Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Millions in Middle East Lose Internet

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 02:54 AM
from the no-web-for-you dept.
Shipwack writes "Tens of millions of internet users across the Middle East and Asia have been left without access to the web after a technical fault cut millions of connections. The outage, which is being blamed on a fault in a single undersea cable, has severely restricted internet access in countries including India, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and left huge numbers of people struggling to get online. Observers say that the digital blackout first struck yesterday morning, with Egypt's communications ministry suggesting it was caused by a cut in a major internet pipeline linking it to Europe."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Egypt Calls for Bandwidth Rationing 182 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Egypt's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology has called upon its citizens to ration their internet usage. This comes after two of its three undersea fiber optic links were recently severed. The cut cables have caused communication difficulties for millions of people throughout the Middle East. Ministry spokesman Mohammed Taymur was quoted as saying, 'People should know how to use the Internet because people who download music and films are going to affect businesses who have more important things to do.'"
[+] Technology: Fourth Undersea Cable Taken Offline In Less Than a Week 499 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Another undersea cable was taken offline on Friday, this one connecting Qatar and UAE. 'The [outage] caused major problems for internet users in Qatar over the weekend, but Qtel's loss of capacity has been kept below 40% thanks to what the telecom said was a large number of alternative routes for transmission. It is not yet clear how badly telecom and internet services have been affected in the UAE.' In related news it's been confirmed that the two cables near Egypt were not cut by ship anchors." Update: 02/04 07:13 GMT by Z : A commenter notes that despite the language in the article indicated a break or malfunction, the cable wasn't cut. It was taken offline due to power issues.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • redundancy (Score:5, Funny)

    by theheadlessrabbit (1022587) on Thursday January 31 2008, @02:56AM (#22243784) Homepage Journal
    isn't this why we are supposed to have system redundancy? so a failure in one area won't cause a complete blackout?

    isn't this why we are supposed to have system redundancy? so a failure in one area won't cause a complete blackout?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Well, hindsight is 20/20 with these kinds of things and everything will be examined later. Of more immediate concern is how long it will take to restore the system. IANADSD (I am not a deep sea diver) but if it is an underwater cable problem I seriously doubt that this will be a "pull a bit more slack out of the wall and splice it with electrical tape" kind of solution.

      Also, who actually has the responsibility for the cable? No telling how long the accountant types on each end will bicker. I just hope that
      • by kamatsu (969795) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:41AM (#22244026)

        IANADSD (I am not a deep sea diver)
        WDYJUAULAAATIEIATDTPOTAESYKIWNBUA? - Why did you just use an unnecessarily long abbreviatory acronym and then immediately expand it and thus defeat the purpose of the abbreviation, especially since you know it will never be used again?
        • by Gabest (852807) on Thursday January 31 2008, @05:28AM (#22244494)

          WDYJUAULAAATIEIATDTPOTAESYKIWNBUA? - Why did you just use an unnecessarily long abbreviatory acronym and then immediately expand it and thus defeat the purpose of the abbreviation, especially since you know it will never be used again?
          It's called redundancy!
        • Because he abbreviated the Acronym. The correct form is:

          DJIADNADSD.

          "Dammit, Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Deep Sea Diver!" (RIP DeForrest Kelley.)

          Such acronyms will be used forever to indicate being coaxed to speculate outside one's area of professional expertise.

        • by growse (928427) on Thursday January 31 2008, @07:34AM (#22244984) Homepage
          It's called redundancy! .
      • by somersault (912633) on Thursday January 31 2008, @04:08AM (#22244154) Homepage Journal
        I think you underestimate the efficacy of electrical tape in general. Especially when secured with duct tape.
    • Re:redundancy (Score:5, Informative)

      by KDR_11k (778916) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:30AM (#22243974)
      There was redundancy there. I was talking with a guy from Bahrain when it happened (already suspected a cable problem since I've experienced that with a cross-Atlantic cable already) and he said his ping just went up like mad, he was still able to connect obviously, just with a ping of two seconds.
      • Re:redundancy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by teh kurisu (701097) on Thursday January 31 2008, @05:04AM (#22244376) Homepage

        That's what I thought. This probably isn't a case of "Middle East Loses Internet", more a case of "Millions in Middle East Now Using One Fibre Connection Instead Of Two".

        Like when a major motorway gets closed due to an accident, and every road within a hundred mile radius is choked for the rest of the day.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:07AM (#22243838)
        all i could think was "The fools! if only they'd built her with 6001 hulls! when will they ever learn!"

      • Re:redundancy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Yvanhoe (564877) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:45AM (#22244046) Journal
        Would you pay 2 time the price to prevent a one-day outage once every year ? Military does. Consumers don't. Yet.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Would you pay 2 time the price [...] Consumers don't.
          Some do. At home I have 8MB cable, and also, for the infrequent times when the cable is down, I have an antique 56K telephone-modem subscription. The latter costs very little when unused, and instead costs by the minute when used.

          Of course the phone-modem connection isn't useful for any serious download, but I'm never helplessly disconnected from e-mail, news, slashdot etc.
      • Re:redundancy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mpe (36238) on Thursday January 31 2008, @07:00AM (#22244856)
        There's no redundancy because people do not demand it. Why is it that military communications don't ever fail like this? Simple, because the customer understands the importance of fault-free operation and is willing to pay for it.

        Sometimes this is the case. But you also get the likes of soldiers borrowing phones from journalists because they work better than military radios.
  • by broothal (186066) <christian@fabel.dk> on Thursday January 31 2008, @02:58AM (#22243794) Homepage Journal
    ..if you read this as "Millions in Middle Earth Lose Internet"
  • by xx01dk (191137) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:01AM (#22243808)
    Russian subs used to employ a cutting device on some of their submarines designed to cut the cables used in undersea sonar nets... I'm thinking it wouldn't take too much to start a war these days given how much we rely on these underwater communication cables. That said, it's more likely that a ship's anchor snagged it.
    • Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TFer_Atvar (857303) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:09AM (#22243852) Homepage
      Cutting cables merely temporarily deprives your opponent of his ability to use that cable. Far better to tap the cable [wikipedia.org] and monitor everything that's being sent across it without your opponent knowing that you're listening in. It also has the added bonus that cable traffic is not typically encrypted as radio transmissions are.
    • Anchor (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:11AM (#22243860) Homepage Journal

      That said, it's more likely that a ship's anchor snagged it.
      The Guardian article doesn't speculate, but an earlier Register article [theregister.co.uk] suggested that was the cause:

      A spokesman for Flag Telecom, the owner of the severed cable, told the Reg: "It is a problem off the coast of Alexandria in Egypt. For some reason ships were asked to anchor in a different place to normal - 8.3km from the beach. One of the ship's anchors cut our cable but there are multiple cuts - we're not the only company having problems."
    • Or, it was "salvaged" by fishermen to make a quick buck? Stranger stuff has happened :)

      Clicky clicky: http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSHAN1727620070607?feedType=RSS [reuters.com]

      Fishermen who were allowed to take unused war-era undersea copper cables have gone too far, "salvaging" fibre-optic lines providing some of Vietnam's Internet and other international communications.

      *snip*

      State-run newspapers said an 11-km (7-mile) section of stolen TVH fibre-optic cable would be replaced at a cost of $5.8 million. It was part of the line that transmits data from Vietnam to Thailand and Hong Kong.

      In all, about 43 km (27 miles) of fibre-optic cable is missing, including about 32 km (20 miles) stolen from a cable operated by a Singaporean company.
  • by Prysorra (1040518) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:08AM (#22243850)
    If this can happen to the Middle East, it can happen to Russia.

    This is final proof that Russia can be cut off from "the internet".

    Now about that Storm bot net....
  • hmmm..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tloh (451585) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:12AM (#22243874)
    how odd. It is so strange to see a story like this not tagged as "whatcouldpossiblygowrong".
  • its a 'web' (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Meltir (891449) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:22AM (#22243924) Homepage
    so shouldnt they be cutt off from the global network, but still have a working 'web' of their own ?
    They must have their own servers, anything going into that cable is just a 'foreign' request.

    Those are important - sure, but i would gather they dont make up more then 40% of all requests.

    But only some of the routes should be down, and they still should have a very large lan, with dns, www, email and anything else they have on the spot, and im willing to bet that the ISP's there have stuff like that.
    IIRC the web wasnt just designed to be foolproof, it was also designed to be autonomus once disconected from other networks.
    Or am i missing something here, and all that they have is cables, no other infrastructure ?
  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rie Beam (632299) <chargementpas@gmail.com> on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:34AM (#22243992) Journal
    I guess now would be the time to say it, then.

    Deep breath, Rie.

    *inhale*

    I think the Danish cartoon controversy was really overblown.
  • by mbone (558574) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:53AM (#22244088)
    A lot more information is available from the Renesys Blog [renesys.com].

    It was both the Flag Telecom and SEA-ME-WEA 4 cables outside of Alexandria, Egypt. The SEA-ME-WEA 3 cable is apparently OK.

    In long distance telecommunications, you really need another path going "the other way around" to be safe. For example, many of the large companies with back-offices in India pay for routes both over the Atlantic to the Middle East to India (which might have been broken by this) and also West Coast to Pacific to Singapore to India (which would not have been).

    At AmericaFree.TV, the steady Egyptian audience went to zero yesterday, presumably because of the break, while the audience in Iran, Iraq, the GCC, Pakistan and India did not seem to be affected.
  • by empaler (130732) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:56AM (#22244104) Journal
    A communications' disruption can mean only one thi... Oh never mind, that movie sucked.
  • by cheeni (267248) on Thursday January 31 2008, @04:34AM (#22244256)
    Seriously given the magnitude of this, /. could have come up with a more factual and informative writeup.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/business/worldbusiness/31cable.html?ref=business [nytimes.com]

    Two undersea telecommunication cables were cut on Tuesday evening, knocking out Internet access to much of Egypt, disrupting the world's back office in India and slowing down service for some Verizon customers.

    One cable was damaged near Alexandria, Egypt, and the other in the waters off Marseille, France, telecommunications operators said. The two cables, which are separately managed and operated, were damaged within hours of each other. Damage to undersea cables, while rare, can result from movement of geologic faults or possibly from the dragging anchor of a ship. /snip/

    One of the affected cables stretches from France through the Mediterranean and Red Seas, then around India to Singapore. Known as Sea Me We 4, the cable is owned by 16 telecommunications companies along its route.

    The second cable, known as the Flag (for Fiber-optic Link Around the Globe) System, runs from Britain to Japan.

    http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080039928&ch=1/31/2008%208:29:00%20AM [ndtv.com]

    Internet service providers in India have put the disruption at 60 per cent of normal services while those in Egypt have been affected up to 70 per cent.
  • by Hemi Rodner (570284) * on Thursday January 31 2008, @04:56AM (#22244344) Journal
    Since we have lotsa redundant connections here.
    Lucky us!
  • by AsciiNaut (630729) on Thursday January 31 2008, @04:59AM (#22244358)
    Every night I back up the internet to my RAID array to protect myself from this and similar eventualities.
  • by jamesh (87723) on Thursday January 31 2008, @05:31AM (#22244512)
    Obviously there's a hole in the tube so all the data has leaked out and the water has leaked in. The data, being lighter than water, will have floated to the top and evaporated away. Once the tube has filled with water, the incoming data is unable to push the water out of the way.

    First they need to blow some air down the tube and inspect the tube for bubbles, then put a patch over it. Once that is done, they'll need to drain all of the water out of the tube, possibly just by blowing air down it some more. Finally, they will be able to allow data to flow again. The first few gigabytes are probably going to come through a bit damp, but after that it should be fine.

  • In graph form (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TwistedSpring (594284) on Thursday January 31 2008, @05:44AM (#22244556) Homepage
    And here it is in graph form [internettr...report.com]
  • by tomandlu (977230) on Thursday January 31 2008, @06:39AM (#22244770)

    ... by the fact that news.bbc.co.uk [bbc.co.uk] is asking for comments from anyone affected. Paraplegics, take one step forward...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Too sensationalist, tone it down will ya? Schools are STILL teaching real math and real science, despite all you doomsday theorists out there. This is especially true at the university level, where education is as good as it's always been.

      You pick one example of a '60s era tech that has survived the ages, and conveniently forget the many thousands of inventions that never made it this far, and never made it long enough for us to even REMEMBER. Then you conveniently ignore all of the genius inventions bein

    • Not TCP (Score:5, Insightful)

      by butlerm (3112) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:33AM (#22243988)
      That is not TCP, but rather BGP [wikipedia.org] (Border Gateway Protocol). TCP handles data transmission and congestion control. It doesn't do routing.
    • by totally bogus dude (1040246) on Thursday January 31 2008, @03:44AM (#22244042)

      Yes, the 'net access was down for an hour, but after that it came back up as before.
      Guess TCP was able route the packets through alternate gateways after detecting the problem.

      1. TCP has nothing to do with routing packets. 2. IP also has nothing to do with selecting an "alternate gateway" after "detecting a problem". 3. If it was down for an hour, then I don't think this was anything to do with magical routing protocols. Human interaction was required to either repair the broken link or set up an alternate path.

      According to the article:

      Reports suggested that the lack of alternative routes for internet traffic meant only a small proportion of surfers were managing to get online. Egyptian officials said that around 70% of the country's online traffic was being blocked, while officials in Mumbai said that more than half of India's internet capacity had been erased, which could have potentially disastrous consequences for the country's burgeoning hi-tech industry.

      "There has been a 50% to 60% cut in bandwidth," Rajesh Charia, president of the Internet Service Providers' Association of India told Reuters.

      So it sounds like not every ISP was able to use the alternate path, and the alternate path didn't have sufficient bandwidth for those that could, anyway.

      Mind you, the article then comes out with this astonishing "fact":

      The shutdown highlighted the often frail nature of international communications: despite the vast number of individuals who have access to the web, nearly all internet traffic is routed through a small number of cables submerged deep below the oceans. It is then forwarded through an internet backbone consisting of just 13 servers which handle and direct all online requests.

      Is this the new version of the Majestik 12 that run the world?

      I'm guessing this is a reference to [A-M].root-servers.net, but I'm pretty sure none of those are actually a single server, and several have multiple physical locations. Even so, the vast majority of even remotely popular sites will have their nameserver entries cached at a bazillion ISP DNS caches.

      • by tomalpha (746163) * on Thursday January 31 2008, @04:14AM (#22244180)

        So it sounds like not every ISP was able to use the alternate path, and the alternate path didn't have sufficient bandwidth for those that could, anyway
        I work for a large financial news company. We've had guys up all night whose sole purpose was to persuade the various telcos we lease circuits from that our's should be the one's they re-route first. They must have been pretty persuasive because we're almost back up to normal running now, but it took them a lot longer than an hour.

        We're a big outfit that spends many millions on network infrastructure, so we have some clout with the various telcos and ISPs. We're all right Jack. You've got to wonder if any small company is going to be able to do the same thing. Presumably most of them will be relying on their ISPs, and those ISPs are presumably also going to prioritise their biggest customers as well...