DOCSLIB.ORG

Infraestructura De Internet En América Latina Puntos De Intercambio De Tráfico, Redes De Distribución De Contenido, Cables Submarinos Y Centros De Datos

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Infraestructura De Internet En América Latina Puntos De Intercambio De Tráfico, Redes De Distribución De Contenido, Cables Submarinos Y Centros De Datos ISSN 1680-8754 SERIE DESARROLLO PRODUCTIVO 226 Infraestructura de Internet en América Latina Puntos de intercambio de tráfico, redes de distribución de contenido, cables submarinos y centros de datos Raúl Echeberría Instrumento regional de la Unión Europea para América Latina y el Caribe DESARROLLO en transición Gracias por su interés en esta publicación de la CEPAL Publicaciones de la CEPAL Si desea recibir información oportuna sobre nuestros productos editoriales y actividades, le invitamos a registrarse. Podrá definir sus áreas de interés y acceder a nuestros productos en otros formatos. www.cepal.org/es/publications Publicaciones www.cepal.org/apps 226 Infraestructura de Internet en América Latina Puntos de intercambio de tráfico, redes de distribución de contenido, cables submarinos y centros de datos Raúl Echeberría El presente documento fue elaborado por Raúl Echeberría, Consultor de la División de Desarrollo Productivo y Empresarial de la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), y editado por Fernando Rojas, de la misma División. El autor agradece los comentarios y aportes de colegas de la comunidad de IXPs, Juan Alcázar, Ariel Graizer, Milton Kaoru Kashiwakura, Osvaldo Larancuent, Christian O’Flaherty, Wanda Pérez, Francisco Reyes, Hans Reyes e Ivan Žilić Schmidt, asi como también los de Adela Goberna, Mehmet Akcin y Hubert Souisa de Infrapedia.com, y Gabriel Adonaylo, Manager de LAC-IX. Este documento es parte de las actividades realizadas en el marco del proyecto “Facility on Development in Transition”, financiado por la Unión Europea y ejecutado por la CEPAL. Las opiniones expresadas en este documento, que no ha sido sometido a revisión editorial, son de exclusiva responsabilidad del autor y pueden no coincidir con las de la Organización. Publicación de las Naciones Unidas ISSN: 1680-8754 (versión electrónica) ISSN: 1020-5179 (versión impresa) LC/TS.2020/120 Distribución: L Copyright © Naciones Unidas, 2020 Todos los derechos reservados Impreso en Naciones Unidas, Santiago S.20-00651 Esta publicación debe citarse como: R. Echeberría “Infraestructura de Internet en América Latina: puntos de intercambio de tráfico, redes de distribución de contenido, cables submarinos y centros de datos”, serie Desarrollo Productivo, N° 226 (LC/TS.2020/120), Santiago, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), 2020. La autorización para reproducir total o parcialmente esta obra debe solicitarse a la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), División de Publicaciones y Servicios Web, [email protected]. Los Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas y sus instituciones gubernamentales pueden reproducir esta obra sin autorización previa. Solo se les solicita que mencionen la fuente e informen a la CEPAL de tal reproducción. CEPAL - Serie Desarrollo Productivo N° 226 Infraestructura de Internet en América Latina... 3 Índice Resumen .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Introducción ......................................................................................................................................... 7 I. Puntos de intercambio de tráfico .............................................................................................. 11 A. Argentina .......................................................................................................................... 13 B. Brasil ................................................................................................................................. 14 1. IX.Br .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Equinix ...................................................................................................................... 16 C. Colombia ........................................................................................................................... 16 D. Chile .................................................................................................................................. 17 E. México .............................................................................................................................. 18 F. Panamá ............................................................................................................................. 19 1. IXP de Intered ............................................................................................................ 20 2. Proyecto Hub Digital ................................................................................................. 20 G. República Dominicana ....................................................................................................... 21 II. Content Delivery Networks (CDNs)......................................................................................... 23 A. Arquitectura de las CDNs .................................................................................................. 24 1. Centros de datos propios ........................................................................................... 24 2. Puntos de Presencia (PoPs) ....................................................................................... 25 3. Cachés ....................................................................................................................... 25 4. Situación en países seleccionados ............................................................................. 27 III. Cables submarinos ................................................................................................................... 31 A. Argentina .......................................................................................................................... 34 B. Brasil ................................................................................................................................. 35 C. Chile .................................................................................................................................. 37 D. Colombia ........................................................................................................................... 39 CEPAL - Serie Desarrollo Productivo N° 226 Infraestructura de Internet en América Latina... 4 E. México .............................................................................................................................. 41 F. Panamá ............................................................................................................................. 43 G. República Dominicana ...................................................................................................... 45 IV. Data Centers ............................................................................................................................ 47 A. Argentina ..........................................................................................................................49 B. Brasil .................................................................................................................................49 C. Chile .................................................................................................................................. 50 D. Colombia ........................................................................................................................... 50 E. México .............................................................................................................................. 51 F. Panamá ............................................................................................................................. 51 G. República Dominicana ....................................................................................................... 51 Bibliografía ......................................................................................................................................... 53 Anexo ................................................................................................................................................ 55 Serie Desarrollo Productivo: números publicados ...........................................................................64 Cuadros Cuadro 1 Cables submarinos con puertos de amarre en Argentina ................................................... 34 Cuadro 2 Cables submarinos con puertos de amarre en Brasil .......................................................... 35 Cuadro 3 Cables submarinos con puertos de amarre en Chile ........................................................... 38 Cuadro 4 Cables submarinos con puertos de amarre en Colombia .................................................... 40 Cuadro 5 Cables submarinos con puertos de amarre en México ....................................................... 42 Cuadro 6 Cables submarinos con puertos de amarre en Panamá ...................................................... 44 Cuadro 7 Cables submarinos con puertos de amarre en República Dominicana ................................ 45 CEPAL - Serie Desarrollo Productivo N° 226 Infraestructura de Internet en América Latina... 5 Resumen La infraestructura de interconexión y distribución de contenidos en Internet en América Latina se ha desarrollado significativamente en los últimos años. Si bien se constatan las mismas heterogeneidades que cuando analizamos cualquier indicador social o económico, en términos generales, el desarrollo
Load more

Recommended publications
  • March 30, 2015 by ELECTRONIC FILING Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12Th Street, S.W. Washin
    (202) 223-7323 (202) 204-7371 [email protected] March 30, 2015 BY ELECTRONIC FILING Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Joint Application for Transfer of Control of Cable Landing Licenses from Columbus Networks, Limited to Cable & Wireless Communications Plc, File Nos. SCL-T/C-20141121-00013 and SCL-T/C-20141121-00014; Applications for Transfer of Control of Section 214 Authorizations from Columbus Networks, Limited to Cable & Wireless Communications Plc, File Nos. ITC-T/C-20141121-00304 and ITC-T/C-20141121-00307 Dear Ms. Dortch: On Thursday, March 26, 2015, the undersigned counsel and representatives of Cable & Wireless Communications Plc (“C&W”) and Columbus Networks, Limited (“CNL”) met with members of the Commission’s staff to discuss the above-cited pending applications, and in particular Digicel’s pleadings and ex parte filing in the proceeding. Doc#: US1:9949275v3 Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 2 Attending this meeting on behalf of Cable & Wireless Communications Plc were Belinda Bradbury, General Counsel, and Simeon Irvine, Chief Executive, Wholesale. C&W outside counsel Patrick Campbell and Diane Gaylor of Paul,Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP also attended. Attending on behalf of Columbus Networks, Limited were Paul Scott, President and Chief Operating Officer, Columbus Networks USA, Inc., and Victor A. Lago, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Columbus Networks USA, Inc. CNL outside counsel Ulises Pin of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP also attended. Commission staff in attendance were, from the International Bureau, Nese Guendelsberger, Deputy Bureau Chief (by phone); Kathleen Collins, Assistant Bureau Chief; Walt Strack, Assistant Bureau Chief and Chief Economist; Howard Griboff, Acting Division Chief, Policy Division; David Krech, Associate Division Chief, Policy Division; Mark Uretsky, Senior Economist, Policy Division; Jodi Cooper, Senior Attorney, Policy Division; and, from the Office of General Counsel, James Bird.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Circuit Capacity Data for US-International Submarine Cables
    2019 Circuit Capacity Data For U.S.-International Submarine Cables Table 1 Section 43.82 Circuit Capacity Filers (2019) – Entities that filed a cable operator and/or capacity holder report. Table 2 Number of Reports Filed By Submarine Cable Operators (2019) Table 3 Submarine Cable Operator Reports (in Gbps) (2019/2021) – Information on available and planned capacity data for each U.S.-international submarine cable on an individual and regional basis. Table 4 Submarine Cable Operator Capacity Trend Data (in Gbps) – Detailed capacity trend data for each U.S.-international submarine cable. Table 5 Submarine Cable Capacity Holder Reports by Region (2019) – Information regarding capacity holder data (i.e., cable capacity leased or owned) on a regional basis. Table 6 Percentage of Total Available Capacity Reported (2019) – Information regarding the capacity reported in the cable operator reports and owned capacity in the capacity holder reports on a regional basis. Attachment A U.S.-International Submarine Cables – Landing Points by Region, Cable, and Foreign Landing Point as of December 31, 2019 Attachment B U.S.-International Submarine Cables – Landing Points by Region, Foreign Landing Point, and Cable as of December 31, 2019 Attachment C U.S.-International Submarine Cables – Landing Points by Number of Landing Points Per Country and Region and a Frequency Table Summarizing Foreign Landing Points Per Country as of December 31, 2019 Source: International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission For definitions of terms and instructions on filing procedures, please refer to the Filing Manual (Feb. 2020) For further information on current and past reports, see https://www.fcc.gov/circuit-capacity-data-us-international-submarine-cables Table 1 Section 43.82 Circuit Capacity Filers (2019) Submarine Submarine Cable Cable Capacity No.
    [Show full text]
  • ITU-Dstudygroups
    ITU-D Study Groups Study period 2018-2021 Broadband development and connectivity solutions for rural and Question 5/1 Telecommunications/ remote areas ICTs for rural and remote areas Executive summary This annual deliverable reviews major backbone telecommunication Annual deliverable infrastructure installation efforts and approaches to last-mile connectivity, 2019-2020 describes current trends in last-mile connectivity and policy interventions and recommended last-mile technologies for use in rural and remote areas, as well as in small island developing States (SIDS). Discussions and contributions made during a workshop on broadband development in rural areas, held in September 2019, have been included in this document, which concludes with two sets of high-level recommendations for regulators and policy-makers, and for operators to use as guidelines for connecting rural and remote communities. 1 More information on ITU-D study groups: E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +41 22 730 5999 Web: www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/study-groups ITU -D Study Groups Contents Executive summary 1 Introduction 3 Trends in telecommunication/ICT backbone infrastructure 4 Last mile-connectivity 5 Trends in last-mile connectivity 6 Business regulatory models and policies 7 Recommendations and guidelines for regulators and policy-makers 8 Recommendations and guidelines for operators 9 Annex 1: Map of the global submarine cable network 11 Annex 2: Listing of submarine cables (A-Y) 12 2 More information on ITU-D study groups: E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +41 22 730 5999 Web: www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/study-groups ITU -D Study Groups Introduction The telecommunications/ICT sector and technologies have evolved over a long period of time, starting with ancient communication systems such as drum beating and smoke signals to the electric telegraph, the fixed telephone, radio and television, transistors, video telephony and satellite.
    [Show full text]
  • PTC Academy Pioneering Technologies Keith Shaw
    Keith Russell Shaw EMEA September 2019 Confidential – © 2018 Equinix Inc. Equinix.com 1 § A submarine cable is a cable laid on the sea bed between land- based stations to carry telecommunication signals across stretches Global of the ocean and sea. § As of early 2019, there are approximately 428* submarine cables in Connectivity service around the world. * The total number of cables is constantly changing as new cables enter service and older cable are decommissioned. Confidential – © 2018 Equinix Inc. Equinix.com 2 Summary of current SubSea Cable landscape from the various Suppliers viewpoints Confidential – © 2018 Equinix Inc. Equinix.com 3 Introduction to Open Cables • Outlining key considerations when designing or purchasing a new submarine cable, open or otherwise • It is intended to help ensure the network is upgradeable day 1, or in the future, to best leverage the significant investment made • The benefits of open cables have become generally accepted • within the submarine cable industry. Confidential – © 2018 Equinix Inc. Equinix.com 4 Introduction to Open Cables – Technologies – Breaking the mould Business benefits are: • Freedom to choose best-in-breed vendors with the decision based purely on their wet plant performance • Freedom to choose a best-in-breed Submarine Line Terminal Equipment (SLTE) at a later date, taking full advantage of: Faster innovation cycles Trends toward Point-of-Presence (POP-to-POP) and DC Interconnection Traffic patterns, away from (CLS-to-CLS), are more fitting Submarine upgrade vendors with strong
    [Show full text]
  • Submarine Telecoms INDUSTRY REPORT 2012
    submarine telecoms INDUSTRY REPORT 2012 1 Submarine Cable Industry Report Issue 1 July 2012 Copyright © 2012 by Submarine Telecoms Forum, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Submarine Telecoms Forum, Inc. 21495 Ridgetop Circle Suite 201 Sterling, Virginia 20166 USA www.subtelforum.com ISSN: applied for 2 Disclaimer: While every care is taken in preparation of this publication, the publishers cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information herein, or any errors which may occur in advertising or editorial content, or any consequence arising from any errors or omissions, and the editor reserves the right to edit any advertising or editorial material submitted for publication. If you have a suggestion, please let us know by emailing [email protected]. 3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 13 2.0 Worldwide Market Analysis and Outlook 14 2.1 Connecting the Unconnected 14 2.2 Overview of Historical System Investment 15 2.3 2008 to 2012 Systems in Review 16 2.4 Systems Investment Beyond 2012 17 2.5 Decommissioning 18 3.0 Supplier Analysis 20 3.1 System Suppliers 20 3.2 Upgrade Suppliers 20 4.0 Ownership Analysis 23 4.1 Financing of Current Submarine Systems 23 4.2 Financing of Proposed Submarine Systems 23 5.0 Recent
    [Show full text]
  • Table 1 Section 43.62 Circuit Capacity Filers (2015) Table 2 U.S
    2015 Circuit Capacity Data For U.S.-International Submarine Cables Table 1 Section 43.62 Circuit Capacity Filers (2015) Table 2 U.S. International Submarine Cable Operator Filers (2015) Table 3 Satellite and Terrestrial Circuits (in 64 kbps) (2015) Table 4(A) Submarine Cable Operator Reports (in Gbps) (2015/2017) – Information on available and planned capacity data for each U.S.-international submarine cable on an individual and regional basis. Table 4(B) U.S. International Submarine Cable Capacity (in Gbps) – Detailed capacity trend data for each U.S.-international submarine cable. Table 5 Submarine Cable Capacity Holder Reports (2015) – Information regarding capacity holder data (i.e., cable capacity leased or owned) on a regional basis. Table 6 Percentage of Total Available Capacity Reported (2015) – Information regarding the capacity reported in the cable operator reports and owned capacity in the capacity holder reports on a regional basis. Attachment A U.S. International Submarine Cables - Landing Points Sorted by Region, Cable, and Foreign Landing Point Attachment B U.S. International Submarine Cables - Landing Points Sorted by Region, Foreign Landing Point, and Cable Attachment C U.S. International Submarine Cables - Countries Sorted by the Number of Landing Points Source: International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission *This version includes minor technical and conforming revisions in the Tables and Attachments of the revised 2015 U.S. International Circuit Capacity Report that was released in July 2018 (Revised Report). The changes are reflected in Tables 1, 2, 4(A), 4(B), and 5 and Attachments A and B. Table 1 Section 43.62 Circuit Capacity Filers (2015) Satellite Circuits Reports Submarine Submarine Non- Terrestrial No.
    [Show full text]
  • Visio-NJFX Transcontinental V03.03.2020.Vsdx
    Norway Telia Russia Telia Telia CLS PoPs Apollo N Altice Denmark China Toronto Montreal 60 1025 Crown Castle Shirley Telia Telia Telia CenturyLink CLS PoPs Canada Canada Hudson Crown Castle Connect AEC‐1 CLS Telia NSC Co. Mayo Bude Newcastle Baltic Ireland Altice, CenturyLink, UK CLS UK CLS PoPs Bell CLS Telia Crown Castle, Canada, Zayo Windstream, Zayo, Telia Telia & Zenfi Zayo CC2 Ireland AEC‐1 UK Netherlands Germany Eastern PoPs CC1 Telia Telia Telia Chicago 1400 PoPs PoPs Europe Zayo, Telia Windstream, PoPs Crosslake Fibre, Zenfi via Federal Telia Crown Castle HAVFRUE / AEC‐2 FIRSTLIGHT, & Zayo IFC‐1 Telia WALL‐LI Telia Altice, (2021) Cyprus ASIA 165 CenturyLink, Killala Highbridge Lannion Crown Castle, UK CLS France CLS PAC Altice, Ireland Halsey Zayo, CLS CenturyLink CLS Zenfi, Crown Castle Hawk Telia TGN‐PACIFIC Bell NJEdge, TGN‐ATLANTIC TGN Eurasia CURIE Canada Windstream, SOUTHERN CROSS Zayo, TGN Bilbao Interxion Diverse MAREA Zenfi, Western Spain Subsea Telia Marseille Egypt Telia NJFX CLS Private CLS Routes Telia Europe CLS CAMPUS CLS Windstream, Telia Cloud 1 Wilshire CAMPUS Epsilon TATA MED Altice, Public Atlas Diverse CenturyLink, Zayo, SEABRAS‐1 Portugal Windstream, Telia Cloud Offshore Subsea Crown Castle, Telia Seaborn / TI Sparkle / TATA CLS UFD, Telia, Telia Routes Windstream, Zayo Silicon Ashburn Valley PoPs Windstream Tuckerton Bermuda Praia Sao Paolo Morocco Algeria Globenet Nettel Mumbai FTS Fiber CLS CLS Grande & SP1,2,3 ACE, WACS Virginia Windstream, Santos CLS SAT3 WASC CLS CLS CLS Windstream, Telia Telia Beach Jacksonville CenturyLink, CLS Telia Nevada CLS TI Sparkle Globenet MONET Globenet Diverse & Atlanta Boca Rio De Seacom PCCS Miami Puerto Fortaleza Angola ACE, WACS Subsea Phoenix PoPs Telia Raton SAm‐1 SAm‐1 Globenet Janeiro TGN Eurasia AMX‐1 Rico CLS SAT3 WASC Routes NAP CLS CLS CLS Telia BRUSA MONET BRUSA SACS South Texas Mexico ASIA Telia MAREA Africa PoPs PoPs PAC CLS LATAM Tier‐3 Trans‐Continental Gateways | Mar 3, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC NOTICE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 445 12Th STREET S.W
    PUBLIC NOTICE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 445 12th STREET S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20554 News media information 202-418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202-418-2830; Internet: http://www.fcc.gov (or ftp.fcc.gov) TTY (202) 418-2555 DA No. 03-1123 Report No. TEL-00656 Thursday April 10, 2003 INTERNATIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS GRANTED Section 214 Applications (47 C.F.R. § 63.18); Cable Landing License Applications (47 C.F.R. § 1.767); Requests to Authorize Switched Services over Private Lines (47 C.F.R. § 63.16); Section 310(b)(4) Requests The following applications have been granted pursuant to the Commission’s streamlined processing procedures set forth in Section 63.12 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 63.12, other provisions of the Commission’s rules, or procedures set forth in an earlier public notice listing applications accepted for filing. Unless otherwise noted, these grants authorize the applicants (1) to become a facilities-based international common carrier subject to 47 C.F.R. § 63.22; and/or (2) to become a resale-based international common carrier subject to 47 C.F.R. § 63.23; or (3) to exceed the 25 percent foreign ownership benchmark applicable to common carrier radio licensees under 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4). Grants under Section 63.16 and certain grants under Section 63.18 also authorize carriers generally to use their authorized private lines to provide switched services (ISR) between the United States and particular international points pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 63.16. See also 47 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Building(Nextgenera0on( Interna0onal(Networks( (( ON*VECTOR(Workshop,(UCSD( Feb(22Nd,(2017(
    Building(NextGenera0on( Interna0onal(Networks( (( ON*VECTOR(Workshop,(UCSD( Feb(22nd,(2017( (Michael(Stanton( RNP,(Brazil( Objec-ve:(present(ongoing(developments(in(South( America(for(improved(connec-vity(( • Mo-va-on:(imbalance(in(current(situa-on( RNP’s(Interna0onal(links:( • To(US,(shares(with(ANSP((state(network(in(São(Paulo)(infrastructure(of( successive(IRNC(projects:(currently(Amlight(ExP((240G(currently(available( capacity)( • To(Europe((5G)(and(La0n(America((10G)(via(RedClara( • Terrestrial(link(between(Porto(Alegre(and(Buenos(Aires((Argen0na),(used( also(by(RedClara(and(InnovaRed((AR)( Effec-vely,(South(America(is(a(backwater,(connected(to(the(rest(of( the(world(via(North(America( 2( To(reinforce(the(point(–(GLIF(map(2011( Unfortunately,(the( edi0on(currently(in( prepara0on(will(show(a( topologically(similar( situa0on(for(South( America( 3( Nowadays,(interna-onal(connec-vity(relies(essen-ally(on( submarine(cable(infrastructure( (To(reach(South(America,(between(2000(and(2013,(the(only(cables( available(were(5(new(cables(in(service(in(2000:( • PrePInternet(cables((only(voice(traffic)(( • Americas(2((US)( • Atlan0s(2((EU)( • 1st(genera-on(Internet((10G)(( • GlobeNet,(SAC/LAN,(SAm]1((US)( (( (This(effec0vely(produced(the(situa0on(of(South(American( connec0vity(depending(en0rely(on(North(America,(specifically(on( Florida.( 4( Rela-ve(costs(of(reaching(South(America( • The(lack(of(effec0ve( alterna0ves(has(also(made( connec0vity(to(South( America(very(expensive( • In(2012,(the(median(cost(of(a( 10G(wave(Miami]S.Paulo(was( about(10x(the(cost(of(
    [Show full text]
  • INTERNATIONAL BUREAU REPORT 2013 Section 43.82 Circuit Status
    INTERNATIONAL BUREAU REPORT 2013 Section 43.82 Circuit Status Data July 2015 Cathy Hsu Policy Division 2013 Section 43.82 Circuit Status Data This report contains information on U.S. facilities-based international common carriers’ circuits as of December 31, 2013 that was submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) pursuant to section 43.82 of the Commission’s rules.1 For comparison purposes, this report also includes data from previous reports covering 2010 through 2012.2 Overall, the reported number of activated 64 kilobits per second (Kbps) equivalent circuits grew by 13 percent between 2012 and 2013. At year-end 2013, the reported number of activated 64 Kbps equivalent circuits totaled 43.8 million circuits as compared to 38.6 million circuits at year-end 2012. As explained below, this year’s report will be the last circuit status report issued under section 43.82.3 In 2013, the Commission released a Second Report and Order that significantly streamlined and modernized the Commission’s international circuit reporting requirements.4 Section 43.62, which went into effect on February 11, 2015, replaces section 43.82 circuit status reporting requirements.5 Circuit capacity data filed pursuant to section 43.62 for data as of December 31, 2014 were due by April 30, 2015 and will be the basis of next year’s report.6 1 47 C.F.R. § 43.82 (2014). See Annual International Circuit Status Reports Due on March 31, 2014; Carriers Continue to File Pursuant to Section 43.82, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 1956 (Int’l Bur.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the ISSN 1948-3031 Industry ISSN 1948-3031 Submarine Telecoms Forum Is Published Bimonthly by WFN Strategies
    57 M a y Voice 2011 of the ISSN 1948-3031 Industry ISSN 1948-3031 Submarine Telecoms Forum is published bimonthly by WFN Strategies. The publication may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form, in whole or in part, had a glass of wine the other day domestic and international RSS feeds, without the permission of the publishers. at Covent Garden with a business facebook profile and requisite 300 daily Submarine Telecoms Forum is an customer and friend. emails. One more platform may put me independent com mercial publication, I in overload! serving as a freely accessible forum for He had recently procured an Apple professionals in industries connected with submarine optical fibre technologies and iPhone, and was telling me about all the But I sure am happy the boys in the techniques. neat things he could now do on the fly; my backroom got that one covered. And Liability: while every care is taken in Android seemed to pale in comparison. maybe the next time someone mentions preparation of this publication, the Twitter or some other cool medium I'll look publishers cannot be held responsible for He then mentioned how, at the behest of the accuracy of the information herein, or a little more composed and sure-footed. any errors which may occur in advertising one of his children, he had added Twitter or editorial content, or any consequence to his applications, but had spent a fair arising from any errors or omissions. amount of time trying to find areas of The publisher cannot be held responsible real interest.
    [Show full text]
  • W&G Urges BOEM to Protect Undersea Cables on the Atlantic
    Before the BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological OCS EIS/EA And Geophysical Activities, BOEM 2012-005 Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement COMMENTS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN SUBMARINE CABLE ASSOCIATION Kent D. Bressie Madeleine V. Findley Kristine Laudadio Devine WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1200 18th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20036-2516 +1 202 730 1337 tel Counsel for the North American Submarine Cable Association . 30 May 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and other legal obligations and to achieve effective coordination and protection of potentially competing marine activities on the outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”), the North American Submarine Cable Association (“NASCA”) urges the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) to revise its Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (“DPEIS”) in this proceeding to account for the extensive presence, critical importance, and unique legal status of undersea fiber-optic telecommunications cables. Although the potential for conflict between undersea telecommunications cables and energy-related activities on the OCS—including those in the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas—continues to grow, the DPEIS makes no mention whatsoever of undersea telecommunications cables, much less the unique rights and protections due to such cables, the federal laws and agencies governing such cables, or any of the threats to undersea cables posed by energy-related activities in the OCS absent awareness and coordination. Undersea cables carry more than 95 percent of the international voice, data, and Internet traffic of the United States, a percentage that is expected to continue to increase.
    [Show full text]