Rethinking Submarine Cable Repair Priorities

Photo by Vino Li on Unsplash

Rethinking Submarine Cable Repair Priorities

Despite submarine cable systems being the backbone of global connectivity, their repair and maintenance regimes remain one of the least visible—and most strained—elements of the digital ecosystem. While the industry has historically managed cable repairs through market-based mechanisms and cooperative maintenance agreements, recent trends raise important questions about whether current models remain fit for purpose. Increasing cable density, regional imbalances in repair capacity, aging fleets, climate risks, few cable depots, and geopolitical constraints are converging to test the resilience of the global repair system.

This article explores a critical question that is gaining urgency: how should priorities be determined when multiple submarine cables are damaged simultaneously, and existing repair capacity is insufficient to respond quickly to all faults? Addressing this question requires a careful balance between regulatory intervention and market efficiency, informed by practical experience from industry, governments and international cooperation frameworks.

The Current Model: First Come, First Served

Today, it is well known that submarine cable repairs largely operate on a “first come, first served” basis. When a fault occurs, the cable owner activates the relevant consortium zone agreement and a cable repair vessel is dispatched when available. This approach has the advantage of simplicity and neutrality: no cable is deemed more important than another and no authority is required to rank priorities. 

However, this current model assumes that faults occur sporadically and that repair capacity is generally sufficient. That assumption is increasingly challenged. In certain regions, cable cuts are becoming more frequent and clusters of faults in the same geographic area are no longer exceptional. Events linked to fishing activity, anchoring incidents as in the Red Sea and seabed landslides like those that occurred in West Africa in March 2023 can combine to generate multiple faults within short timeframes, overwhelming local repair capacity.

In such scenarios, the question is no longer whether a vessel can be dispatched, but which cable should be repaired first—and who decides. In practice, cable owners with greater financial leverage may favour a second model based on private agreements, allowing them to negotiate tailored conditions for their cable systems, including faster response times. Both models—consortium-based maintenance agreements and private arrangements—currently account for a broadly similar share of global submarine cable kilometres under coverage 1.

When Multiple Cables Are Cut: A Governance Gap

From time to time, reality delivers a stress test: several cables are cut in the same area, often affecting multiple operators, countries, or even entire regions. When this happens, the limitations of a purely sequential repair model become visible.

One possible response is regulatory intervention. Governments could require maintenance agreement operators to coordinate more closely, or even mandate joint operational planning across different maintenance zones. Another, more controversial idea is the designation of a competent authority empowered to arbitrate repair priorities when capacity constraints arise.

Such an authority could, in theory, assess factors such as:

• The number of end-users affected

• The availability of alternative routes

• The criticality of the cable for public services or regional connectivity

• The impact on underserved or landlocked countries

Under this approach, not all cables would be treated identically in emergency scenarios. Instead, priorities would be determined based on broader public-interest, equity and fairness considerations.

Yet this idea immediately raises concerns.

Market Effectiveness and the Risk of Overregulation

Industry representatives caution against assuming that the current system is fundamentally broken. From their perspective, the market largely functions as intended and does not require external intervention to maintain the status quo.

Some voices have suggested developing a Global Repair Asset Optimization Framework (GRAOF) to encourage industry associations to map global repair coverage gaps, clarify where resource shortfalls exist and support investment decisions. In parallel, they advocate for longer-term maintenance contracts, joint vessel funding mechanisms, and public-private partnership (PPP) maintenance hubs, particularly in underserved regions 2.

As highlighted above, submarine cable may be organized through consortium zone agreements, where resources are pooled and geographically allocated to ensure global coverage. These arrangements are continuously adjusted to reflect changing risk patterns.

For example, while fault rates in the Atlantic have declined in recent years, they have increased in parts of the Asia-Pacific region—prompting discussions about reallocating base ports and repair assets.

The Atlantic Ocean itself offers a striking illustration. Despite hosting a rapidly increasing number of submarine cables, it is still served by a limited number of maintenance agreements which cover regions far larger and more complex than those originally envisaged. Brazil, for instance, is geographically larger than Europe and hosts more than 15 submarine cable systems landing on its shores, yet has no cable repair depots at all.

A critical operational reality must also be acknowledged: repair vessels and crews cannot sit idle. These are highly specialized assets, and crews require regular operational activity to maintain their skills. Long periods of inactivity risk skill degradation, yet excessive downtime remains common in some regions.

One potential solution lies in allowing maintenance vessels to perform outside works—such as surveys or other cable-related activities—currently restricted under some maintenance agreements. These activities can provide additional revenue for vessel operators while reducing the charges collected from cable owners.

Capacity Gaps: New Cables, Old Constraints

One of the clearest challenges facing the repair ecosystem is the mismatch between new cable construction and maintenance capacity. Over the past two years, a significant number of new submarine cables have entered service. However, these cables rely largely on the same maintenance vessels, depots and crews that existed before. In fact, in many regions, no additional repair capacity has been added, despite the doubling of cable density over the past decade.

This has tangible consequences:

• Transit times from port bases to locations of cable faults remain high

• Repair vessels must cover vast geographic areas

• Aging fleets struggle to meet growing demand

Aging Fleets and Investment Disincentives

Another structural issue is the age of the global repair fleet. The average submarine cable maintenance vessel is approximately 20 years old. Replacing or modernizing these vessels is capital-intensive: a new cable ship can cost in the order of USD 100 million.

In some cases, vessels have been withdrawn from service because maintenance operations were no longer economically viable. In addition, it is well recognized that a major cable installer has quit the repair market because dedicating a vessel to a two-week repair operation often generates significantly lower returns than deploying the same asset for new cable installation projects.

This creates a paradox: as repair capacity becomes more critical, the business case for sustaining it weakens.

Some policy-relevant solutions arise:

• Extending the duration of maintenance agreements (typically around 3 years) 

• Avoiding new taxes or regulatory burdens, such as restrictive cabotage rules

• Allowing vessels to perform outside works as further described above

• Exploring targeted public support or grants in regions with high strategic importance

Best practices already exist. Some countries, such as Australia, require notification rather than permits for cable repairs. Regional initiatives like the recently adopted ASEAN guidelines commit governments to streamlined repair approvals—often within 7–10 working days—and the designation of single points of contact 3.

Reducing Demand: Problem Cables and Preventive Action

An often-overlooked insight is that repair capacity is disproportionately consumed by a small number of cables. Estimates suggest that around 50% of global repair capacity is absorbed by only a handful of problematic systems, typically older, low-capacity cables. 

Retiring or replacing these cables could dramatically reduce fault rates and free up repair resources. In parts of Europe, the retirement of such systems has already yielded measurable improvements. However, uncertainty remains in other regions, particularly in Asia, where many older systems remain in service —or where cables continue to operate along historically problematic routes that have experienced repeated incidents over the past decades.

Within some consortium maintenance agreements, it is not uncommon to hear debates about proportionality and fairness. Cable owners contributing only a marginal share of the overall maintenance budget—sometimes as little as 1%, an amount insufficient even to cover minimal vessel operating costs—may nevertheless account for 60% of time spent debating in internal meetings. This dynamic has led some operators to consider negotiating private maintenance agreements, often under market conditions distorted by limited supply and unequal bargaining power, raising potential competition and antitrust concerns that deserve a separate and careful analysis.

At the same time, consortium maintenance agreements frequently fail to differentiate between cable owners that have invested proactively in risk mitigation—such as adequate previous cable burial, detailed pre-installation surveys, route optimization to avoid rocky seabeds, or even regular cable awareness campaigns—and those that have not. Despite markedly different risk profiles and fault frequencies, both categories of systems often have identical financial contributions and receive similar treatment in repair prioritization, even though the latter group may consume repair vessel slots far more frequently. This highlights a critical point: resilience is not only about responding faster—it is also about reducing the need for repairs in the first place.

Conclusion: From First Come to Fit for Purpose?

The current “first come, first served” model has worked well for the submarine cable industry over the years. But changing conditions demand reflection. In rare but high-impact scenarios involving multiple simultaneous faults, some form of coordination or arbitration may become unavoidable.

Any evolution of the system must be cautious, evidence-based and proportionate. Heavy-handed regulation risks undermining a system that, in many respects, continues to function effectively. At the same time, ignoring clear structural stresses—aging fleets, regional imbalances and regulatory friction—would be equally irresponsible.

The way forward lies not in choosing between market or state, but in smart alignment: strengthening existing mechanisms, removing avoidable bottlenecks, investing where the business case alone cannot, and preparing governments to act decisively when exceptional circumstances arise.

The true test of cable repair priorities will not be theoretical debate, but how the system performs when the next major disruption occurs.

1. Constable, M., Burdette, L, Mauldin, A., “The Future of Submarine Cable Maintenance: Trends, Challenges, and Strategies”, SubOptic 2025, Lisbon, Portugal.

   
   

2. International Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience (ITU-ICPC), Recommendation 7, Working Group 1 (Timely Deployment & Repair), 2 February 2026. Available at: https://www.itu.int/digital-resilience/submarine-cables/events/iab-deliverable/

   
   

3. Enhanced ASEAN Guidelines endorsed on 16 January 2026 at the 6th ASEAN Digital Ministers’ Meeting (ADGMIN) in Hanoi, Vietnam. Available at:

   https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Enhanced-ASEAN-Guidelines-for-SR-and-Repair-of-Submarine.pdf

   
   

---

Andrés Fígoli is the author of the two-volume book “Legal and Regulatory Aspects of Telecommunication Submarine Cables” and is the director of Fígoli Consulting, where he provides legal and regulatory advice on all aspects of subsea cable work. Mr. Fígoli graduated in 2002 from the Law School of the University of the Republic (Uruguay), holds a Master of Laws (LLM) from Northwestern University, and has worked on submarine cable cases for more than 20 years in a major wholesale telecommunication company. He also served as Director and Member of the Executive Committee of the International Cable Protection Committee (2015-2023).

This article was first published in Submarine Telecoms Forum Magazine  #149 – May 2026.