By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A subsea fiber optic cable connecting Cape Breton Island and Newfoundland was deliberately cut for the second time in December 2024, requiring extensive repairs by a specialized ship. Bell, the cable’s owner, suspects an anchor or fishing gear was used to bring the cable to the surface before it was intentionally severed. The company is cooperating with the RCMP investigation and exploring preventative measures, including burying the cable and employing satellite surveillance. While the RCMP lacks sufficient evidence for the first incident, the investigation into the second continues.
Read the original article here
Subsea fibre optic cables connecting Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have been deliberately severed for a second time. This isn’t a new phenomenon; the deliberate cutting of undersea cables has a long history, dating back to World War I and continuing to the present day. While accidental damage from fishing gear does occur, the deliberate nature of these cuts points to a more sinister intention.
The incidents raise concerns about potential acts of sabotage targeting critical civilian infrastructure. While some speculate about the involvement of nation-states in these acts – possibly as a form of “communication warfare” – others suggest the culprits may be less sophisticated, potentially involving fishing crews prioritizing their catch over the implications of damaging the cable.
One theory posits that the crews, finding the cable entangled in their nets, chose to cut it rather than risk losing their nets and the associated income from fishing. This “not my problem” approach, however callous it may seem, might explain the incident. The lack of clear procedures for reporting such entanglements could also contribute to this reckless behaviour. A clear process involving marked cables and a designated contact point for claims could potentially alleviate this issue.
However, the deliberate nature of the cuts, especially given the recurrence of the incident, warrants a closer look. The sheer cost of repairing these cables, combined with the potential for significant disruption to communication and other essential services, makes the act far more serious than a simple accidental snag. The possibility of intentional sabotage, perhaps disguised as an accident, cannot be easily dismissed. The disruption to internet services and vital infrastructure on small islands due to similar incidents highlights the vulnerability of relying heavily on such undersea cables.
The situation underscores the need for improved security measures to protect these vital communication links. This includes enhancing cable protection, developing better reporting mechanisms for accidental damage, and improving investigation processes to identify and prosecute those responsible for deliberate acts of sabotage. The ease of cutting these cables compared to satellite internet options suggests intentional acts are much simpler to carry out. The possibility of using these acts for creating a dependence on satellite solutions, like Starlink, which would be easier to control or monitor, cannot be ruled out entirely.
It’s also worth noting the considerable irony of this situation. While the incident highlights the vulnerabilities of relying solely on undersea cables for internet connectivity, the alternative—satellite internet—isn’t without its own issues. Satellite internet options, while increasingly viable, remain comparatively expensive and might not offer the same speed and reliability of fiber optic cables. Furthermore, satellite internet often relies on ground stations connected to…you guessed it…fiber optic cables, creating a somewhat circular dependency.
While it’s tempting to jump to conclusions about sophisticated state-sponsored attacks, the most likely scenario might involve a combination of factors: poorly-defined procedures for handling accidental cable snags, economic pressures on fishing crews, and a lack of robust security measures to protect the cables themselves. Regardless of the precise cause, the repeated incidents serve as a stark reminder of the importance of protecting these critical infrastructure components. The debate around the involvement of sophisticated actors, while fascinating, shouldn’t overshadow the need for pragmatic solutions to prevent future occurrences.
In conclusion, the repeated cutting of the subsea fibre optic cable highlights a complex issue. While accidental damage is possible, the intentional nature of the cuts demands a careful investigation. Addressing the issue requires a multifaceted approach involving improved cable protection, clear reporting procedures, and effective enforcement to deter acts of sabotage. The potential for using such acts to influence reliance on more easily controlled communication systems, however speculative, further emphasizes the importance of resolving this issue.