Submarine Cable Map
submarinecablemap.com
submarinecablemap.com
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.html
(Quite a long read though: over 40k words.)
It's not often you see Cornwall on HN :)
[1] https://www.visitcornwall.com/sites/default/files/styles/pro...
[2] https://www.visitcornwall.com/sites/default/files/styles/pro...
Also I see no one has bothered hooking up Antarctica. (I always thought that would be a good place for a data center in light of free cooling.)
Or actually aren't there giant icebergs that break off and float away each year? Maybe there's way to have that pull a cable wrapped around around a very geared up generator. .. not sure how to explain this idea ...
I skimmed through it, looks like that it's an upcoming cable network to diminish the latency on Asia-Europe connections. Unfeasible before global warming and melting icecaps.
Tierra del Fuego, the southernmost part of South America, lies at 55°S. There's nobody living further to the south than that. Very few people live even at 50°S.
55°N lies Copenhagen, Newcastle upon Tyne, Moscow, Kazan and Chelyabinsk. Cities like Glasgow, Oslo, Gothenburg, Stockholm, Kaliningrad, Helsinki, Tallinn and St. Petersburg are further to the north. Population gets more sparse north of 60°N (I think about 20-25 million people live north of that, a quarter of them Finns) but even when you are looking for cool surroundings, it makes sense to put data centers in places where you have people and infrastructure like stable energy and connectivity.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/coolest-jobs-in-tech...
Firstly, this is not the North Pole. There is no land at the North Pole, which is why it doesn't appear on the map. What you're looking at is infact the Ivaluk Network, designed to connect up remote Arctic communities (and I'm sure some Oil and Gas interests).
The other cable system going to the Arctic Circle is the Svalbard network connecting mainland Norway with this remote island. Why? Well it's the location of a ground station for Low Earth Orbit satellites (including imaging/spy satellites).
In other words, it's likely that the cables are laid all within a few feet of each other in some places, or bundled together. To show this as it appears would make the map look confusing and would not convey what it wants to show.
This is more of an infographic, or a network diagram.
http://submarine-cable-map-2015.telegeography.com/
https://www.telegeography.com/telecom-maps/submarine-cable-m...
Looking at the runs that follow the coasts of South America, SE Asia, and northern Canada, I wonder why some of them weren't run over land. (Obviously very many cables do run over land; this map only shows submarine cables.)
In my imagination, it seems easier to drop a cable from big spool on a ship than to run it over mountains, for example, but I really have no idea.
Edit: You could probably find some info here
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-327090A2.p...
Most cable cut incidents occur either fishing or anchoring a vessel. That's why cable operators send this data to cartography providers.
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=9...
Uses Google data to show the locations, along with the lat/long (using the textual lat longs should be fine from a copyright/data license perspective, though I think lots of OSM people would hem and haw about it being in the same document as Google data).
A lot of the filings are ownership updates to existing cables and don't contain any information about the locations of the cables.