Stephenson’s piece is a classic, but it was written in 1996, when things were very different in the tech industry and geopolitically. Much more up to date (and with an explicit debt to Stephenson) is Samanth Subramanian, The Web Beneath The Waves: The Fragile Cables that Connect our World. Well worth a read to see what’s changed since Stephenson.
Many of the weirder geopolitical parts like how large numbers of cables are all laid across Egypt to get from Europe to middle east -> south asia still remain significant factors. The part that is most dated is the cables being built by exclusively by big traditional telecom companies, when this was written in 1996 the idea of Microsoft or Google or Facebook or others bankrolling a submarine cable from Brazil to Europe was very far away.
The new and novel thing in 1996 from the author's perspective is cables being built not by a PTT type "telephone company" (the Bell System/AT&T, BT, France Telecom, etc) but a new entity that intended to build the cables to sell capacity to multiple telcos.
I've been using Hacker News to get book recommendations. Recently I started checking out the books mentioned in comments on topics I'm interested in learning more about.
I've added this book to my list, and it looks like a short read.
> The British involvement, then, was more catalytic than anything else. They didn't own the rubber plantations. They merely bought the rubber on an open market from Chinese brokers who in turn bought it from producers of various ethnicities. The market was just a few square blocks of George Town where British law was enforced, i.e. where businessmen could rely on a few basics like property rights, contracts, and a currency.
In 2026 this is a surprisingly non-pearl clutching take on British influence abroad.
Two notes of interest, it only covers "British influence abroad" at one specific location for a relatively short interval of time, and it neatly avoids looking too deeply into a classic of British colonialism; the divide and conquer approach of strategically favouring some over others to push any resulting unrest at arms length away from the actual British.
But it does mention the most classic classic: the outcomes of post-British colonies are incredible compared to either no colonialism or another power colonising.
> the outcomes of post-British colonies are incredible
By what metric? Recall that not all people value the same things.
The outcome of British colonialism in Tasmania was 100% extinction of locals - I mean sure, you can call that incredible as you did, but that was never a word used by Truganini
Jamaica, sure, greatest Winter Olympic team ever .. but hardly the poster child for colonialism and impossible to claim as "better off" than sans or alt colonialism.
Uganda, well, ... enough said.
We can likely agree that the expanding British Empire had a tremendous eye for real estate, resources, and location. The bulk of places colonised by the British had plenty of potential for exploitation and exploited they largely were.
The arc of such colonies once the sun set and the Empire retracted was varied, the lucky ones were able to reclaim local control of their own resources and relations, a good many were largely stripped and left to flounder locked into ongoing situations not of their making.
I can't believe this article does not mention what I think is the most puzzling part of the repair: the delicate process by which the individual fibers are FUSED TOGETHER in a way that maintains near perfect total internal refraction.
You mean fusion splicing? That's common knowledge to anyone that's done any professional fibre cabling and you can easily find reading on it. The specifics of subsea cables however are much more elusive so it makes sense the article focuses on that.
I've read a number of articles on this topic, but there's one issue I've never seen addressed: With the large number of cables now in place, often with multiple cables running along similar paths, how great is the risk that in the course of raising up one end of a broken cable, you accidentally snag some other cable that was laid across the first cable after it was laid?
Or is the ocean just so vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big that hardly any cables cross over each other?
> Cables can be tapped for information, or cut to drastically slow communication between countries. A greater emphasis on government protection of the cables may be in the future.
That left me wondering now, how would that even work? The wiretapping, that is
I thought I had read that some cables have systems at each end to detect and correct when there's a splice with swapped cores, however, I can't find a reference; you could imagine such a system would mitigate partial breaks by assigning working paths to priority customers. However, I see a lot more about automatically aligning multicore fibers for splicing, I suspect proper alignment may be more practical than fixing it at the ends.
Even if it's not automated, the number of cores in multicore fibers tends to be pretty low, and there's a standard for marking fibers [1], that's similar-ish to the standard for marking copper pairs [2].
This was a good read. I'm obsessed with undersea cables. I consider them one of the wonders of the modern world. Wikipedia says 99% of all internet traffic gets delivered via these ocean-spanning wires, just sitting along the sea floor. Almost unbelievable.
If you sink a few old ships around in the area you will never need to repair it again each two years. Extra bonus if they are exactly the same ships that you found red-handed damaging the cables.
tl;dr: They pull the damaged cable up, weld it to a new section of cable their brought, and then drop the cable with a detour to make room for the extra length.
A Neal Stephenson long read about undersea cables. So good!