> Each submarine cable is 12+ strands which are DWDM multiplexed to 20-40 channels at 100-400gbps.
Being able to pump 40 terabits per second up to a satellite from a single uplink, as they hope, is significant-- exceeding most subocean cables.
Being able to pump 40 terabits per second up to a satellite from a single uplink, as they hope, is significant-- exceeding most subocean cables.
a single cable system under construction(which we are buying part of) (there are over 30) has over 120t of capacity @400G waves, but we are already discussing doing 800G waves, which will double that. We currently operate on over 7 submarine cables, one of the landing stations we operate out of has over 10 cable landing which is over 850T of capacity across all cables.
Most of my metro DF backhaul can push 16-19T down a single pair, and most of my builds are 1728 core fiber.
Starlink is very cool, it will connect ALOT of under served or simply not served people across the world, but the notion that it will even have the slightest chance at dinting the Subsea cable market is laughable.
No, a single uplink can't replace a subsea cable.
This is not real.
Granted. More path loss, dispersion, potential for interference. The question is how well can you do?
> This is not real.
I believe ETHZ; of course there's more to do to make a practical system.
Lines have one biiiiig advantage. They're very easy to monitor(liveness), very hard to imperceptibly tap anymore, they don't move once you put them down (generally), and if they do, you know just where to start looking.
The telescopes involved in this are strongly directional, so whomever is tampering would need to be rather close to the real uplink.