[HN Gopher] Last undersea Internet cable connecting Vietnam with...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Last undersea Internet cable connecting Vietnam with the world
       breaks down
        
       Author : teddyh
       Score  : 108 points
       Date   : 2023-02-22 19:04 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (en.vietnamplus.vn)
 (TXT) w3m dump (en.vietnamplus.vn)
        
       | quux wrote:
       | Obligatory link to "Mother Earth Mother Board" by Neal Stephenson
       | for anyone wanting a deep dive into the fascinating world/history
       | of undersea telecommunications cables:
       | 
       | https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/
        
       | topicseed wrote:
       | Having been in Vietnam for long periods of time a few years back,
       | "broken undersea cables" were at least quarterly occurrences.
        
       | AbusiveHNAdmin wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | armchairhacker wrote:
       | > However, Vietnamese service suppliers said the failures on the
       | five cables will not have great impact on the speed of Internet
       | connection between the country and the world.
       | 
       | > The SMW3 cable is outdated and going to be decommissioned, so
       | it has not been used for fixed broadband Internet services, they
       | explained, adding that the latest breakdown didn't occur in the
       | peak time, and they immediately carried out responding measures
       | to reduce impact on the Internet speed.
        
         | diceduckmonk wrote:
         | The article was 6 paragraphs long. I'm not sure citing two
         | paragraphs without commentary adds much value.
        
           | layer8 wrote:
           | Quoting from the article without further comment can also be
           | quite annoying to those who _did_ read the article, for whom
           | this is then just a waste of time. It's like, okay, that's
           | from the article, but what is your point?
        
             | nosianu wrote:
             | When the headline is contradicted by the article then the
             | relevant quite is relevant and valuable. It saves time. Not
             | everybody reads the article, I'd say that it even is rare
             | and that a lot, maybe even most people jump to the
             | discussion immediately after reading the headline. Because
             | of cases such as this one: When you quickly see the
             | headline being contradicted.
             | 
             | Usually articles are a lot longer and they bury such info
             | deep, so checking the comments first if its even worth
             | clicking on the article is normal, given the huge number of
             | sensationalized headlines coupled with the attempt of the
             | article writers to keep readers on their page for as long
             | as possible instead of coming to the point right away.
             | 
             | The reading behavior of many is optimized for sifting
             | through a large number of submitted headlines without
             | wasting too much time, not for maximum enjoyment of any
             | single one of them. The (I think reasonable) assumption is
             | that many, maybe most, even of the initially interesting
             | sounding headlines turn out not to be worth reading.
        
               | layer8 wrote:
               | Yes, but then please at least state your point why you
               | are quoting this portion -- preferably above the quote
               | rather than below. Otherwise one can be left to wonder.
        
           | dvh wrote:
           | It does, I didn't have to read it. Title might as well been
           | "unused internet cable breaks down in Vietnam"
        
             | Brian_K_White wrote:
             | So you read it here instead of there, and everyone else
             | gets to read it twice. Cool.
        
           | elil17 wrote:
           | How would we read the article if people didn't put it in the
           | comments? What, by clicking the link? Unthinkable! Please
           | remember this is hacker news, you're not allowed to click the
           | link /s
        
           | ortusdux wrote:
           | You would be surprised by the number of people that skip the
           | article and start commenting based solely on the headline.
        
             | Robotbeat wrote:
             | Even more surprised by editors who will knowingly mislead
             | with the headline in order to force people to click through
             | and get those sweet, sweet ad (or subscriber) dollars just
             | to find out the "man bites dog" headline was a lie.
        
               | hellotomyrars wrote:
               | I have seen multiple instances where the url was a
               | significantly less sensationalist title that was
               | presumably the authors original headline but an editor
               | decided they needed to get the clicks and modified the
               | actual article headline. Very funny how laid bare it was.
        
               | ortusdux wrote:
               | I've noticed some sites start with a clickbait headline
               | and then change it after a few hours to something less
               | sensational. I originally thought that they were
               | responding to criticism, but I've seen it enough now that
               | it seems to be a pre-planned way to game SEO/Socials. You
               | can use the wayback machine to check, and I've seen some
               | big headlines get revised down 4+ times.
        
       | meltyness wrote:
       | Perhaps it would be appropriate to stop the hug of death on the
       | whole country, and instead link to a working source with complete
       | information.
        
       | sourcecodeplz wrote:
       | Tit for tat. You take out nord stream we take out internet. /s?
        
       | peplee wrote:
       | I used to live in Vietnam circa 2016, and the joke every other
       | month when the internet went out was that some sharks ate the
       | cable again. Seems those sharks are still eating good!
        
       | no_protocol wrote:
       | I am assuming the "SMW3 cable" mentioned is SEA-ME-WE 3, which
       | was mentioned multiple times in "Mother Earth Mother Board" by
       | Neal Stephenson (1996, Wired) [0]. It was noted as a competitor
       | to FLAG, the cable Stephenson was mainly following.
       | 
       | That seems like a very long lifespan.
       | 
       | [0]: https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/
        
       | lolc wrote:
       | Whenever I read of an undersea cable breaking, I worry that the
       | next world war has started. Seeing pipelines getting blown up for
       | presumed geopolitical reasons hasn't reduced this anxiety.
       | 
       | I know these cables regularly break for ordinary reasons. And
       | every time I hope it's just that.
        
         | SilasX wrote:
         | Phantom Menace: "A communications disruption can mean only one
         | thing: invasion."
        
           | ta1243 wrote:
           | Or DNS.
        
         | yreg wrote:
         | Many nations DDoS each other all the time outside of scope of a
         | war. I can imagine them breaking cables as a similar hostile
         | action without an implication of war, especially if it's
         | difficult to prove who's the culprit.
        
         | radicaldreamer wrote:
         | Likely nothing you can do anyway, unless you've already moved
         | to patagonia or something.
        
         | rotten wrote:
         | Even if another world war isn't starting, think of the data
         | pollution from all those leaking bits!
        
           | 6th wrote:
           | Nothing to really worry about.
           | 
           | Being fiber optic cables; this will be light pollution.
        
         | forgetfreeman wrote:
         | There's no point in being scared when running isn't an option.
        
           | sqeaky wrote:
           | Logically, I know you are correct, but that does nothing to
           | help.
        
             | forgetfreeman wrote:
             | Probably nothing will, but understand I have significant
             | sympathy for younger folks who are getting their first real
             | taste of zero-sum geopolitics and have nothing to compare
             | it to for scale/threat level. For those of us that grew up
             | in the 80s the days headlines represent a slow news day
             | from our childhood.
        
       | ilamont wrote:
       | Not many details in this article, but further north there is
       | another threat to undersea cables carrying Internet traffic:
       | 
       |  _On Feb. 2, a Chinese fishing vessel sailing close to the Matsu
       | Islands severed one of the two cables, which connect the islands
       | with Taiwan proper. Then, six days later, a Chinese freighter cut
       | the second cable._
       | 
       | https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/21/matsu-islands-internet-...
        
         | cld8483 wrote:
         | What a truly unfortunate coincidence.
        
           | Animats wrote:
           | Is this an effort to force Vietnam to route all their traffic
           | via China? Through the Great Firewall?
        
             | sayrer wrote:
             | No, they're trying to get to Singapore. Business in Vietnam
             | is highly dependent on things like Facebook and Google. I
             | was there last year, and have some friends that run
             | businesses there.
             | 
             | https://vietnamembassy-usa.org/news/2001/02/vietnam-puts-
             | reg...
        
             | noah_buddy wrote:
             | If it is intentional, I would guess it's more likely
             | general intended to scare Vietnam into accepting island
             | territorial claims
        
           | macintux wrote:
           | Rather like the Russian elite who keep mysteriously falling
           | out of buildings.
        
             | chrisdhoover wrote:
             | Defenestration, what was once medieval is hip again.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | tpmx wrote:
           | On the renewed China-Vietnam tensions:
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Vietnam_relation.
           | ..
        
         | TulliusCicero wrote:
         | How do fishing vessels sever internet cables lying on the sea
         | floor? Or is this a case of the ships being "fishing vessels"?
        
           | spiritplumber wrote:
           | It's at least possible - drag nets can and do touch the
           | bottom.
        
             | reaperducer wrote:
             | As do crab pots and lobster traps.
        
           | gregshap wrote:
           | It's called "bottom trawling" and it's pretty much what it
           | sounds like.
        
             | ta1243 wrote:
             | Also known as cruising?
        
         | eitland wrote:
         | Last fall an internet cable to Svalbard was cut.
         | 
         | AIS recordings showed a Russian fishing vessel traveling many
         | times over a vulnerable spot just before it happened.
        
           | codetrotter wrote:
           | > traveling many times over a vulnerable spot
           | 
           | I am reminded of this classic Ali G skit
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdOQYlYS2q0
        
           | punnerud wrote:
           | And they are spoofing their AIS data frequently. Now they
           | control if they are where the AIS send information about, and
           | use satellites to help with the location task (because they
           | don't trust the AIS from Russian ships).
           | 
           | Could probably be the same with other countries ships
        
           | kokanee wrote:
           | Now we have to worry about Russian phishing attacks and
           | Russian fishing attacks
        
             | purututu wrote:
             | [flagged]
        
           | throwaway742 wrote:
           | I don't know it seems plausible to me that it was just an
           | accident. There is plenty of legitimate Russian activity in
           | that area. I'm no fisherman so someone correct me if I am
           | wrong, but I don't think it is that unusual for them to go
           | back and forth. It's not surprising that it happened to a
           | vulnerable spot, because if it wasn't vulnerable the cable
           | wouldn't have broke and no one would be looking into it.
           | Finally the Russians have submarines they could use to cut
           | the cable without being detected. Who runs a covert op with
           | AIS on?
        
             | bjelkeman-again wrote:
             | Why do you need a throwaway account to post that?
        
               | oldgradstudent wrote:
               | Just ask plainly:
               | 
               | Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist
               | Party of the United States?
        
               | throwaway742 wrote:
               | No but I did go to a meeting once. They had doughnuts.
        
               | akiselev wrote:
               | That was clearly an FBI honeypot. Real communist meetings
               | only serve Engels Food Cake.
        
               | oldgradstudent wrote:
               | I once went to a talk at Berkeley's Revolution Cafe.
               | 
               | Fortunately, I doubt if they could topple a suburban HOA.
        
               | [deleted]
        
               | throwaway742 wrote:
               | I make these accounts every so often, use them for a
               | while, and then make a new one. It is just for general
               | privacy reasons.
        
           | Guthur wrote:
           | Well it seems many are hell bent on war so it would hardly be
           | surprising that more infrastructure is deliberately
           | sabotaged.
        
       | brink wrote:
       | Title makes it seem like Vietnam is in an internet blackout. Not
       | the case apparently, they're still connected and are fine.
        
         | ninesnines wrote:
         | But what are the implications of this internet cable being
         | down? Will there be a slowing of internet? Is there an easy
         | fix?
        
           | toast0 wrote:
           | Based on a different article[1] and the submarine cable map
           | [2][3][4]... Asia Africa Europe 1 (AAE-1) is currently broken
           | between Vietnam and Hong Kong, but presumable is functional
           | from Vietnam to the rest of the cable that travels west
           | (landings in much of southern asia and a couple points in
           | southern Europe). Intra Asia (IA) is broken between Vietnam
           | and Singapore, but it also lands in Hong Kong and the
           | Philipines. SMW3 lands in a lot of places, but is reported to
           | be obsolete.
           | 
           | So, it seems Vietnam no longer has a direct fiber connection
           | to Singapore, and has reduced capacity to Hong Kong. There
           | will likely be some slowdown as Hong Kong and Singapore are
           | both popular locations for data centers.
           | 
           | There's not really an easy fix. Traffic will flow over
           | alternate paths, but repair boats need to go out and locate
           | the ends of the broken cables, bring them up to the surface,
           | splice them back together, and then let them sink again.
           | 
           | Terrestrial cabling tends not to get damaged by ships, and is
           | a lot easier to locate for repairs, but it's hard to run it
           | over mountains and through forests, and you can't run a
           | terrestrial cable from Vietnam to Singapore or the United
           | States.
           | 
           | [1] https://en.vietnamplus.vn/internet-slows-as-four-out-of-
           | five...
           | 
           | [2] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/asia-
           | afric...
           | 
           | [3] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/tata-
           | tgn-i...
           | 
           | [4] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-
           | cable/seamewe-3
        
         | wongarsu wrote:
         | Or maybe more accurately: they are not fine and have a lot of
         | problems with their undersea cables, but assure us that losing
         | this specific cable didn't make it any worse than it already
         | is.
        
       | latchkey wrote:
       | The problems with Vietnam's internet have been going on for a
       | long time now.
       | 
       | https://www.computerworld.com/article/2872728/dont-blame-sha...
       | 
       | https://saigoneer.com/saigon-technology/11885-sharks,-anchor...
       | 
       | https://vietnaminsider.vn/apg-undersea-internet-cable-which-...
        
         | hummus_bae wrote:
         | [dead]
        
       | v8xi wrote:
       | Article gives scant information but found this from 01/30/23:
       | https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/internet-slows-to-a-crawl-...
       | 
       | From that article:
       | 
       | Vietnam is currently connected with seven undersea cables: SMW3,
       | AAG, IA, APG, AAE-1, SJC2 and ADC. Besides the recent breakage of
       | the IA, problems with the AAE, AAG and APG cables that have been
       | present since 2022 and early 2023 have yet to be fully resolved.
       | 
       | The SJC2 and the ADC are yet to be officially operational, while
       | the SMW3 cable is outdated and about to be decommissioned.
       | 
       | The fact that Vietnam currently only has one fully functional
       | undersea cable has caused internet speeds between Vietnam and the
       | rest of the world to slow to a crawl.
        
         | sandworm101 wrote:
         | >> about to be decommissioned.
         | 
         | I presume this means disconnected and forgotten about on the
         | sea floor. Or do they actually do anything to pull them up? I
         | imagine pulling an old cable might be very difficult but I
         | don't like things just being left for the sea to deal with.
         | There is far to much trash on the seafloor already.
        
           | erentz wrote:
           | Typically they're just left there. But every once in a while
           | someone will decide it makes sense to acquire the cable for
           | cheap, pull it up, and re-use it somewhere else that doesn't
           | have high bandwidth requirements but would still benefit from
           | getting subsea connectivity. Seen this for Pacific and some
           | Caribbean islands.
        
           | jagged-chisel wrote:
           | I would think pulling up a cable would be detrimental to any
           | ecosystem that built on and around the cable. I would not be
           | surprised to learn that ecosystems were affected negatively
           | when the cables were laid, too, so I think we probably want
           | to limit damage by letting them lie there.
        
             | uoaei wrote:
             | Depends on what kinds of substances are present there, that
             | will leach out over time.
        
               | frosted-flakes wrote:
               | Steel, rubber, and glass? Doesn't seem so bad.
        
               | justinclift wrote:
               | Future archaeologists may find "the fossilised remains of
               | continent spanning worms!".
        
             | [deleted]
        
       | v3ss0n wrote:
       | That's why internet is extremely slow here, I am in Myanmar
        
         | radicaldreamer wrote:
         | Internet infrastructure in Myanmar is still relatively
         | underdeveloped, which is why it's slow. These cables are not
         | heavily used for routing your traffic typically.
        
         | orangepurple wrote:
         | That's probably not why you are having slow internet. If you
         | hear about cable cuts in the Malacca Strait _THEN_ you can
         | worry.
         | 
         | Myanmar is not directly connected to Vietnam via sea cables
         | specifically. The major connections to the outside world via
         | the sea are:
         | 
         | https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/seamewe-5
         | 
         | https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/asia-afric...
         | 
         | https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/seamewe-3
         | 
         | https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/singapore-...
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | pancrufty wrote:
         | Myanmar has its own cables:
         | https://www.submarinenetworks.com/stations/asia/myanmar
         | 
         | Additionally the cable in question comes from Europe, so the
         | Vietnam break shouldn't affect Myanmar (which also has direct
         | access to it) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SEA-ME-
         | WE-3-Route.pn...
        
       | lawrenceyan wrote:
       | Starlink is the future here right? You can't sever a satellite
       | link like you can with a cable.
       | 
       | Well, actually I guess you technically can. But it's definitely
       | way more difficult.
        
         | acuozzo wrote:
         | You can lower the SNR to the point at which it's unusable.
         | 
         | A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing
         | C&C over a unaffected back channel would be roughly equivalent
         | to "cutting an undersea cable", I believe.
        
         | actionfromafar wrote:
         | Shower(-ish) thought: such cables are lasting and obvious
         | artefacts for the future. These cables will stay where they are
         | for eons. These Starlink satellites are like dragonflies. Once
         | they are no longer continuosly replenished by new launches,
         | they will disappear.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-22 23:00 UTC)