Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Millions in Middle East Lose Internet

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday January 31, @02:54AM
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."

Related Stories

[+] Egypt Calls for Bandwidth Rationing 180 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.'"
[+] Hardware: Fourth Undersea Cable Taken Offline In Less Than a Week 295 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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Millions in Middle East Lose Internet 25 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • redundancy (Score:5, Funny)

    by theheadlessrabbit (1022587) on Thursday January 31, @02:56AM (#22243784) 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:redundancy (Score:5, Informative)

      by KDR_11k (778916) on Thursday January 31, @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, @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.

  • You know you're a geek... (Score:5, Funny)

    by broothal (186066) <christian@fabel.dk> on Thursday January 31, @02:58AM (#22243794) Homepage Journal
    ..if you read this as "Millions in Middle Earth Lose Internet"
  • Information warfare? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xx01dk (191137) on Thursday January 31, @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, @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, @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."
    • Re:Information warfare? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by drspliff (652992) <harry,roberts&midnight-labs,org> on Thursday January 31, @03:39AM (#22244016) Homepage
      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.
  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rie Beam (632299) <chargementpas@gmail.com> on Thursday January 31, @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 cheeni (267248) on Thursday January 31, @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 AsciiNaut (630729) on Thursday January 31, @04:59AM (#22244358)
    Every night I back up the internet to my RAID array to protect myself from this and similar eventualities.
    • Not TCP (Score:5, Insightful)

      by butlerm (3112) on Thursday January 31, @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, @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, @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...