The “opportunities” of amplification between transmitter to receiver relationships.
Legalities, legalities.
Indefeasible Right of Use, again, everyone balks at such an agreement. In any relationship, it opens up to abuse in any system. But we have to commit, to plan, who can utilize that bandwidth, why and the what end, the trust in use is cemented in the beginning.
So with submarine cables and the percentages of usage erring beyond core infrastructure to worlds of “content”, pretend economies that lead to nuclear liquidation.
The real economies of known nuclear energy stores destined to kick-start a grid, impact a zone in a newfound way. Not exactly newfoundland, more upside-down…
Original contractual agreements pertaining to sub-cables, precedents set, superseded to modern demands and risk?
Are the optics likely to be commissioned under contract of use, CapEx, OpEx? Are you capitalizing on the installation or contractually obliged to operate and maintain.
One could infer that any CapEx stakeholder in a submarine cable installation is aware of the “Dark fiber”, that is, the unlit strands with no optronic nor electronics attached upon the first agreement. Leasing of these components, or rather applications of law are murky.
Utilizing one strand network in a multistrand design?
Allowing a new lease with terms of the new user complying with installation and maintenance of additional components to the overarching system.
A blow out of that additional technology… how nuclear shall that be? Another herpes simplex for hominin depending on what depth in the sea?
Maybe to agree on legislation for amplification, what is the hazard management of Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifier? Used in Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing?
What boilerplate clauses have been written in any overarching original commercial to transnational service agreement. To reflect on, when ones blood literally boils from a lack of tangible infrastructure and retrofitting hazard management has not been actioned.