In the last week of August, Viettel’s network engineers were doing something most of their customers never saw. They were moving traffic in real time, pushing 800 gigabits per second onto one undersea cable, another 300 onto a second, then routing whatever was left over a terrestrial fibre line that runs through Laos into Singapore. Four of Vietnam’s eight international subsea cables had failed within days of each other. Roughly 30 per cent of the country’s international bandwidth disappeared overnight.
Most businesses running in Vietnam did not notice a total outage. They noticed something worse for planning purposes. Everything got a little slower, a little less reliable, for a stretch of weeks with no fixed end date. Payment confirmations lagged. Cloud dashboards took longer to load. Customer support tickets crept up. Nothing broke cleanly enough to justify an emergency response, and nothing worked well enough to ignore.
This is not a Vietnam story. It is a scaling story that happens to be playing out in Vietnam first.
The utility that is not one
Every operator I work with who is expanding across two or three Southeast Asian markets treats international bandwidth the way they treat electricity. It is there. It is billed monthly. Nobody budgets for the version of the business that runs at half the speed for six weeks. That assumption is the real scaling risk, not the cable fault itself.
Vietnam connects to the world through eight main subsea cable systems, and most of the region’s traffic still funnels through a small number of landing points and hub cities, chiefly Singapore and Hong Kong. Four systems failing in the same fortnight is unusual. But the reason four failures cost 30 per cent of capacity is not unusual at all. It is the direct consequence of a region that scaled its digital economy faster than it diversified the physical routes carrying it.
The same fault plays out differently at each layer of a business. A solo operator running a small e-commerce store absorbs it as a personal, annoying delay and works around it with local caching or a manual process. An SME running real-time inventory or payments tied to a Singapore-hosted platform absorbs it as a measurable hit to fulfilment times and support load, with no infrastructure team to buffer the impact.
A regional platform absorbs it as an engineering bill, emergency capacity purchases, rerouted traffic, customer communications about degraded service. At the national level it becomes the argument for the next decade of cable investment, repair vessel capacity, and diversified landing infrastructure. Same fault. Four completely different cost structures, depending on how much architecture was already in place before it happened.
Also Read: Scaling beyond AI pilots: Six-move Capability Cycle
The fix is real, and it is still four years away
Nine days after the outage, Thailand’s Gulf Development and Singapore’s Singtel announced a partnership to build new subsea capacity between the two countries, with a Vietnam link as the first project. It read, at first glance, like the system correcting itself. A failure happens, capital shows up to fix it.
Look closer and the timeline tells a different story. This is not a new idea responding to a fresh problem. Singtel and Viettel first proposed a version of this same Vietnam-Singapore cable back in 2024, targeting service by 2027. This week’s announcement, with Gulf Development now a partner and a wider Thailand-Singapore-Vietnam route, pushes the live date to 2030. A project meant to fix exactly this kind of fragility has itself slipped three years before a single strand of fibre goes in the water.
That is the detail that should change how you plan, not the cable fault. New subsea capacity is not a fast fix. It is a capital-intensive, multi-year commitment that depends on specialised vessels, permitting, and seabed rights across several jurisdictions. If your scaling plan for the next three years assumes this structural weakness gets solved by someone else’s infrastructure spend, you are planning around a fix that has already proven it runs late.
Two ways to build around it
For businesses with heavy Vietnam-Singapore data flows already, the answer is not to complain about reliability. It is to treat international connectivity as a capital allocation decision, not an operating expense you assume away. That means multi-path architecture, real redundancy across more than one route, and edge caching that keeps core functions running locally when the international layer degrades. It also means governance maturity around how you communicate a slowdown to customers before it becomes a trust problem, not after.
For businesses less exposed to this specific corridor, the constraint is an entry point. Regional operators with capacity or peering relationships that can absorb Vietnam-bound traffic have a genuine counter-cyclical opportunity while others are constrained. Positioning a platform as resilient by design, provably multi-path rather than just claiming reliability, becomes a real differentiator for any customer who has just lived through six weeks of degraded service and is now asking the right questions for the first time.
Taiwan learned this the expensive way
Taiwan has been through this cycle more than once. Repeated cable faults, often from the same geological and shipping pressures Vietnam is dealing with, forced both operators and the state to treat route diversity and repair vessel access as strategic infrastructure rather than a line item. Japan took a similar path earlier, investing directly in its own repair vessel capacity rather than depending entirely on shared regional fleets. Neither country solved this cleanly or quickly. Both treated it as a permanent design constraint rather than a one-time emergency, which is the actual lesson for any business scaling through the region now.
Most of the businesses that use my scaling framework are no longer asking whether their cloud provider is reliable. They are asking a sharper question, which parts of our operation can survive six weeks of degraded international bandwidth, and which parts cannot.
The cable will get fixed. The next one, eventually, will get built. Neither of those facts should be the basis of anyone’s scaling plan. The businesses that come out of this stretch stronger will be the ones that already treated their digital architecture the way they treat their balance sheet, built for a bad quarter, not just a good one. In Southeast Asia, scale was never just about which markets you enter. It is about which parts of the system underneath you were never really yours to depend on.
—
Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.
Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.
The post Why scaling across Southeast Asia means pricing in the cable you never see appeared first on e27.