Trans-pacific Cable

[www.ipredict.co.nz]

Quote

He believed the chances of that US$350m (NZ$403m) cable project going ahead were “better than 50:50”. Hawaiki’s chief executive, former Alacatel-Lucent executive Remi Galasso, moved his family to New Zealand a few months ago which Mitten took to be a sign of his commitment.

[www.stuff.co.nz]

We have received the following question:

"Does TPCABLE.2015 (and related contracts) mean the cable is physically laid in place or is operational by the required time?"

As stated in the contract, the cable simply has to be laid. It does not require the cable to be operational.

"Does TPCABLE.2016 (and related contracts) mean the new cable is "physically laid from NZ all the way (albeit via hops) to the US"? or could it be for instance "cable laid as far as Australia and then extended connectivity leased from Australia to the US on existing infrastructure"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2014 03:32AM by horsie.

I have been wondering about Horsie's question myself. In addition, I would appreciate clarification on how this would be judged if the new cable went only to Hawaii or Guam and then connected to the mainland USA through a secondary cable. Either of those islands would fulfill the requirement "that a second fibre-optic cable is built linking New Zealand and the United States", but it would hardly seem like a true "Trans-Pacific Cable" to me.

[www.stuff.co.nz]

Sorry this never got answered, Horsie & ThePianoMan.

In the terms, the contract states it must be laid between NZ and the US, so it must be fully laid before the closing date of the contract for it to close at $1, not just to some islands.

How is admin going to judge whether it is 'fully laid', without the requirement for it to be operational?