Submarine cables? Tentacles that enable and ensure the functioning of more than 98% of the world’s Internet connections, connecting some 5 billion users. Who says better? In 2024, around 1.4 million kilometers of cables will connect the continent, as well as island or isolated areas. To schematize the cartography of these cables, it should be noted that they are distributed over three main axes: transatlantic Europe-United States, Europe-Asia, via the Suez Canal, and transpacific Asia-America. These are strategic infrastructures, the transmission of information also being vital in the control of certain installations such as dams, drinking water plants or power plants, whose management system is often automated or administered remotely. .
In today’s world, the demand for digital services is only growing, particularly with the major Internet players such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft, not to mention Netflix, Airbnb and Uber. Initially, GAFAMs were bandwidth tenants, which correspond to the capacity of a network to transfer data. But the heavy bills they paid to traditional operators and the economies of scale they were likely to achieve pushed them to invest in submarine cables. The established order was then shaken up. Massive investments now allow Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), Amazon or Microsoft to become masters of their infrastructures, thus allowing them to choose the paths to take to transmit their data. By becoming owners of nearly 50% of the world’s cables, GAFAM forms a quasi-monopoly. To whose detriment? States! A domination which can weigh on “Net neutrality”, due to the property link which connects them to the cables.
That said, the biggest issues related to cable installation remain geopolitical. What is the situation at the moment? The owner(s) of a cable have control over the information that passes through it. These cables can then either improve access to information in various parts of the globe, or even participate in censorship or disinformation. What is striking is the weight of private companies in the ownership of cables: more than three quarters of these infrastructures are in the hands of GAFAM, which thus have the majority of control over the dissemination of information. The problem of digital sovereignty is even twofold, since it is also the GAFAM which hold the majority of the data created by users.
“We are facing a digital world whose infrastructures are mostly privatized. It can be problematic to see control of telecommunications limited to a small group of people.”
-
Faced with such a situation, we must ask this question: where are the countries in this global market? It is worth noting in this regard that no State, strictly speaking, owns submarine cables. Under these conditions, they are better able to support these private operators in the deployment of cables. The challenge is there: how can States regain weight in the dissemination of information? The path is that of supporting the installation of cables by their national companies. This is what China is currently undertaking with its local GAFA, BATX (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent and Xiaomi). The investment is made in the deployment of cables entirely managed by Chinese companies. Enough to allow the government to have control over the transmission of information. The United States still holds first place and a large part of the cables land on American beaches. However, China and Russia are gaining ground. As for Europe, it is struggling to find its place. It no longer has the means to establish leadership, especially on a route as competitive as that between Europe and the United States. In the global expansion of the Internet, some parts of the globe still have difficulty accessing it. This is particularly the case for the African and South American continents.
We are therefore faced with a digital world whose infrastructures are mostly privatized. It can be problematic to see ownership and control of telecommunications limited to a small group of people. What if these companies decide to “pull the plug” on a country? Or what if an accident causes this cut? And at issue here is international public order…
Just like other types of transport (maritime or rail), it is plausible that telecommunications cables are the target of attacks. In times of war or global crisis, cutting off an enemy’s Internet access is a strong deterrent. We must also mention acts of terrorist sabotage by different groups involved in the game. Other measures, where applicable, look at the destabilization of a country or even the surveillance of its communications. Are these scenarios pure fiction? The role of these cables is central to maintaining global connections, which makes them enormous geopolitical issues, both for security and economic interests as well as to consolidate a dominant position and means of pressure in international relations.
