Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 141 posts

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#101

Post by bonsai_spool »

ericmay wrote: post #76
bonsai_spool wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a strong interest in this issue but it would appear your responses aren't incorporating the full scope of recent facts: > Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to American power Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment. The China point i…

> Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment. I send a bill to every car that passes by my street. It's weird, none of them ever pay it. Iran can charge whatever it wants, but as long as America holds the blockade it doesn't matter. There's a misunderstanding t…

> Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to

You're the first one to mention China.

I think this is a bot account, or someone who is letting an LLM write to HN on their behalf.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#102

Post by bilekas »

tcdent wrote: post #29

Article claims this primarily affects US tech companies. Then refuses to elaborate on who and how.

The bits that are flying the US flag are not allowed through. There are some blackbit transfers happening though with ACK's turned off.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#103

Post by ericmay »

ceejayoz wrote: post #99
ericmay wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You provided breaking news that they're considering it, and that it's breaking news today perfectly illustrates the "months of closure with zero response" claim you're trying to knock down. But saying there are "months of closure with zero response" is factually incorrect. The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol. > Saudi Arabia https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s...…

> The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol. No, the American-only blockade is not proof that NATO has responded. > https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s... Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war". > They may change their mind yet again. "I might be right! Someday!" > Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there. Good; we now agree my claim was accurate…

> No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded.

To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe the United Kingdom and France which both have facilities or operate in the area were going to assist in shooting down threats to civilian facilities but I don't recall where that landed.

> Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war".

Responsive - provided a link to an example.

> "I might be right! Someday!"

Well it's hard to tell, they issue statements all the time. Here's an example:

"France has said it is "ready to help" defend Gulf nations and Jordan against Iran, signalling a firm commitment to regional allies as tensions spiral following a wave of missile and drone attacks." (https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-backs-gulf-stat...)

So yea, like they do change their mind. You know situations and stuff are dynamic and things change, right? France could decide tomorrow they've had enough and outright participate in the war. Who knows?

> Good; we now agree my claim was accurate.

I'd agree your specific claim about Spain is accurate, but it's inaccurate with respect to NATO as a whole. Why is it inaccurate? Because for every Spain there's another NATO member who is allowing overflights or whatever.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#104

Post by ericmay »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #101
ericmay wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, actually - Iran is charging tolls and was not doing that before. This is in the face of an American naval blockade right in their neighborhood. That is an affront to power, at least for the moment. I send a bill to every car that passes by my street. It's weird, none of them ever pay it. Iran can charge whatever it wants, but as long as America holds the blockade it doesn't matter. There's a misunderstanding t…

> Well you can't really separate China out from the initial comment I responded to You're the first one to mention China. I think this is a bot account, or someone who is letting an LLM write to HN on their behalf.

[flagged]

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#105

Post by ceejayoz »

ericmay wrote: post #103
ceejayoz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The blockade itself is proof enough that there is a response lol. No, the American-only blockade is not proof that NATO has responded. > https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-secret-u-a-e-and-s... Unresponsive; "in the early days of the war". > They may change their mind yet again. "I might be right! Someday!" > Sure Spain doesn't support the war. I agree with you there. Good; we now agree my claim was accurate…

> No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded. To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe…

> To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response?

You, in the comment that started this particular thread:

"NATO just today as reported by Bloomberg said that if the Strait isn't open by July that it will take or consider taking action."

To which /u/epistasis replied:

"Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?"

Your LLM needs bigger context.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#106

Post by epistasis »

Ifkaluva wrote: post #63
montyanne wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refilling the SPR would’ve required finding money to actually buy some oil. Put simply the SPR is broke/in debt. Over the last few years congress passed pieces of legislation (infrastructure bills, healthcare changes, BBB) and used future SPR oil sales as an "offsetting receipt". Basically they say the’ll sell off millions of barrels of SPR holdings, count the future revenue as negative spending on paper, and use tha…

Well whatever debt they took on to refill it would have been paid off quickly. Buy at $60, start a war with Iran, sell at the new price, profit. I guess the reason they didn’t do this is they thought Iran would fold quickly and oil would become even cheaper than $60

Nobody who was a decision maker on the war thought about any of this, at all, in any way.

There was no strategy, no thinking, no planning, nothing.

The US military has wargamed the Strait of Hormuz to hell, and all that was ignored, or dismissed, or not even considered to be relevant.

The full force of the US military is in the hands of a man who operates on whims based on what his reality TV instincts tell him will look good, and we are seeing the weakness of electing a reality TV star known for his capricious decision making and cruelty.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#107

Post by ericmay »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #90
ericmay wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something? Huh, yeah, I'm sure that strong statement will have a big impact. It shows that you're wrong about the diplomatic situation. 8 weeks isn't that long of a timeframe. It takes weeks just to move some assets in place. You don't have a good understanding of how long it takes to do these kinds of things. > Naval power has shifted massively over the past four years du…

> Secondarily we are still supporting Ukraine I think you're living with an alternative set of facts/interpretations from the mainstream, to which you are entitled. We aren't supporting Ukraine anymore, that is essentially only Europe (via purchasing arms made in the US as well as elsewhere). I really encourage you to try to think about what evidence undergirds your ideas and how you'd disprove your beliefs, which se…

Well the first problem here is you're ignoring the previous support that was provided and of course some hundred + billion to date. The US and UK were rushing in missiles before the war even started.

Second, if you pay attention you can read about things like this for yourself:

> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5876595-ukraine-discharge...

" “We must also send a strong message that Russian support for Iran’s targeting of U.S. military assets will not be tolerated,” he added.

Sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the legislation would affirm U.S. support for Ukraine, slap new economic sanctions on Russia and help to fund Ukrainian reconstruction whenever the war ends.

It also provides Kyiv with additional weapons and military funding. And it declares U.S. support for NATO at a time when the Western treaty alliance has come under fire from President Trump, who has attacked the group and threatened to pull the U.S. from its roster. "

Of course this is one minor example.

You're focusing too much on what Donald Trump says. You need to give him a back seat and stop worrying about whatever dumb thing he tweets.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#108

Post by ericmay »

ceejayoz wrote: post #105
ericmay wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the American-only blocade is not proof that NATO has responded. To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? If so I apologize as I thought you were referring to a US response to the ongoing war. More generally NATO allies and Gulf States have participated in various ways in the war. UAE and Saudi Arabia for example are reported to have struck Iran. I don't recall the full extent but I believe…

> To be clear you're claiming that there isn't a NATO response? You, in the comment that started this particular thread: "NATO just today as reported by Bloomberg said that if the Strait isn't open by July that it will take or consider taking action." To which /u/epistasis replied: "Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?" Your LLM needs bigger context.

> You, in the comment that started this particular thread:

I was just asking for clarification to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I even apologized.

> "Oh, 8 weeks, and they'll think about doing something?"

And yea, like there's no like big time pressure or something here. The war isn't a big deal anyway.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#109

Post by maxglute »

There's ongoing geopolitical undersea cable war between US trying to kill PRC undersea / digital silkroad projects for years, it be interesting asymmetric warfare for PRC to support Iran crippling western cables powering western data centers OR building up some leverage so regional data centers has to go through some % of Chinese pipes. TBH one of the easiest way to effectively undermine US compute / ecosystem advantage is to normalize splinternet and reduce network effects (and no spacex / megaconstellation won't have bandwidth to replace). The premise of 100s of billions to buy US hardware to support/integrate into US ecosystem breaks if the literal physical link breaks. And not many regions out there with 100s of billions of surplus burn on US hardware. Iran knows whats up. Don't get me wrong, everyone loses from cutting cables, but some lose much more. That said, I can see a future of siloed sovereign internet, where regional cables are constantly degraded.

Re: Iran demands Big Tech pay fees for undersea Internet cables in Strait of Hormuz

#110

Post by maxglute »

ceejayoz wrote: post #75
ericmay wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if they decide to do so, why would we expect them to be more successful than the US military - which outspends the entire rest of NATO - at it? More ships always helps - they wouldn't be doing it without the US, it would be with the US.

> More ships always helps... So the 11 aircraft carriers are not enough, one might say?

This what most "why Americans have no healthcare" proponents not realizing. 11 carriers a pittance in terms of sortie generation. ~80% CENTCOM strikes was from now degraded land basing. 3 carriers = ~20% of total fires... ~10% when pushed to standoff range and have to spare sorites for tanking + cap... ~5% when tanking from land basing disrupted. >5% because original ~20% assumes unsustainable high tempo operations. If US waves magic wand and somehow got 11 carriers doing standoff strikes on Iran tier threat, that's ~10% of CENTCOM land strike generation. Iran degrading regional land basing and pushing CSGs to standoff in Arabian Sea basically broke CENTCOM logistics posture in ways that compound. NVM global (not just theatre) stockpile of highend munitions and interceptors would likely be gone before dismantling Iranian ghetto regional strike complex... who could also reconstitute faster. TLDR even if US could, 11 carrier are likely not enough.
Post reply on HN