Global communication links are vulnerable to sabotage and warfare

World communications links, both undersea and in space are increasingly controlled by four giant private companies, and have become a target in warfare and sabotage, according to the latest Baron’s Briefing by Reuters former Deputy Technical Controller Nick White.

In an online talk described by participants as fascinating, he painted a sometimes alarming picture of a concentration of strategic global communications in very few hands and links that are vulnerable to hostile acts.

Nick said the globe is dependent on submarine cables owned, located and controlled by Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta who optimise their own commercial returns. But the cables are at increasing risk from attacks which could dramatically affect the world’s commercial operations and economy.

Some recent outages, for example in the Baltic and Red Seas, have been caused deliberately. Like pipelines, cables have been weaponised and specialised vessels capable of cutting cables are being built.

The satellite industry is even more concentrated.  Starlink has over 7,000 satellites - with plans for 42,000 - delivered by SpaceX in which Elon Musk has a 42% share. They may offer an alternative to existing mobile networks. When linked to Wi-Fi, they bypass the need for roaming and eliminate “not spots”, flying low enough for minimal end-to-end delay.

But like cables, satellites are not immune from attack, and also at risk from interference and damage during launches.

Nick gave an overview of the history of international cable and space communications. Since the first transatlantic cable was laid in 1858, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been the global body controlling communications, but its power has latterly been weakened by technology advances and the power of the big four private companies.

The ability to use communications channels to deliver media and other services is taken for granted these days, Nick said. But it was not always the case. In 1974, John Ashworth for Reuters, working with other large companies, gained approval to use transatlantic and transpacific cables to distribute services - at a premium price - and this was critical for the development of the Reuter Monitor.

Similar battles were fought by Reuters chief executive Glen Renfrew to obtain access to Earth and space segments of geostationary satellite communications.

A peak of cable laying came as the internet started 25 years ago, and a new surge is occurring now, given growth in demand of 20-30% per annum -- driven increasingly by social media, streaming, gaming and influencers.  Some $11 billion in private investment is planned in 2024-26.

Some 70% of today’s transatlantic cables are owned by the four American companies and they have a share in the remainder, Nick said.  The terminating points of cables are driven by these companies’ own commercial needs, especially for AI infrastructure linked to where their cloud centres are located.  

The Red Sea is one of the highest risk areas for cables.  The dominant factor now is resilience. Jeddah in Saudi Arabia has seven separate terminating stations owned by four different companies.  The need for resilience has driven multiple routes around the Indian sub-continent, Australia and in other regions.

Currently there are over 600 submarine cables covering 750,000 miles.  Some are in rivers, which pose unique challenges for cable laying. In Brazil, 2,000 miles of cable were laid in the Amazon, connecting 67 cities with 100 million people to help deliver health services, education and justice.

Cable laying ships are now an industry bottleneck.  There are around 60 operational ships in the world with only five new ones delivered between 2011 and 2020.  Regulation permits are required, which may take up to two ears.  A ship costs $100m to build and $100k per day to operate. 

In conclusion, Nick said connectivity by cable or satellite offers faster and more effective communications in support of the global economy, but the risk of outages and their consequent impact is increasing.  ■