC’s website at www.iscpc.org

Submarine Cables Move To Center On United States Accession To The United Nations Law Of The Sea Convention

The United States signed the Law of the Sea Convention in 1994, and the treaty has been languishing in the U.S. Senate ever since. Under U.S. law, the Senate must give its advice and consent by a two thirds vote before the United States can become a party. But this is about to change and submarine cables are in the forefront.

Following a direct request from President Bush on May 15, 2007, on September 27 and October 4, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Law of the Sea Convention. Hearings were held in 2004, but this time there was a significant difference. Cables were an integral part of the debate. Douglas Burnett, on behalf of the North American Submarine Cable Association (“NASCA”), was invited to testify by the Senate committee about the importance of the 1982 Convention to submarine cables.

By Doug Burnett

This article includes his written and oral testimony and excerpts statements by key U.S. Senators which highlight on the national stage the vital importance of submarine cables as critical infrastructure. Complete copies of statements by all witnesses and video of testimony are available at the web site of the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee. http://www.senate.gov/ ~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg071004a.html

September 27 hearing

Statement by Sen. Webb http://www.hklaw.com/content/ Doug/Senator_Webb_Sept_27.pdf

Statement by Sen.Lugar http://www.hklaw.com/content/ Doug/Senator_Lugar_Oct4.pdf

October 4th hearing

Statement by Sen. Menendez http://www.hklaw.com/ content/Doug/Senator_Menendez.pdf

Written testimony by Douglas Burnett (http://www.hklaw. com/content/whitepapers/burnett_testimony.pdf )

Oral testimony by Douglas Burnett (http://www.hklaw. com/content/Doug/Oral_statement_of_Douglas_Burnett. pdf)

Statement by Sen. Lugar (http://www.hklaw.com/content/ Doug/Senator_Lugar_Sept_27.pdf)

The good news is that on October 31st, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17 to 4 in favor of the Convention. In announcing the vote, Senator Bidden noted “The Convention also strengthens legal protections for underwater sea cables, a key component of our information age.” His counterpart, Senator Lugar observed “Our Navy, our shippers, our fishermen, our telecommunication companies, and others will have to continue to operate every day in a marine environment that is increasingly dominated by foreign decision making.”

Now the effort enters its final phase-a full vote of the entire Senate on the Law of the Sea Convention. The crucial element is decision by Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, to simply schedule the vote.

Politics, however, makes this seemingly straightforward task anything but a sure thing. A small group of republican senators, responding to a well financed and tireless hard core minority of constituents, is pulling out the stops to derail the vote by erroneously arguing that the United States will loose its sovereignty by joining the other 155 nations which are parties. Since the opposition knows that if an up or down vote on the Convention is taken, it will pass, their tactic is to convince Senator Reid not to schedule the vote or to delay the vote until next year when the U.S. elections will make any Senate vote impractical.

Now is the time for telecom companies to act to ensure that individual senators understand the importance of the United States becoming a party to the Convention for their and their customers’ business. AT&T, Level 3, Pacific Crossing, Tyco and Hibernia have all shown leadership by working on capital hill to educate Senators about the importance of the Convention to the submarine cable business. Other telecom companies, especially those with presence in the United States need to take similar steps now. Assuming that United States accession is a done deal is dangerous because it underestimates the fanatical devotion of the Conventions opponents.

The future of submarine cables lies in oceans where competition with other seabed users and coastal nation encroachment will become more and more prevalent. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention gives submarine cables the highest priority under international law but its full benefits for telecom companies will only be realized if the United States is a party.

Douglas R. Burnett practices primarily in the areas of telecommunications (submarine cables) and international and maritime law litigation and arbitration in the New York office of Holland & Knight LLP. His clients include major telecommunication companies with international cables, major energy companies in dispute involving transportation, commodity contracts, and admiralty claims involving petroleum products, LNG, and LPG, deep water ports and ocean terminals. Mr. Burnett is the International Law Advisor to the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC), an international organization of over 70 administrations and commercial companies from 40 countries owning or operating submarine cables. In this capacity, he advises members of their rights and responsibilities under international law and associated treaties and national legislation regarding undersea telecommunication cables. His unique experience includes litigation in numerous cases in U.S. and foreign courts concerning internationally protected submarine cables.

e Desk Top Study (eDTS)

WFN Strategies’ proprietary e Desk Top Study (eDTS) is a web-based, comprehensive submarine cable investigation tool, providing customers critical system analysis in an accelerated manner. eDTS presents a detailed analysis of the environment in which the cable system can be placed, both onshore and undersea, and is:

Extensive - Gathers data quickly from a network of worldwide public and private data sources for cable design, routing and maintenance;

Focuses solely on cable system components requiring detailed study (system data costings, RPLs, SLDs, charts, data sources, etc.), saving both time and

Enhanced - Performs automated routing and associated charting, internet web mapping, 3-D cable lay analysis hazards, etc.) using an advanced GIS

Analyzes cable design, routing and maintenance in the route’s metadata and associated maps, then estimates system component budget based on current industry practices and costs;

Electronic – Houses in a secure data warehouse and project website for easy team retrieval and

Unrepeatered Upgrades Are Available for Challenging Systems at a Fraction of the Cost of a New System

If you are a service provider with an existing unrepeatered sub-sea network and are considering deploying a new parallel system, this article is for you. This is especially true if you have been told that your existing system uses technology or a fiber type that makes upgrades too complex and costly. This is often the case for

(1) Systems with previously deployed remote optically pumped amplifiers (ROPAs),

(2) Short repeatered systems with regenerators or repeaters,

(3) Older systems with aged, high-loss cables, and/ or

By Daryl Chaires

(4) Cables equipped with dispersion shifted fiber (DSF) or old (15 years or more) sub-sea fibers, which were not designed to carry multiple highcapacity wavelengths.

Service providers with systems characterized by one or more of the challenges listed above have often been directed to deploy new parallel systems to respond to the recent increase in demand for bandwidth-intensive applications. Even if existing systems do not face those types of challenges, it is sometimes difficult to obtain the capacity of a new system through an upgrade.

Fortunately, using the latest all-Raman technology, service providers are able to obtain the capacity of a new system through the upgrade of an existing one. Moreover, the upgrade is not limited to systems with prestine fiber, but can be accomplished on a wide range of existing systems, including those with the challenges of existing “in-line” technology or single channel unrepeatered systems using fibers that were not initially designed for high-capacity dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) systems. Because upgrades can be accomplished without deploying new cable, they can be accomplished at one-tenth the cost of a new deployment. In addition, upgrades can be accomplished in a fraction of the time, which accelerates time to revenue and significantly shortens the payback period. Thus, with allRaman technology, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where a new parallel system would be justified.

All-Raman based upgrades provide at least the capacity of new erbium-doped fiber amplifier (EDFA) based systems. In some cases, the upgrade provides more capacity than can be accomplished with a new deployment of an unrepeatered EDFA based solution. A brief review of all-Raman amplification will help us uncover the characteristics that make it so attractive for upgrades of unrepeatered sub-sea systems.

Maximize the Benefits of Upgrades with All-Raman Technology

Raman amplification is currently being used by most DWDM equipment manufacturers to enhance their EDFA based systems. Raman amplifiers are added to increase the distance of transmission on new unrepeatered deployments. These systems use a combination of erbium-doped fiber and Raman amplification. However, the maximum benefit for long unrepeatered links is obtained when EDFAs are totally eliminated, and amplification is obtained using allRaman technology. While all-Raman amplification provides the benefits of longer distance and higher capacity for new unrepeatered deployments, the same characteristics are also applicable to upgrades of existing unrepeatered sub-sea links. A single amplifier can provide gain over the entire low-loss region of the fiber (about 100 nm). As shown, in

Figure 1, a single all-Raman amplifier provides three times the amplification window of an EDFA based system, which provides unique advantages for overcoming various upgrade challenges.

Figure 1: EDFA vs All-Raman Spectrum

Raman amplification allows upgrade customization by selecting pump wavelengths that maximize the benefits in different regions of the spectrum. In addition, multiple pumps may be selected to extend the range of gain. Thus, if it is advantageous to operate below the conventional EDFA band (often referenced as the S band), the appropriate pumps for this band are chosen. If it is more advantageous to work above the conventional EDFA band (often referenced as the L band), a different set of pumps are selected. Alternately, if it is necessary to work across all bands, this can be achieved with a single amplifier. The ability to work across all bands with a single amplifier is unique to all-Raman amplification. It eliminates the introduction of loss that occurs when multiple narrow-band amplifiers are coupled together.

While all-Raman technology is currently being used to set new distance and capacity records for deployed systems, it is also being used to upgrade systems that were not considered upgradeable just a couple of years ago.

DWDM Upgrades for ROPA infused systems

Early deployments of unrepeatered sub-sea systems sought costeffective ways to extend transmission distances in order to provide basic communication services to remote islands and other offshore locations. Transmission distances were given priority over capacity at that time. One popular method of extension included the addition of passive devices, known as ROPAs. These passive in-line devices did not require the initial or on-going costs and complexity associated with repeaters or regenerators and could extend the distance of transmission up to 300-350 km. The ROPAs were enclosed in waterproof housings and typically located 60 to 80 km from the terminal locations. While this provided a solution at the time of initial installation, it creates a challenge today when trying to respond to an increase in demand for bandwidth and higher bit rate services on existing routes. While the original supplier of the ROPA system may be capable of performing an upgrade, it would generally require the removal and relocation of the ROPA. A much simpler process has been demonstrated.

During a presentation at SubOptic 2007,1 Xtera Communications and Global Crossing reported the results of a demonstration that showed the upgrade of a ROPA enhanced link. The simple upgrade was demonstrated without removing or relocating the ROPAs. The emulated link, shown in 2, represented a typical ROPA-enabled distance of 304 km with a total loss of 53 dB. The expected end of life capacity would have been 12 x 2.5 Gb/s, which is quite anemic based on requirements of today.

The goal of the demonstration was to show that the system could be upgraded to support a minimum of 33 x 10 Gb/s. While this was successfully demonstrated, emulations went on to show that this system is capable of supporting 60 x 10 Gb/s, a 20 fold increase in capacity. The demonstration illustrated that an all-Raman based upgrade provides significantly more channels than a new EDFA-based deployment.

While the discussion at SubOptic 2007 surrounded a demonstration, a number of system upgrades have subsequently occurred with the same results.

DWDM Upgrades for Short Repeatered Systems

Today’s unrepeatered systems, which can extend to 500 + km, perform significantly better in terms of distance and capacity when compared to systems installed 15 or more years ago. In fact, a small number of repeaters were used to transmit plesiochronous digital hierarchy (PDH) signals 280 to 300 km. It is probably safe to assume that these networks no longer support the capacity demands of the existing market. They may even be candidates for decommissioning due to their age and lack of capacity. These systems have not generally been considered for upgrade not only because of the existence of repeaters, but also because of the loss that is normally associated with an older cable. However, in many instances, the cable can be “revived” and can be a hidden source of additional revenue. All-Raman amplification provides options for extending the life of such a cable. The most straightforward method is to make use of the existing cable. In this case, the repeaters are removed, and all-Raman amplification is used to overcome the high loss that is normally associated with

Figure 2: Demonstrated Upgrade of ROPA Enhanced System

older repeatered sub-sea cable. Removal of the repeaters is often economically advantageous because it eliminates the burden of maintaining the aging equipment and lowers OpEx costs. A significant reduction in power equipment contributes to the lower costs. All-Raman amplification has been used successfully to implement a “simple” upgrade where the repeaters were left in place. While this upgrade simplifies the installation process, it can only be considered after the existing system is analyzed. Then the benefits of a simple upgrade must be weighed against the benefits of removing the repeaters.

Significant Capacity Upgrades for Dispersion Shifted Fiber

At the time of its introduction, DSF allowed service providers to extend the distance of transmission of a single 2.5-Gb/s channel. This occurred by slashing the loss contribution of the fiber to approximately 0.2 dB/km near its zero dispersion wavelength of 1550 nm. Implementation was also considered very economical because DSF eliminated the need for dispersion compensated fiber. However, DSF fell out of favor after service providers recognized the need for greater capacity and thus turned to wave division multiplexing.

Unfortunately, DSF creates challenges when placing multiple wavelengths on a fiber. Transmitting at power levels typically used in sub-sea applications or for a large number of channels generates strong non-linear effects, such as fourwave mixing (FWM) and cross-phase modulation (XPM). In EDFA-based systems, non-linear effects are combated by lowering the transmit power and/or increasing the channel spacing. This drastically reduces the available optical power budget and lowers the number of channels that can be transmitted.

Fortunately, all-Raman technology provides a number of characteristics to help overcome these challenges. This technology can be thought of as a legal performance enhancer for DSF networks. It enables more channels without doping. In the case of DSF networks, all-Raman amplification exploits its ability to amplify across a broader spectral range to shift the majority of the channels

outside the non-optimal 1550-nm region of DSF fiber. This means that with all-Raman amplification, a larger number of channels can be transmitted in a different spectral region in addition to the channels that are transmitted in the 1550-nm region.

While each DSF system must be evaluated, it is not unreasonable to expect a system that is limited to 4 to 12 channels using traditional EDFA technology to achieve 24 - 30 channels at 10 Gb/s using all-Raman amplification. In fact, it has been expected and delivered.

Upgrades Unlimited

As you have seen, all-Raman technology significantly reduces the complexity, risks and costs of upgrading challenging unrepeatered sub-sea systems. Over the past few months, a number of service providers, in regions all over the world, have achieved the capacity of a new system by upgrading their sub-sea system. All-Raman based upgrades extend the life of existing sub-sea assets and generates new revenue at a fraction of the cost of a new deployments.

1. Jol Paling, Gregg Palinski, Philippe Perrier,Andrej Puc, Daryl Chaires, All-Raman Amplification Extends the Life of Previous Generation Unrepeatered Systems, We2.01 SubOptic 2007

Daryl Chaires is the Marketing VP for Xtera Communications. He is responsible for product requirements, new product introduction strategies, and product positioning. Daryl has been an active member of the telecommunications community for more than 20 years. He began his career as a systems engineer, where he designed, installed, and tested microwave radio networks for North American carriers. Daryl expanded his system engineering knowledge to include operational support systems (OSS) and optical transport systems prior to his transition into technical marketing. His ability to communicate the business as well as the technical benefits of emerging technologies propelled him into marketing in the late 1990s. He now communicates Xtera’s end-to-end value proposition to established and emerging entertainment and communication service providers. Daryl frequently contributes articles to various communication publications and speaks at both technical and business conferences around the world. He is currently focused on communicating the benefits of Xtera’s all-Raman amplification products for unrepeatered submarine applications as well as the company’s recently introduced Nu-Wave ES which provides extended scalability for submarine and terrestrial optical transport applications.

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization: A Profile

Who we are

At the Special Session of the Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) Preparatory Commission on 13 October in Vienna, a large number of Signatories States expressed their deep concern and regret over the announcement of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to have conducted an underground nuclear test on 9 October 2006. The Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS) also briefed on International Monitoring System data and International Data Centre products that were provided to Signatories States following the event on 9 October 2006. The Commission expressed its appreciation for the speedy provision of data and products by the PTS to Signatories States.

The Preparatory Commission

The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO Preparatory Commission) is an international organization established by the States Signatories to the Treaty on 19 November 1996. It carries out the necessary preparations for the effective implementation of the Treaty, and prepares for the first session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty.

The Preparatory Commission consists of a plenary

body composed of all the States Signatories, and the Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS). Upon signing the Treaty, a State becomes a member of the Commission. Member States oversee the work of the Preparatory Commission and fund its activities.

The Commission’s main task is the establishment of the 337 facility International Monitoring System and the International Data Centre, and the development of operational manuals, including for on-site inspections.

The Treaty

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a cornerstone of the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Its total ban of any nuclear weapon test explosion will constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and end the development of advanced new types of these weapons.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and was opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996. It has achieved strong worldwide support.

The Treaty will enter into force after it has been ratified by the States listed in its Annex 2. These 44

Vienna International Centre

Headquarters to a number of international organizations including the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization

States formally participated in the 1996 session of the Conference on Disarmament, and possess nuclear power or research reactors.

Mission Statement

The mission of the Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS) is to support the efforts of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization - an independent, international, intergovernmental organization - in carrying out the necessary preparations for the effective implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty and preparing for the first Conference of States Parties to the Treaty. The Treaty bans the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

The PTS works to establish a global verification regime to monitor compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. It builds, tests, and provisionally operates the International Monitoring System, the International Data Centre, and the related global communications infrastructure, and prepares to carry out on-site inspections. It provides timely data, assessments and other products and services to Signatory States of the Treaty. The PTS also conducts training programs and undertakes other outreach work in support of the Treaty.

The international, multicultural staff of the PTS demonstrates the highest standards of professional expertise, efficiency and integrity.

History of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Background

Arms control advocates had campaigned for the adoption of a treaty banning all nuclear explosions since the early 1950s, when public concern was aroused as a result of radioactive fall-out from atmospheric nuclear tests and the escalating arms race.

Over 50 nuclear explosions were registered between 16 July 1945, when the first nuclear explosive test was conducted by the United States at Alamogordo, New Mexico, and 31 December 1953.

Prime Minister Nehru of India voiced the heightened international concern in 1954, when he proposed the elimination of all nuclear test explosions worldwide.

However, within the context of the cold war, skepticism in the capability to verify compliance with a comprehensive nuclear-test ban-treaty posed a major obstacle to any agreement.

Partial Test Ban Treaty, 963

Limited success was achieved with the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. However, neither France nor China, both nuclear weapon States, signed the PTBT.

Non-proliferation Treaty, 968

A major step towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons came with the signing of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. Under the NPT, non-nuclear weapon States were prohibited from, inter alia, possessing, manufacturing or acquiring

nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All signatories were committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament.

Negotiations for the CTBT

Given the political situation prevailing in the subsequent decades, little progress was made in nuclear disarmament until 1991. Parties to the PTBT held an amendment conference that year to discuss a proposal to convert the Treaty into an instrument banning all nuclear-weapon tests; with strong support from the UN General Assembly, negotiations for a comprehensive test-ban treaty began in 1993.

Adoption of the CTBT, 996

Intensive efforts were made over the next three years to draft the Treaty text and its two annexes, culminating in the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty (CTBT) on 10 September 1996 by the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The CTBT, which prohibits all nuclear test explosions, was opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996, when it was signed by 71 States, including the five nuclear-weapon States.

Signature and Ratification Process

Signature

The Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty is open for signature by all States prior to entry into force.

The steps leading to signature of the Treaty are as follows:

3. Signature is accomplished when the authorized representative of a State signs the Treaty at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Chief of the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations should be contacted in order to make an appointment to sign the Treaty.

Ratification

Ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is a two-step process, which has to be secured first at the national level and then at the international level. The CTBT stipulates that it should be ratified according to a State’s constitutional processes. The ratification process differs from State to State. Approval is generally required by the legislature or the executive of a State, or both. Advice on national constitutional requirements and the domestic procedures necessary to ratify the Treaty can be obtained from the responsible government office, usually the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The instrument of ratification must be signed either by the Head of State or Government or the Minister for Foreign Affairs or by an official with full powers to sign the instrument. This signature validates the instrument of ratification.

1. A Government decides to sign the Treaty, and who will sign it on behalf of the State.

2. Any representative other than the Head of State or Government or the Minister for Foreign Affairs will need to possess or be issued with full powers to sign the Treaty. These powers can be delegated by the Head of State or Government or the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Unsigned instruments of ratification in the form of notes verbales are not acceptable. The instrument of ratification must indicate the title of the person who has signed it and its date and place of issue. The instrument of ratification should bear the name of the Treaty. It must contain an unambiguous expression of the will of the Government, acting on behalf of

World leaders signing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (left to right): United States of America, China, France, Russian Federation and United Kingdom.

the State, to recognize itself as being bound by the Treaty and to implement its provisions. The ratification process is completed by depositing the instrument of ratification with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This indicates the consent of the State to be bound by the Treaty.

The deposit of an instrument of ratification at United Nations Headquarters is carried out:

• Either by the representative of the Government concerned delivering the instrument of ratification to the Secretary-General, or to his representative (the Legal Counsel or the Chief of the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs);

• Or by sending the instrument of ratification to the Secretary-General by mail.

Entry into Force

The CTBT will enter into force 180 days after it has been ratified by the 44 States listed in its Annex 2. These 44 States all formally participated in the 1996 session of the Conference on Disarmament, and possess either nuclear power or research reactors.

An Overview of the Verification Regime

In order to monitor compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, a global verification regime is being established.

This is the main task of the Preparatory Commission, which needs to ensure that the regime is operational by the time the Treaty enters into force.

The verification regime consists of the following elements:

The International Monitoring System (IMS)

Global network

The International Monitoring System (IMS) comprises a network of 321 monitoring stations and 16 radionuclide laboratories that monitor the earth for evidence of nuclear explosions in all environments. The system uses four verification methods, utilizing the most modern technology available.

Verification technologies

Seismic, hydroacoustic and infrasound stations are employed to monitor the underground, underwater and atmosphere environments, respectively.

Radionuclide stations can detect radioactive debris from atmospheric explosions or vented by underground or underwater nuclear explosions.

Location of stations

The establishment of the IMS poses engineering challenges unprecedented in the history of arms control, with many stations located in remote and inaccessible parts of the globe.

Certification of IMS stations

Once established and certified as meeting all technical requirements, monitoring stations are provisionally operated by local institutions under contracts with the PTS.

The

International

Data Centre (IDC)

The IMS is supported by the International Data Centre, which is based at the headquarters of the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO in Vienna.

Purpose

The IDC supports the verification responsibilities of the States Parties by providing objective products and services necessary for effective global monitoring.

Transmission of data to the IDC

Over 100 stations are already transmitting data to the IDC, many of them continuously. Global coverage is being ensured through the Global Communications Infrastructure (GCI), which receives and distributes data and reporting products relevant to Treaty verification. Data are received and distributed through a network of three satellites. The GCI became functional in mid-1999. Five GCI hubs have been installed and GCI terminals have so far been set up at 46 IMS stations, national data centers and development sites. The GCI hubs are connected via terrestrial links to the IDC in Vienna.

Processing of IMS data at the IDC

The data, which the IDC uses to detect, locate and analyze events, are processed immediately, with the first automated products being released within two hours.

The products comprise lists of seismoacoustic events and radionuclides that have been detected by the stations.

Analysts subsequently review these lists in order to prepare quality-controlled bulletins.

Transmission of data to States Signatories

The IDC has been providing IMS data and IDC products to States Signatories on a test basis since 21 February 2000.

Around 50 secure signature accounts have been established, which allow States Signatories to access these data and products.

Scientific Methods

IDC software is state-of-the-art, in line with technical and scientific progress.

Technical Assistance

Extensive support is given to the users designated by the States Parties by providing a standard software package, training courses and technical assistance.

Computer Infrastructure

The IDC operates the computer infrastructure necessary for the Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS) to execute its mission effectively.

Consultation and Clarification Process

A State Party has the right to request clarification of any matter which may indicate possible noncompliance with the Treaty. A State Party that receives such request from another State Party has 48 hours to clarify the event in question. If the information on a suspicious event collected during the consultation and clarification process does not satisfy the State Party that asked for the information, an on-site inspection

On-site Inspections

Request for an on-site inspection

In the event that a suspected nuclear explosion is detected either by one of the stations of the International Monitoring System or by national technical means, any State Party can request an onsite inspection (OSI).

Purpose of an OSI

The purpose of an OSI would be to clarify whether a nuclear explosion has been carried out in violation of the Treaty and to gather any information which might assist in identifying the potential violator.

Such inspection would be regarded as a final verification measure and would only occur once the Treaty has entered into force.

Nature of an OSI

The inspection would be conducted in the least intrusive manner to protect the national security interests of the Inspected State Party.

The disclosure of confidential information unrelated to the purpose of the inspection would be prevented.

OSI Operational Manual

One of the top priorities of the Preparatory Commission at this time is the development of an Operational Manual for On-Site Inspections, providing details of procedures for the implementation of OSIs. All future inspection activities will be based on this document.

Inspection Equipment

Passive seismological monitoring for aftershocks is one of the key inspection activities during the initial period of an OSI. Testing of inspection equipment related to seismic monitoring of aftershocks began in 2000 and is ongoing.

The first priority of the Testing Programme is to verify that the Seismic Aftershock Monitoring System (SAMS) can meet functional and operational requirements within the inspection environment. The objective of

SAMS is to produce results that localize the search area and facilitate determination of the nature of the event triggering the OSI request.

The results of the first phase of the SAMS testing, conducted by PTS with the assistance of seismologists from States Signatories, demonstrated several interesting and useful technical results.

Confidence-building Measures

The purpose of confidence-building measures is twofold:

1. To contribute to the timely resolution of any compliance concerns arising from possible misinterpretation of verification data relating to chemical explosions, such as, for example, large mining explosions; and

2. To assist in the calibration of stations that are part of the IMS.

Verification Technologies: Seismology

Seismic network

The seismological monitoring system detects and locates seismic events.

The CTBT seismic network is composed of 50 primary stations, which send their data in real time to the International Data Centre (IDC) in Vienna, and 120 auxiliary stations that make their data available upon request from the IDC.

The principal use of the seismic data in the

verification system is to locate seismic events and to distinguish between an underground nuclear explosion and the numerous earthquakes that occur around the globe.

There are two different types of seismic stations:

1. Three-component stations have sensors at a single site to measure the three components of the waves (up/down, east/west and north/south) caused by seismic events including earthquakes and explosions.

Seismic equipment at one element of an array station, PS02, in Warramunga, Australia

PS21, a three component seismic station located near Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

2. Array stations are sets of 9-25 geometrically arranged seismic sensors distributed over an area of up to 500 km². Seismic array stations have an enhanced detection capacity and independently measure the direction of and distance to the source of an event.

GCI communications equipment at PS47, an array station in Mina, Nevada, USA

Verification Technologies: Hydroacoustics

Hydroacoustic network

Hydroacoustic monitoring detects acoustic waves produced by natural and man-made phenomena in the oceans.

The CTBT hydroacoustic network comprises eleven stations and covers the world’s oceans, which make up 70% of the surface area of the earth. Few stations are required because of the very efficient propagation of acoustic energy in the oceans.

The network comprises two different types of stations: “hydrophone” stations and “T-phase” (seismic) stations. The CTBT’s six hydrophone stations use underwater microphones (hydrophones) that capture signals underwater and then transmit them via cable to the shore station. Hydrophone stations are extremely sensitive and pick up acoustic waves from underwater events, including explosions, occurring very far away.

Ship laying cable for hydroacoustic station HA04, located off the Crozet Islands (the cable-laying process was carried out without disturbing the penguins)

Ship laying cable for hydroacoustic station HA08 (hydrophone), located in British Indian Ocean Territory

Seismograms showing the difference between a nuclear explosion and an earthquake

Such stations are expensive to install and costly to maintain, so the network also consists of five T-phase (seismic) stations. These stations are located on oceanic islands and use seismometers to detect the acoustic waves that are converted to seismic waves when they hit the island.

The data from the hydroacoustic stations are used in the verification system to distinguish between underwater explosions and other phenomena, such as sub-sea volcanoes and earthquakes, which also propagate acoustic energy into the oceans.

depicting the layout of a hydroacoustic station

Diagram

Verification Technologies: Infrasound Infrasound network

The CTBT infrasound network of 60 stations uses microbarographs (acoustic pressure sensors) to detect very low-frequency sound waves in the atmosphere produced by natural and man-made events. These stations are arrays of 4-8 sensors which are located 1 to 3 km apart.

The IDC also uses the data to locate and to distinguish between atmospheric explosions and natural phenomena such as meteorites, explosive volcanoes and meteorological events and man-made phenomena such as re-entering space debris, rocket launches and supersonic aircraft.

View of infrasound array element at IS26, located in Freyung, Germany.

Verification Technologies: Radionuclide

Radionuclide Station RN23 in the Cook Islands. The air sampler and the satellite communications dish are in the foreground

Radionuclide network

The radionuclide network of 80 stations uses air samplers to detect radioactive particles released from atmospheric explosions and vented from underground or under water explosions.

The relative abundance of different radionuclides in these samples can distinguish between materials produced by a nuclear reactor and a nuclear explosion.

The associated radionuclide laboratories are used to analyze samples that are suspected of containing radionuclide materials that may have been produced by a nuclear explosion.

Part of infrasound station IS59, located in Hawaii, USA

The presence of specific radionuclides provides unambiguous evidence of a nuclear explosion.

Half of the stations in the radionuclide network also have the capacity to detect noble gases. The presence of noble gases can indicate if an underground explosion has taken place.

Under CTBT, a global system of monitoring stations, using four complementary technologies, is being established to record data necessary to verify compliance with the Treaty.

Supported by 16 radionuclide laboratories, the network of 321 monitoring stations will be capable of registering shock waves emanating from a nuclear explosion underground, in the seas and in the air, as well as detecting radioactive debris released into the atmosphere.

The location of the stations has been carefully chosen for optimal and cost-effective global coverage. The monitoring stations will transmit, via satellite, the data to the International Data Centre (IDC) within the CTBTO Preparatory Commission in Vienna, where the data will be used to detect, locate and characterize events.

These data and IDC products will be made available to the States Signatories for final analysis.

Sample of a radionuclide air filter spectrum

Geographical Map of Monitoring Facilities

SubOptic 2007 – How was it for you?

By John Horne

At the end of our conference in Baltimore, I promised a number of people that I would let them know the feedback we got from attendees, about their perception of our event. This article fulfils that promise.

Despite the unfortunate delay in sending out our Review Questionnaire, we received comments from well over 100 respondents, representing over 15% of the total attendees. With this sample size, taken together with anecdotal evidence from Executive and Program Committee members who attended, we feel that the comments we received are representative of the general view of attendees.

So what was the feedback!

Generally it was very favourable with regard to location, venue and the overall program structure, including length and number of parallel sessions. We are especially pleased that the choice of Baltimore and the use of a hotel style venue scored very highly, vindicating our decision to go for a more down to earth, less costly location and venue after Monaco. Indeed over 80% of respondents thought that in terms of value for money, Baltimore scored well. This is an appreciable improvement over the past two conferences.

The hotel style venue also brought together all the attendees in one location and helped encourage the Networking – Networking, which is part of the value of attending SubOptic. There were some reservations however about the bundling of hotel and registration. Some attendees would have preferred to make their own hotel arrangements and have more flexibility

in determining their length of stay. This we will reconsider for our next conference, although there are commercial advantages in going for a bundled approach, which can help lower the registration fee.

Networking is only part of the story however and we pride ourselves on the quality of the overall program we offer and its ability to encourage attendance. The overall response we obtained was that the program structure and content was again rated highly.

In general attendees liked the concept of having a Keynote Speaker at the beginning of each day. Some however questioned the choice of speakers and in particular the late substitution of one of them. We will need to reflect upon this and the balance of speakers from within and outside our immediate industry for next time.

The Roundtables were rated as good but perhaps a little disappointing. Respondents noted insufficient opportunity to engage with the audience and stimulate a real debate, rather than go over old ground. Roundtables are difficult to organise, panellists change at the last minute, and to be successful they require a real spark between the moderator, panellists and the audience, which is difficult to pre-plan. This is an area I think we will need to give some innovative thought to, next time.

The oral sessions, which form the bulk of the program, again whilst being highly rated drew a number of comments. Some people found them rather disappointing, with little new technical content, whilst others found them truly eye opening. We also had

comments about whether the balance of technical versus commercial content was correct. With the process we currently use it is difficult to determine the oral presentation program until we receive the abstracts in response to our “Call for Papers”. We then have to provide a balanced programme using the material that is supplied.

This is a strength, as it allows anyone in our community to send in an abstract, and if of sufficient quality get it accepted, but a weakness in trying to deliver a balanced, quality oral program. Next time we will try to define more clearly in the “Call for Papers” the topic areas and subjects we are looking for and perhaps top this up with more invited papers in areas, which are clearly under subscribed, but are very topical.

The Poster Program as we had hoped proved to be one of the highlights of the show, demonstrating once again that selection to present a poster is not second best to an oral presentation. The posters acted as a catalyst to get attendees together and perhaps because there were no other program distractions and also influenced by the cocktail bar that was available, stay and discuss their content and matters impacting upon our community. The posters proved to be of such interest that we were asked to consider making them available for a longer period and providing a larger space to display them in.

Another highlight of the conference was the tutorial program and with standing room only in a number of them, we will obviously need to reconsider the logistics next time. Also our attempt to broaden the range of subject matter appears to have been

considered of value and we have been asked by a number of respondents to look even wider.

As a final element of the formal program, we were glad to note that this time round the Exhibition Hall was considered a success. Our attempt to integrate it fully into the conference, by using it as the venue for the Opening Reception and holding the Poster session adjacent to it, seems to have worked. By reducing the cost of the first booth we also encouraged a more diverse range of exhibitors. We did however still receive some criticism about cost, the additional charges made for booth support staff, and also the restricted hours it was open.

If we now consider the more informal program, the coffees, lunches and social programme, in general found favour, but again there was some criticism about bundling the costs, especially of the Gala Dinner into the registration fee. To be honest I do not know the correct answer to this – many attendees like the fact that for one relatively low registration fee they get everything, a full formal program plus the social program which supports the essential networking, which is part of our conference. We will review this again, but I cannot promise we will change this philosophy.

Whilst the website was considerably better than our previous attempts and scored reasonably well with more than 300 attendees, registering by this path, we were quite rightly criticised that we could not provide a full public list of registrants and allow contact between them. The reason, we did not ask for the right permissions when people registered to release their contact information, or arrange a website communications facility.

We obviously have to be extremely careful how we do this, as any information we provide is just to allow contact between SubOptic attendees and not for any general marketing or selling purpose. We can help set up the contact, be it for a meeting or an invitation

to a company sponsored event, but we would never release your contact data base for any companies, including EC Members, for general marketing use.

We are currently beginning to design our website for SubOptic 2010 and we promise to do better next time. As an interim measure we will be posting as requested by many the presentations and papers presented at Baltimore, when we re-launch our website in early December 2007. These will remain as an archive section, together with the papers presented at Monaco.

The accompanying persons program was also not a success. We did not have sufficient numbers to organise the full program we had advertised and it was therefore cancelled at the last moment, without sufficient thought being given to a suitable replacement. In the event one trip was planned at the last minute, but in retrospect this was not an acceptable approach. One suggestion that has been made for next time is the provision of a Guest Concierge, who could help organise such activities and act as a focal point for accompanying persons. I also hope that a venue in South East Asia may encourage more accompanying persons to attend, especially if supported by an attractive program.

The final area where we received a number of comments, related to the geographic mix of the attendees we attracted and the organisations they represented.

Respondents would have liked to see a larger number of attendees from Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East. They would also liked to have seen more representation from the carriers, the end user and those representing non-telecom applications, like the oil/gas community. There is no easy answer to this requirement, but we will look very closely at the program for next time to make it more attractive and of value to these market segments. We intend to undertake some interim activities, which will be of especial value to the carrier

community and hopefully make SubOptic more relevant to them. We also intend to keep SubOptic more visible between events and some of this activity will become apparent soon.

This article has only given a summary of the key comments we received, but all of them together with the feedback from the Executive and Program Committee members who attended will be used to help shape our next conference, SubOptic 2010, which will be held in South East Asia.

We expect to launch the venue and dates for this conference, at about the time of PTC2008, and we will be sending out an eblast at that time to encourage people to access our website www.suboptic.org and reregister their interest in SubOptic.

If there is anything of great importance you feel I have missed in representing your comments, or you did not have an opportunity to respond, please feel free to email me with your views on john-horne@btconnect. com

John Horne joined BT in 1969 and left them in 1996. During that period he worked on the planning, implementation and development of both analogue and early optical fibre undersea systems. He also was responsible for project managing the implementation of BT’s major international digital transmission centres and worked on some of their major joint venture projects. He was a Vice Chairman of the Papers Committee for SubOptic 2001, held in Kyoto and has been Secretary to the SubOptic Executive Committee since then.

Navy Undersea Cable Systems

Introduction

by Bob Fredrickson & Catherine Creese

The U.S. Navy uses underwater cables in a wide variety of systems, not only for subsea communication and power transmission, but also for precise placement and orientation of acoustic sensors suspended high above the seafloor. Every situation has different design parameters determined by project purpose, location and materials. Each of these unique projects presents its own challenge to the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NAVFAC ESC), the Navy’s shore and ocean facility technical center. In this article we describe a sample of the design issues considered in Navy cable projects, and some solutions that the Ocean Facilities Department of NAVFAC ESC devised to resolve them. The views expressed here are solely the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. Navy, or its components.

Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center

Because of the importance of these underwater cable systems and the cost to install, maintain and repair them, the Navy’s planning and engineering efforts are significant. The NAVFAC ESC, headquartered in Port Hueneme, California, is tasked to provide worldwide support for the Navy’s shore, ocean and waterfront facilities. Within NAVFAC ESC, the Ocean Facilities Department provides a wide range of marine services. It is responsible for developing the Navy’s capabilities in the design, construction, maintenance, and repair of fixed ocean facilities, focusing on:

* Seafloor Engineering

* Anchor Systems

* Ocean Structures

* Ocean Construction

* Underwater Cable Facilities

* Mooring Facilities

* Magnetic Silencing Facilities

* Underwater Inspection

* Shore Based Hyperbaric Facilities

Examples of Navy Cable Systems and their Challenges

Design and Installation of a Complex Suspended Array System1

The Intermediate Scale Measurement System (ISMS), situated in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, is a major test facility that provides high quality measurements of the structural acoustic response of submarine models. The data guides the Navy’s development of the next generation of submarines to make them more stealthy and affordable. ISMS (Figure 1) is comprised of a complex system of acoustic arrays suspended in 1200 feet of water. A network of underwater electrical and fiber optic cables connect these arrays to shore approximately 2.5 miles away. One quarterscale buoyant submarine models are hauled down into the center of the array to conduct testing and to collect data. The cable support structures that make up the array system encompass an area the size of a football stadium.

1 R. Zueck, R. Brackett, A. Smith, D. Shields, Construction of a Large Underwater Acoustic Array, Offshore Technology Conference, 1996

Installation of the ISMS proved to be extremely challenging and ultimately drove the design of the structure. Numerical modeling and simulation played a vital role in verifying and optimizing the installation procedures. The relative placement of more than 150 sensors within the array required precise positioning in order to meet system performance criteria. To achieve this precise positioning, the array was assembled underwater, one component at a time, without the use of deepwater divers. The installation effort required a technically advanced positioning system, a specially- built project barge and unique deployment methods, including the simultaneous use of a pair of ROVs. In addition, the installation and replacement procedures were designed to be similar to allow for reliable maintenance of the system components.

This incredibly complex cable structure was installed by NAVFAC ESC in the fall of 1993 and spring of 1994. The installation work was completed on schedule and significantly under budget. Although this project was completed over a decade ago, it is still operating successfully. It is an excellent example of how careful planning and the use of numerical modeling and simulation can be used to reduce risk and to successfully construct highly complicated underwater cable systems.

Pulling Three Armored Cables through a Single 4,000 Foot Bore

San Nicolas Island is owned and operated by the Navy as a major element of the Point Mugu Sea Range. Located approximately 65 miles southwest of Point Mugu, California, the island is extensively instrumented with tracking radars, electro-optical devices, telemetry, and communications equipment necessary to support U.S. fleet training and weapons testing.

2 S. Black, B. Cable, R. Fredrickson, D. Warren; Horizontal Directional Drilling of a Cable Shore Landing at San Nicolas Island, California; Oceans 2004 Conference.

Two sub-sea fiber optic cables known as the Fiber Optic Communication Underwater System (FOCUS) cables transmit communications and test data between the island and Point Mugu on the mainland. Due to a history of cable failures in the near shore environment, NAVFAC ESC implemented repairs to the existing FOCUS cables on the island in June 2004. The much needed repairs included the horizontal directional drilling of 4000 feet of new seashore interface conduit and the installation of three new fiber-optic cable segments. Two of the new shore ends were spliced into the existing FOCUS cables offshore while the third cable was reserved as a spare.

A unique aspect of the project was a decision to drill a single sub-sea conduit and to install all three single armor cables within it. This decision was driven by a combination of logistical, environmental and financial factors. First, the horizontal drilling process requires a significant volume of fresh water and San Nicolas Island has a very limited water supply (in fact, NAVFAC barged an additional 100,000 gallons of water to the island in order to complete the drill). In addition, San Nicolas is a very ecologically sensitive island and is home to several endangered plant and animal species. Drilling only one bore reduced the environmental footprint of the project and also the amount of time spent on the island performing the construction. Lastly, the cost of drilling only one horizontal bore and having only one cable pull operation is significantly less expensive than drilling three separate bores and pulling three cables independently. Based on these factors, it was decided to accept the increased risk of pulling all three cables simultaneously.

Figure

ISMS array configuration

The challenge was to accurately predict the cable pulling tensions involved with the installation of three SL21 single armor cables (each approximately 3.5 cm in diameter) into a single 14.6 cm inside diameter conduit. This calculation was critical to ensure that the cables could be pulled through the sub-sea bore/conduit without becoming stuck or damaged. A failure would have been catastrophic to the project and would have jeopardized operation of the strategically important San Nicolas Island range activities. The cables were simultaneously deployed from the installation vessel offshore then carefully pulled through the sub-sea conduit to the beach. Throughout the pull, measured tensions were very close to those calculated and the cable installation was completed as planned.

Design and Installation of a Deep Water Suspended Array System

The South Tongue of the Ocean Acoustic Measurement Facility (STAFAC) is currently under development and will be the U.S. Navy’s first east coast subsurface moored acoustic signature measurement facility. STAFAC will measure and characterize the acoustic signatures of subsea moving targets. The challenge for STAFAC is to moor the the dual acoustic array system in 4500 feet of water at a remote site approximately 70 miles from shore.

Development of a Standardized Undersea Distributed Network System4

As shown in Figure 2, the “goal post” array configuration will be buoyed above a subsurface mooring system and must provide the stability required for safe navigation, accurate tracking, sensor orientation and stability to meet measurement accuracy requirements. A unique feature of the mooring is to allow periodic servicing of the array sensors by use of a sliding counterweight cable mechanism which alleviates the need to recover the main mooring legs. Relative positioning of the dual arrays bottom mooring components at this depth requires a very unique mooring configuration design and a well- designed deployment plan. As with ISMS, numerical modeling and simulation played a vital role in the design and installation planning of the system. The STAFAC system is currently scheduled to be installed in April and May 2008.

NAVFAC ESC recently awarded Phase II of a three phase contract to Ocean Design, Inc. (ODI) to develop a standardized undersea module known as the Gateway system. The design goal of Gateway is to use existing commercial offtheshelf parts in an innovative way to make a basic set of standardized undersea modules. Gateway is capable of being assembled into an infrastructure that will support a variety of oceanographic sensors and allow them to be deployed over a wide variety of ocean floor characteristics. The system is designed to handle at least 95% of the sensors available today including those for oceanographic and climatological monitoring, power transmission, communication, port security and defense purposes.

Gateway uses a standard 10 kV DC power supply to power undersea telecommunications cables. This allows those who are deploying sensors to either install new cable or to retrofit decommissioned communications cables. The three subsystem modules are a hub Node, a sensor node and a shore station, and their key components are the cables, connectors and sensors. The deployment topology is trunk and branch, with trunk lengths of more than 2000 km. This type of configuration will be capable of providing power and communications infrastructure for as many as 121 individual sensors. Another unique feature is that the modules will be

4 R. Bennett, S. Evangelides, J. Morreale, D. Symonds, J. Henson, J. Wilson, Undersea Distributed Networked System: An Enabling Power and Communications Infrastructure Technology, Oceans 2007 Conference

3 W. Bartel, M. Greise, Design of a Subsurface Moored Acoustic Array in Deep Water, Oceans 2007 Conference

Figure 2 STAFAC array configuration

designed to support conventional interfaces needed to connect to sensors using standard telecom protocols. In this way we hope to have an ‘open architecture’ that will be easily accessible to all end users.

Phase I funded the development of operational requirements, the basic design of the system, and the design of the test components. Thus far in Phase II, the hub and node have both been successfully benchtop tested. At the end of Phase II in late 2008 the components will be tested again under pressure in a test tank. Phase III in 2009 will culminate with an ocean prototype test for a typical application.

Cable

System Protection

We describe here just a few of the many unique and complex Navy cable projects. In order to protect them from other seabed activities, NAVFAC ESC works with the Navy Seafloor Cable Protection Office (NSCPO) before, during and after installation. NSCPO, another office of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, strives to deliver sufficient positioning information to mariners and the commercial cable industry so that they can avoid the project locations. NSCPO is the official point of contact for all U.S. Navy (and other Department of Defense) ocean cables5. Its mission includes protection of the Navy’s interests with respect to ocean cables by representing these interests to industry. By providing a single point of contact and management of a comprehensive database of cable systems, the NSCPO is uniquely positioned to

5 C. Creese, The U.S. Naval Seafloor Cable Protection Office “Call Before You Dig!”, Submarine Telecoms Forum, issue 29, November 2006.

answer queries from commercial cable installation planners, surveyors and installation contractors in order to minimize possible damage to Navy cable systems.

In order to ensure that new commercial cable projects are routed clear of any U.S. Navy cable systems, NSCPO requests system planners and installation contractors to contact them early in the planning process. All data provided to NSCPO will be treated as commercially proprietary. For more information on these projects or NAVFAC ESC capabilities please contact the NSCPO.

Bob Fredrickson is the Director of the Ocean Engineering Division at the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center in Port Hueneme, CA. He is responsible for management and oversight of a wide variety of unique Navy ocean facilities projects such as those featured in this article. Prior to his current position, Bob was the manager for environmental quality technology transfer for the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. He has 22 years engineering and management experience with the U.S. Navy. Bob is a graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Catherine Creese has worked for NAVFAC as the Assistant Director of the Naval Seafloor Cable Protection Office since May, 2006. Prior to working at NSCPO, she held positions in cable system route engineering, permitting and sales at Tyco Telecommunications (US) Inc. She was a delegate on the Executive Committee of the International Cable Protection Committee for four years and was a Director of the North American Submarine Cable Association. A former Coast Guard officer, Catherine is a US Coast Guard Academy graduate with a bachelor’s degree in Marine Engineering. Catherine also holds a master’s degree in Technology Management from Stevens Institute of Technology.

You can reach her, and the rest of the NSCPO office at (202) 433-9700 or via the web at nscpo@navy.mil.

Since 2001, Submarine Telecoms

Forum has been the platform for discourse on su b marine telecom cable and network operations. Industry professionals provide editoria l content from their own niche and focus.

Each bi-monthly edition includes commentary and information on system and service provision, and issues critical to the industry.

Advertising Rates

Website Banners

Post your web linked banner to the home page, as well as News-Now sections of the Submarine Telecoms Forum website, where some 5000+ readers can come as often as every week to view the latest news feed, or our bi-monthly magazine.

Feature Section Sponsorship

Available at full-page advertisement rate, section sponsors are identified with a banner (link) at the beginning and end of the featured section.

All advertising rates effective as of January 2007.

Advertising enquiries

Tel:

Letter to a friend from Jean Devos

More cable please!

My dear friend,

My Dear Friend

“Botany Bay”

I published recently a modest novel, whose title is Botany Bay. It is the place in Australia where

I guess you read the recent announcement by the Chinese company Zhongtian, by which they have developed a deep sea (5000m) submarine cable and already invest 27M$ in a specific plant in Jiangsu Province. The press release makes no secrecy about the Chinese ambition, stating that”Zhongtian is awaiting certificate from the ITU, which would enable it to compete worldwide”. One could say welcome on board the already long history of such submarine cables factories. Some of these factories have enjoyed a very long life (more than 100years) and some quite short one (less than 10). Five plants were closed in the last 30 years: ITT plant (San Diego), STC Southampton (UK), Alcatel Port Botany (Australia), Alcatel ex STC Portland (Oregon), Arcofelice Pirelli (Italy).

Alcatel established a submarine cable factory in 1989 as part of its contract for the Tasman 2 link. In this same bay, where two centuries before the French expedition

10000 km) despite the fact that Fujitsu have no access to any existing cable source. The Fujitsu‘s competitors are controlling one way or another all of the existing cable factories which are fully loaded. A persistent rumor says that NSW will supply a recently developed deep sea cable which is under qualification with coming sea trials.

So you see my friend, we are back to this dilemma: Is the cable a commodity or is it a strategic element? My answer is clear it is not a commodity for many reasons! For Huawei to enter into the submarine system market segment and compete against the Alcatel-Lucent, NEC or Fujitsu, it is key to get access to a source of cable. Alcatel and Lucent have got rid of their cable business but for the submarine one (Calais). Same for Tyco Electronics who have kept their own capability. And NEC is now indirectly controlling OCC

and l’Astrolabe, landed in 1788 to discover that Captain Cook was already around bearing the British flag. So Botany Bay is now for me the symbol of a dream which becomes a reality!

Tasman 2 has been yet another chapter in this long Anglo-French competition! The award to Alcatel came out as a big surprise to many, including inside Alcatel. Everybody was naturally expecting the British to win that battle, and such an expectation was at that time very logical.

number of difficult experience. Like me you have worked at a certain stage of your carrier in the cable side of our activity. You perfectly know the cultural difference which exists between the two main parts of a submarine system: The electronic, repeaters, terminals, software, system integration on one side and the cable side which includes cable jointing and installation. These two areas requests very different set of skills which rarely exists in a given company. If in the same company, only one corresponds to the core competencies. The transmission equipment especially the submerged repeaters has been for the last 40 years the very strategic element, the real barrier to entry for whoever was considering coming in this very specific business . This is why we have seen a very stable industry picture during that period of time with 4 historical players, 4 transmission house: ATT/ Tyco, Alcatel, NEC and Fujitsu. These four system houses have enjoyed full access to very experienced cable source

Warrior event was still in everyone’s memory. It is for these reasons among others that STC (UK) rejected the Alcatel‘s suggestion to come with a joint bid, to offer a “European” solution.

One of the winning factors has been the Port-Botany cable factory. Such a factory was a strong requirement from OTC (now Telstra) and the Australian Government.

Alcatel was the most motivated. Such a factory could expand its influence in the Pacific where the three other players were historically well established in this region, which represents a large part of their market. They saw this factory as a risk for their existing facilities!

SubOptic ‘87 in Versailles came at the right time. It is where the Australian teams discovered the French model, a close cooperation between Alcatel and FT, exactly what they wanted to establish in their country.

But the market surge we are presently seeing require suddenly more cable and the shift toward Asia raises some new ambition. The cable side of our activity is once again a very strategic element. There is no reason why the NSW or the Zhongtian could not succeed but they need to realize that the ocean depths are extremely demanding!!

My friend, things are changed since, but one thing stays true: When you offer something, the reader can see between the lines if you are or not genuinely motivated and sincere. Then your offer becomes really attractive and this opens the route to “Botany Bay.”

My friend, I feel excited by these new challenges!

Jean Devos

See you soon.

Jean Devos

“La Pérouse” made of two ships, La Boussole

I am sure you picked up this other information that Fujitsu has been selected by Reliance for the construction of their Flag NGN network (5000 to

One of the reason is that mastering the submarine cable technology is not an easy job and cannot be done overnight. Today this looks like a given! But the existing know how has been learn through a

There were so many difficulties and misunderstanding between Australia and France, the main one being the French presence in the Pacific area, the worse being the nuclear bomb experiment in Tahiti! The sad Rainbow

Submarcom Consulting

SubTel Forum Issue #35 - Defense & Non-traditional Cable Systems

What do Australia, Gulf of Mexico, and South Pole have in Common?

AAG Construction Ready to Begin

Alcatel-Lucent Completes Submarine Cables for Interoute

Alcatel-Lucent to Supply Mediterranean Portion of MENA

Asia Netcom and C2C Complete Operational Merger

Australia Declares Protection Zone Off Perth

C&W’s Dark Fiber Network in Singapore Up and Running

Azea Announces Bermuda - Us Cable System Contract

Bookham Submarine Pump Laser Completes Full Qualification

CTC Announces Launch of New Telecommunications Group

DeepOcean Announces New Build Vessel Name

Etisalat Highlights African Expansion Strategy

FLAG Telecom Awards Fujitsu US $1.5 Billion Turnkey Contract

Fujitsu Wins Upgrade Contract to Expand PC-1 Network Capacity

Glo-1 Nearing Completion

GCI Files for License for Alaska Cable

Hibernia Atlantic Adds New Vice President of Finance

Hibernia Atlantic and Industria Host Icelandic Prime Minister

Hibernia Atlantic Announces Industry First –Bandwidth Ordering Online

Hibernia Atlantic Calls for Support of Law of the Sea Convention

NEC Wins Alaska Cable Project

New Financial Director on Board at Global Marine Systems

New Submarine Cable Announced for Iceland

Nexans Supplies Denmark’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm

Nigerian Carrier Partners with Benin Telecom on SAT-3

New Submarine Cable Announced for Iceland

Nexans Supplies Denmark’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm

Nigerian Carrier Partners with Benin Telecom on SAT-3

Protection Zones for Submarine Cables Off Sydney Go into Effect

Publication Recognizes Asia America Gateway

Singapore Exchange Selects Asia Netcom

Sparkle Launches IP Backbone in Singapore

SPC Describes New Submarine Cable Projects

Submarine Cable to Connect Tahiti with Hawaii in 2009

Sweden-Finland Submarine Power Cable Announced

Tyco Telecom Picked for Black Sea Network

Tyco Telecom to Build Alaska-Lower 48 Cable

WFN Strategies Contracted by Lighthouse for Engineering Support

WFN Strategies’ Jim Case Presented

Technology Society Award

WFN Strategies to Support Ochre Services for Australian O&G System

WFN Strategies To Support South Pole Telecoms Effort

A Look Behind the Scenes: Internet Traffic Trends

Traffic Drivers

Traffic Outlook

At submarine depths, Nexans goes deeper

Australian Protection Zones Around Submarine Cables of National Significance

Background

Submarine cable legislation

Restricted

Not permitted

Offences and Penalties in Protection Zones

Developing the Western Australia Protection Zone

Public Comments on the Protection Zone Proposal

CALL FOR PAPERS

Submarine Cables Move To Center On United States Accession To The United Nations Law Of The Sea Convention

e Desk Top Study (eDTS)

Unrepeatered Upgrades Are Available for Challenging Systems at a Fraction of the Cost of a New System

Maximize the Benefits of Upgrades with All-Raman Technology

Figure 1: EDFA vs All-Raman Spectrum

DWDM Upgrades for ROPA infused systems

DWDM Upgrades for Short Repeatered Systems

Significant Capacity Upgrades for Dispersion Shifted Fiber

Upgrades Unlimited

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization: A Profile

Who we are

The Preparatory Commission

The Treaty

Vienna International Centre

Mission Statement

History of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Partial Test Ban Treaty, 963

Non-proliferation Treaty, 968

Negotiations for the CTBT

Adoption of the CTBT, 996

Signature and Ratification Process

Signature

Ratification

Entry into Force

Partial Test Ban Treaty, 963

Non-proliferation Treaty, 968

Adoption of the CTBT, 996