However in order to put up utility poles you need a ROAD in order to get vehicles to the poles for maintenance. That's why you see offshore cables: when there are no roads through politically-stable territory.
Look at Alaska: the fiber runs overland all the way from the southern coast to the northern coast because the oil companies built a road next to the pipeline. Then it goes offshore along the arctic coast because there are no roads between the coastal communities.
Once you have roads and political stability, utility poles win every time. Underground is more reliable but more expensive. Undersea is insano-expensive.
But I wonder how the line between Texas and Missouri got there.
And the one between California and Washington: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/pacific-... (I get that it's to complete a ring, but if subsea is so expensive, they couldn't put together an in-land route to make it a ring?). Or is it cheaper to make your sea cable 5% longer instead of licensing land-RightOfWays install/access?
And Perth+Sydney: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/indigo-c...
I guess they could end up being lower latency than following a road.
Would not be surprised if there were an offshore oil drilling platform in the middle of it.
> And the one between California and Washington:
Pretty sure that's just how the map is drawn -- the consortium that laid the subsea lines to Japan probably bought six strands of terrestrial fiber between the two US endpoints to make the ring.
Yes.
Subsea cable is often cheaper and easier to install than an overland route. Octoberfranklin is just wrong on the economics.
But if a subsea line is 6 fibres, you’d think they’d license one of the 288 strands on an existing run from some less else for less than that cost.
This is easier said than done.
There may not be spare strands on the route in question, or if there is, it may not be available at a reasonable cost. Remember dark fiber is an unregulated asset, nobody can force network owners to play ball.
The available terrestrial routes between the landing stations may be suboptimal.
The route between landing stations may be required to be diverse from terrestrial route.
There's a whole another level of control between owning a full route and leasing some strands in somebody else's cable.
...
And the list goes on.
The fiber isn't, but the poles are. You can force the pole owners to play ball.
For your edification, look up "malicious compliance".
In fjords you can just use a barge to lay the cable or, this being Norway, you can just roll out the cable on the ice and let it sink in the spring.
Subsea cable system costs are about 30k$ to 50k$ per kilometer. This is about the same cost as aerial construction, excluding the poles. You pay for the poles separately with yearly fees.
You also don't need roads to put up and service utility poles. It's just more convenient to put them by roads.
As an aside, you can and do have subsea cables with 216 or other high count strand numbers. The reason you use 12 strands or less in long haul systems is that it is cheaper to use fewer strands and higher bandwidth rates per strand than to build high count subsea cable systems.
You could build any terrestrial fiber system with just one strand, but it's cheaper and more convenient to use more strands since you are constantly bifurcating the network.
Source: I have built both subsea cables and terrestrial fiber networks.
Not even close. 12-count ADSS cable costs $3,000 per km, one tenth of your low-end. And for three times that price you can get 144-count which isn't even remotely an option for subsea cables.
I used to buy from FS.com, but they've stopped shipping large spools due to the COVID shipping disaster situation, and took the pricing down off their website. Here's another company (never dealt with them) charging $1,400 per km:
https://multicomstore.com/ofs-f12smadss350f-fiber-optic-cabl...
Source: I lease aerial dark fiber, included some that was constructed at my request.
> Subsea cable system costs are about 30k$ to 50k$ per kilometer.
Including repeaters/amplifiers and power delivery? Yeah right. Link?
> you can and do have subsea cables with 216 or other high count strand numbers
Show me a 216-count subsea cable long enough to need repeaters/amplifiers.
It's a typical rookie mistake to confuse the cable costs with construction costs.
> And for three times that price you can get 144-count which isn't even remotely an option for subsea cables.
I know for a fact you can get 192 count subsea cable.
>> Subsea cable system costs are about 30k$ to 50k$ per kilometer.
> Including repeaters/amplifiers and power delivery?
Yes.
> Link?
http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=subsea+cable+system+cost+per+km
I know reading is hard, but repeat after me: "The reason you use 12 strands or less in long haul systems is that it is cheaper to use fewer strands and higher bandwidth rates per strand than to build high count subsea cable systems."
If you want high count subsea cable segments with amps, but which does not use in-line amps, take a look at https://crosslakefibre.ca/
To spell it out for you, subsea cables which are only a few hundred kilometers long do not require in-line amps, only head end amps.
> http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=subsea+cable+system+cost+per+k...
Nice source there.
Google even pops up a box with the relevant information immediately. Here, let me help you if that’s too hard:
“The cost of completing the nascent fiber-optic network connecting the capital cities of Sub-Saharan Africa and the main submarine cables is modest at $316 million, based on a cost of around $27,000 per kilometer.”
And that’s just the top result. You can look up the per km cost of almost any cable system trivially.