Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

6-tube coax cable to GREEHL RI

Expand Messages
  • dsandow@garden.net
    ... Indeed there was a reason. TAT-5 (Greenhill RI) was built during the height of the cable vs. satellite era. Every additional overseas facility had to go
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 5, 2001
      >
      > OK, just seemed strange, I assume there must have been a reason to
      > make a short section of 6 tube cable;perhaps to interface with that
      > particular TAT cable.

      Indeed there was a reason.

      TAT-5 (Greenhill RI) was built during the height of the cable vs.
      satellite era. Every additional overseas facility had to go through
      a rigorous adversarial proceeding before the FCC, to "protect" Comsat.

      On one side, ATT (proven reliability of cable), the record carriers
      (data comm was not happy about the round-trip delay of satellite),
      and DoD (survivability, privacy and round-trip data).

      On the other side, Comsat (formed in 1964 to evolve the technology
      invented by ATT with Telstar in 1962), the earth station vendors
      (looking for overseas sales) and the State Department (which was
      gung-ho about the international satellite treaties with everybody,
      and did not want to see USA lose out on its satellite leadership
      because COMSAT couldn't maintain its dominance if it couldn't get USA
      traffic streams onto satellite (at the expense of cable streams)).

      So the traffic was to be split 50-50, and every Construction
      Authorization was severly restrictive about how much capacity could
      be built, equipped, and fired up (not always the same!). The
      6-tube entrance link to the cable station was "collateral damage".
      ATT was only allowed to build as much cable into the cable station as
      was needed to connect to the "authorized" underseas cable. And
      "unequipped tubes" could not possibly be allowed, since ATT might
      cheat some day and try to sneak in another underseas cable. No sir,
      don't build ANYTHING more than we give you permission to build.

      This same logic prevailed when ATT built its first fiber TAT. It was
      a 6 strand cable. 2 strands (1 T/R pair) for UK, 2 for France, 2 for
      protection switching. None for growth.

      (For historical perspective, the FCC of the late '60s early '70s had
      not shaken off the momentum from the policies created during the LBJ
      era - "Remember guys - I own a TV station - go find something else to
      regulate.")
    • ozob99@yahoo.com
      ... that ... Comsat. ... USA ... as ... to ... OK, sounds familiar;unreasonable but reasonable for politics...there was a crash program in the 1970 s to get
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 5, 2001
        --- In coldwarcomms@y..., dsandow@g... wrote:
        > >
        > > OK, just seemed strange, I assume there must have been a reason to
        > > make a short section of 6 tube cable;perhaps to interface with
        that
        > > particular TAT cable.
        >
        > Indeed there was a reason.
        >
        > TAT-5 (Greenhill RI) was built during the height of the cable vs.
        > satellite era. Every additional overseas facility had to go through
        > a rigorous adversarial proceeding before the FCC, to "protect"
        Comsat.
        >
        > On one side, ATT (proven reliability of cable), the record carriers
        > (data comm was not happy about the round-trip delay of satellite),
        > and DoD (survivability, privacy and round-trip data).
        >
        > On the other side, Comsat (formed in 1964 to evolve the technology
        > invented by ATT with Telstar in 1962), the earth station vendors
        > (looking for overseas sales) and the State Department (which was
        > gung-ho about the international satellite treaties with everybody,
        > and did not want to see USA lose out on its satellite leadership
        > because COMSAT couldn't maintain its dominance if it couldn't get
        USA
        > traffic streams onto satellite (at the expense of cable streams)).
        >
        > So the traffic was to be split 50-50, and every Construction
        > Authorization was severly restrictive about how much capacity could
        > be built, equipped, and fired up (not always the same!). The
        > 6-tube entrance link to the cable station was "collateral damage".
        > ATT was only allowed to build as much cable into the cable station
        as
        > was needed to connect to the "authorized" underseas cable. And
        > "unequipped tubes" could not possibly be allowed, since ATT might
        > cheat some day and try to sneak in another underseas cable. No sir,
        > don't build ANYTHING more than we give you permission to build.
        >
        > This same logic prevailed when ATT built its first fiber TAT. It was
        > a 6 strand cable. 2 strands (1 T/R pair) for UK, 2 for France, 2 for
        > protection switching. None for growth.
        >
        > (For historical perspective, the FCC of the late '60s early '70s had
        > not shaken off the momentum from the policies created during the LBJ
        > era - "Remember guys - I own a TV station - go find something else
        to
        > regulate.")


        OK, sounds familiar;unreasonable but reasonable for politics...there
        was a crash program in the 1970's to get thousands of domestic PSN
        circuits rerouted onto satellite just to fill it up for regulatory
        reasons; then later they were rerouted back on L & radio...btw some
        of these circuits were split,transmit & rec, between the bird &
        terrestial,creating tricky echo cancelling schemes.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.