More on Sri Lanka fiber outage....
Via: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_965656,00050002.htm Sri Lanka court holds back Indian ship, seeks $5mn in damages Press Trust of India Colombo, August 23 A Sri Lankan court ordered that an Indian ship, which allegedly damaged a submarine cable severing the island's main internet access with the rest of the world, be held at the port of Colombo till a case seeking five million US dollars in damages was settled. The Colombo district court ordered that the vessel, 'State of Nagaland' be held at the port where it is currently anchored until the case filed by Sri Lanka Telecom is heard on September 6. SLT, the island's main telecommunications provider said they want five million dollars in damages and that internet, international dialling and data services of 800,000 subscribers had been affected since yesterday. The ship is alleged to have dropped anchor and damaged the SEA-ME-WE III cable linking Sri Lanka to the internet backbone. Services will remain interrupted for at least another day or two until a repair ship carries out its work. 8<----------- snip ----------- - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Via:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_965656,00050002.htm
Sri Lanka court holds back Indian ship, seeks $5mn in damages
They better hope the cargo is valuable; otherwise they will own one rusting hulk and have to deal with it. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
David Lesher wrote:
They better hope the cargo is valuable; otherwise they will own one rusting hulk and have to deal with it.
It's a break bulk ship - a large container vessel for shipping extra large or awkwardly sized cargo like coal / fertilizer / oil pipes etc Built in 1978 and has seen real hard use every day it's been in service as far as I can see from googling out the marine registry I'm sure its owners (the Shipping Corporation of India) would be happy to give them the ship for free. Valuable? The consignment belongs to whoever consigned it, and I guess all the shipper has to do is to remove it from the impounded ship and book space on some other rust bucket. Should be fairly easy - those are fairly crowded waters. srs
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Built in 1978 and has seen real hard use every day it's been in service as far as I can see from googling out the marine registry
I'm sure its owners (the Shipping Corporation of India) would be happy to give them the ship for free.
As I figured...
Valuable? The consignment belongs to whoever consigned it, and I guess all the shipper has to do is to remove it from the impounded ship and book space on some other rust bucket. Should be fairly easy - those are fairly crowded waters.
This I'm not sure about. The GTS Katie debacle involved holding the cargo hostage; in at least that one case such was a nono. Otherwise...? [ObNANOG: Scyld, of Baewolf cluster fame, sublet office space from the owners of the Katie. The sheriff showed up one day with eviction notices for all.] -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence charges... Tony On Aug 23, 2004, at 3:12 PM, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Via:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_965656,00050002.htm
Sri Lanka court holds back Indian ship, seeks $5mn in damages
They better hope the cargo is valuable; otherwise they will own one rusting hulk and have to deal with it.
-- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tony Li wrote:
Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence charges...
The crew of the ship for having dropped anchor presumably in defiance of 'Undersea cable, Do not anchor here' signs, or the telco for having sited a critical communications cable near/beneath a busy port ? --==-- Bruce. ( Of course, I don't know the specifics, but if you have a choice, running your very-special undersea cable beneath a port would seem to be a bad idea )
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tony Li wrote:
Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence charges...
The crew of the ship for having dropped anchor presumably in defiance of 'Undersea cable, Do not anchor here' signs, or the telco for having sited a critical communications cable near/beneath a busy port ?
--==-- Bruce.
( Of course, I don't know the specifics, but if you have a choice, running your very-special undersea cable beneath a port would seem to be a bad idea )
...an alternative ISP would have made big bucks during those blockout days using some satellite gear, no? ;-)
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tony Li wrote:
Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence charges...
The crew of the ship for having dropped anchor presumably
in defiance of
'Undersea cable, Do not anchor here' signs, or the telco for having sited a critical communications cable near/beneath a busy port ?
Conceivably neither, if... - the cable was in a well-charted cable area (equivalent to "do not dig" easements on land which AFAIK are also present in densely populated/high traffic areas) AND - the ship was dragging anchor because of severe weather forcing it toward shoals or other ships (i.e. safety of ship and crew)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-08-24, at 12.58, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tony Li wrote:
Did they arrest the crew? They have grounds on negligence charges...
The crew of the ship for having dropped anchor presumably in defiance of 'Undersea cable, Do not anchor here' signs, or the telco for having sited a critical communications cable near/beneath a busy port ?
....if that was the criteria, all of the UK would only be connected to the US. And having worked for someone who owned sea-cables mainland-UK, that was occasionally a tempting idea :-) - - kurtis - / Running -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQTWAgqarNKXTPFCVEQJhtgCdG3eI4xc5mYfvfJzGwTcQ2Qbi5pQAoN8c pnIJTv7irT+Hd5J21rqU04YM =mwOD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (8)
-
Bruce Campbell -
Carlos Friacas -
David Lesher -
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Mark Borchers -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Tony Li