Slashdot Mirror


Bird Flu Pandemic Could Choke the Net

PetManimal writes "If a pandemic were to occur, many companies and organizations would ask their staffs to work from home. The impact of millions of additional people using the Internet from home might require individuals and companies to voluntarily restrain themselves from surfing to high-bandwidth sites, such as YouTube. If people didn't comply, the government might step in and limit Net usage. The scenario is not far-fetched: last year at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, a group of telecom and government officials conducted a pandemic exercise based on a hypothetical breakout of bird flu in central Europe. The results weren't pretty." From the latter article: "'We assumed total absentees of 30% to 60% trying to work from home, which would have overwhelmed the Internet,' said [one] participant. 'We did not assume that the backbone would be gone, but that the edge of the network... would be overwhelmed... The conclusion [of imminent collapse] was not absolute, and the situation was not digitally simulated, but the idea of everyone working from home appears untenable,' [he] said."

28 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. And a butterfly could cause a hurricane by pifactorial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, I think we need a "speculation" tag...

    1. Re:And a butterfly could cause a hurricane by Instine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And has this reporter ever heard of WEEKENDS!?... Not Speculation - Just plain silly.

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    2. Re:And a butterfly could cause a hurricane by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's worse than speculation. It's just a brazen attempt from the telcos to get people to invest in more telco infrastructure.

    3. Re:And a butterfly could cause a hurricane by sarathmenon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And worser, this is extreme shorthandedness of the telcos. They've been false marketing broad band connections for years. Where they have a 1mbps speed, the telcos consistently say that they provide 5mpbs (with the fineprints about bandwidth sharing, actual dedicated availability buried inside). All this is fine when the customer uses the connection for light speed surfing, and for 3 or 4 hours a day - the telcos can absorb the end user expectations without any degradation of performance.

      But at some point of time reality has to sink in. If people start using the connections in the ways they were promised, ISPs will feel the heat, and a sudden lack of bandwidth. All this FUD should be directed back at them, they should get to fix the problems caused by them. Asking for more funding is a lame excuse - they should not provide something which they don't have in the first place.

      --
      Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
    4. Re:And a butterfly could cause a hurricane by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If people start using the connections in the ways they were promised, ISPs will feel the heat, and a sudden lack of bandwidth

      I made this argument in a net neutrality thread and got ripped to pieces. I dared to suggest that ISPs shouldn't be selling unlimited bandwidth if they don't have the infrastructure to actually provide it. And that it's inherently unfair and deceptive to sell something as unlimited and then start kicking off the power users who violate the fine print. I wouldn't be the biggest fan of metered bandwidth since I use quite a bit -- but it's fair to ask why Grandma down the road who uses her DSL to read e-mail/play Bejeweled is paying the same price as I am when I leave bittorrent running 24/7/365.

      If you sell it as unlimited then no fine print and you damn well better be able to back it up. Otherwise meter it and use the income from the power users to improve the network. And net neutrality should apply -- it's none of my ISPs business if I use my bandwidth on porn, bittorrent, a VPN to the office or even a web server on my home DSL account. It is their business how much bandwidth I use.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:And a butterfly could cause a hurricane by msobkow · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you're underestimating the potential risk. A pandemic is far more likely than a major terrorist attack or any other such nonsense causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to work from home. Businesses could not just shut down were there a pandemic worse than SARS.

      When SARS hit the GTA, there was a significant increase in remote access to corporate resources from telecommuters. But while this article focuses on the impact on the backbones of the internet and the potential need for data- and site-based traffic shaping, it neglects to consider the far greater risk of individual businesses which flat out do not have the connection capacity to have the majority of their employees working from home.

      Just because risks are low doesn't mean problems cannot happen, and a good business manager needs to allow for those risks. Consider something so simple as a RAID-5 disk array. Most techies consider them virtually fault-tolerant and bullet-proof, yet I personally know an admin who had a second drive fail while replacing a bad drive, losing the whole array.

      That site now uses RAID-6 (two parity stripes instead of one) so that they reduce the chances of losing any of their servers in such a fashion again. Yet even they know it's only a statistical game and that it is theoretically possible to have three drives fail at the same time. There are just limits as to how much you invest in hardware to avoid such problems before one starts looking at full off-site redundancy solutions that cost millions, not thousands of dollars.

      If you want a US-based real world example, take a look at what happened to industry on 9/11 and the subsequent week. I worked for a company that lost people, hardware, and services that had been operating out of the towers. The impact was not small, and if we hadn't had disaster recovery plans in place and tested ahead of time, the impact would have been much worse.

      You're free to stick your head in the sand and ignore risks, but some industries (such as banking) don't have that option.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  2. FIrst post by killa62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    no wonder i got it, everyone else's net is choked

  3. Bah! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I thought it was a serious exercise, but perusing the second article:

    ...war game, held in January in Davos, Switzerland, by the World Economic Forum and management consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
    [emp mine] Double bah!

    A bunch of telco management consultants, playing a "war game" (yeesh) to drum up business (Oh wow, lets recommend investments in Telco infrastructure!)

    In fact, the second page of the second article even states the obvious:

    "You can see the Internet as a self-regulating supply-and-demand mechanism," Froutan said. "The more people use it, the slower it gets, so the less people use it. If 10,000 people go to a site that normally supports 100 users, 9,000 will give up, while the other thousand will get very slow connectivity but will keep going until they get the job done."
    Better to bury it on the second page hey? Might spoil the sensationalist headlines a little.

    What the hell is this doing in slashdot's science section?
    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Bah! by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "War Games" can be very serious exercises indeed - e.g. the US carried out a number of War Games in 1999 called Desert Crossing to simulate the invasion of Iraq.

      Note also that the current US Director of National Intelligence, John McConnell, was previously Senior Vice President with Booz Allen Hamilton. They aren't just telco management consultants, they're government management consultants (this doesn't mean they're not bozos, but it does mean that if they are bozos, they're very dangerous bozos)

  4. Absolute nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ISPs are already well able to throttle usage so as to manage demand in excess of capacity. In the listed scenario all that would be needed would be management to limit the use of p2p, usenet and certain kinds of streaming and the problem.

    The real problem in such a scenario is that most workers would simply not be able to work from home - they and their employers wont be ready or equiped to do so.

  5. Only affects windows users by MSRedfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thankfully Linux is immune to Bird viruses.

    1. Re:Only affects windows users by Alioth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bird viruses? Linux is a frickin' PENGUIN!

  6. 9/11 caused net stoppage by fruey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember you couldn't get anywhere on news sites during the 9/11 attacks on the WTC; even Google was horrendously slow. Non news sites all started relaying the news so that people could get hold of information.

    Working from home in times past relied on dialling direct to a modem pool at the office. The telephone network could probably handle a fair amount of teleworking like that, particularly if the old school model of connecting, uploading and downloading email & files, and then disconnecting was adopted.

    If there were a pandemic, I doubt that people would necessarily be surfing YouTube. It'd be no loss to me to not have that kind of site available anyway :-).

    Sounds a lot like scaremongering to me. In the event of a pandemic, net habits would change beyond recognition, so mentioning high bandwidth leisuretime sites seems a bit strange. It's not out of the question that certain services could be restricted though... but you can't analyse current surfing habits and apply them to bandwidth use when teleworking. If I'm working from home I'm not on YouTube, and use very little bandwidth.

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:9/11 caused net stoppage by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember you couldn't get anywhere on news sites during the 9/11 attacks on the WTC; even Google was horrendously slow. Non news sites all started relaying the news so that people could get hold of information.

      This sort of experience could have a lot to do with where you are in the world, and your ISP.

      I was in at my place of work in Toronto on 9/11, and remember rather vividly how hard it was to get to CNN's website. The CBC's website was fairly slow as well (we have to recall, not only were there attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, and the plane that crashed, but thousands of inbound US flights were redirected to Canada, and people world-wide were trying to track down loved-ones who had flights re-routed here). Being the smart sort of guy I am, I was one of the few in the office to be able to get reliable, up-to-date information, because I reasoned that the BBC's website probably wouldn't be heavily flooded with North American traffic, and that it would be the middle of the night on that side of the pond. Sure, enough, I was correct -- while it was difficult to get to many news websites inside North America, several very respectable European sites were no problem to bring up in those very early hours after the first jet hit the WTC. It wasn't traffic on the Internet that was a problem -- it was specific websites being very heavily congested. There was still a lot of bandwidth available to go around -- just not for specific popular North American news websites (many of which have hopefully learned a lesson from that day, and have done some upgrading of their services to better handle traffic during serious emergencies).

      Yaz.

    2. Re:9/11 caused net stoppage by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 5, Informative

      I reasoned that the BBC's website probably wouldn't be heavily flooded with North American traffic, and that it would be the middle of the night on that side of the pond.
      The 9/11 attacks happened in the morning (local time), which is early afternoon in the UK.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    3. Re:9/11 caused net stoppage by Eivind · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I remember it too. The Internet held up remarkably well. And did indeed route-around damage, in the sense that when channels failed, they where made up for by literally thousands and thousands of mirrors and alternative routes.

      • Thousands of people spontaneously decided to mirror important sites that experienced problems.
      • IRC-channels got hooked up to major news-sources (even those normally only for subscribers)
      • Email surged trough the tubes (Hah!), for a few hours the majority of email in the world was *NOT* spam.
      • Hell, even MUDs and MMORPGs spontaneously converted into information-exchange centres.

      Internet was severly strained in some areas of the USA. So people routed around it. I personally helped getting 3 people living in NY get a decent net-connection, by *modem* to a Norwegian modem-pool. Yes, sure it was 28.8. Yes sure it cost $0.10/minute. There's some situations where youre honestly *happy* to pay $6/hour for surfing the net at modem-speed. (I know, in some areas phone-service was also spotty)

      It was impressive. I think, on that day I realized the net had grown up. When disasters strike, and people go turn on their laptops, you realize this thing ain't just a toy anymore.

  7. Restraint? by pashdown · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What makes these people think that workers don't waste time on YouTube when they're at work?

  8. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe because of likely recommended or enforced government quarantines or other advice for people to avoid unnecessary contact with each other in an attempt to try to stop or slow the spread of the disease, which will be airborne and spread at places where people congregate?

    Just a guess.

  9. Re:Why by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Informative

    because most epidemics are spread via work places and public area's.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  10. Oh Noes! by DevelopersDevelopers · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, this could really be a pandemic for all those of us currently connected to the internet only by IP over Avian Carriers.

  11. Re:Why by TempeTerra · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. Working from home is perfectly sensible in case of an epidemic, although I'd be inclined to ditch work altogether ;) . One of the first things to do is close all the schools so kids don't share their germs around. Non-essential businesses are the next to go.

    --
    .evom ton seod gis eht
  12. I really can't believe I'm reading this... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the H5N1 strain of avian flu was to jump species and become highly contagious in humans to the point where a pandemic was reached, then internet traffic will be the least of our worries.

    I think we'd collectively be more concerned with, you know, people dropping like flies in huge numbers than we would about telecommuting or browsing YouTube, or at least I like to think that we would.

    Seriously, the health and safety of my loved ones and society as a whole would be paramount in my mind, and everything else would be a distant second. This story reminds me of those Starbucks managers selling water to injured and shocked people and the idiots quoting SLAs while the World Trade Center's twin towers were falling.

    What next? People posting articles about how a human H5N1 pandemic would mean more server queues for WOW players as the servers would be swamped by people skipping work for the safety of home and looking to get a few more quests done while they were off?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:I really can't believe I'm reading this... by jonoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Believe it.....

      The institute I work for will be sequestered by the government in the event of a pandemic.

      We've ring fenced large quantities of diskspace, and other resources to cope with the demands that are likely to be put on us in this event. However the one resource that's going to be vital we have no control over - the ability for our staff to work from home. The last few months I've been asked repeatedly if our remote access solutions will cope with 90% of the staff working from home, the answer has been 'if the internet copes'.

      It doesn't take much contention on a DSL circuit to make video conferencing or IP telephony unusable, theses are the sorts of collaboration tool that will be required in this event.

      It's only sensible for people to be planning for this scenario, it's something that can only be controlled by the telcos, and they won't do anything unless it is mandated by government.

  13. Re:Why by Bronster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Indeed, you probably picked up apostrophiti's there.

  14. Ironic... by evilviper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow... How's that for ironic?

    A chicken is going to choke the internet...

    Must... not... make... "In Soviet Russia..." joke...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  15. Re:Why by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bird flu is the new Y2K

    Ah, here we go. Look, what do you suppose would have happened to the economy if no one had done any Y2K remediation? I was very busy in advance of that roll-over, and a good number of the clients I worked with would have been out of business without substantial system upgrades. Not just BIOS patches, but extensive code reviews and fixes to giant, sprawling, interdependent systems. For companies that operate (as so many do) on a just-in-time basis for goods and materials, even a week's downtime could mean bankruptcy. Multiply that times thousands of businesses, and you've got a major hit. Some of those are companies that supply medical materials, or deal with food processing, or deal with fuel. You surely aren't one of those people who thought it all could have been simply left well enough alone, are you? I directly experienced work that, left undone, would have resulted in financial ruin for organizations employing thousands of people and delivering important products and services to millions of people.

    275 cases of it out of 8 billion people does not a pandemic make

    And right up until the flu pandemic of 1918 killed millions of people, it wasn't a pandemic either. Do you approach everything in life with a "we'll deal with it after it happens" strategy? Sometimes that's not as effective. Like, when you can't pay your employees after 1/1/2000, or you're dead from a highly contagious virus and whatnot.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  16. Shinning example of a misinformed person. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is part of the problem, people thinking they know what they are talking about, but that know squat about the topic.

    1.-A responsible government does multitasking. It will have to worry about the citizens' health, but also about the economy keep moving. The amount of people dying would not justify a complete shutdown of all productive activities.

    2.- Bird flu is dangerous because it has proben to infect humans, generally with high index of mortality. This by itself is not a problem. The problem is that virus mutate (don't believe idiotic creationists and the like), and eventually one will find a mutation that will allow infection from human to human. I hope you have not forgotten that this virus is highly lethal.

    3.- Your cavalier attitude parades your ignorance. You will not need your parrot to get infected, any person infected could infect you in case a pandemic takes place.

    4.- If you think all is hype you clearly need to broaden your education, it is sorely lacking.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  17. Re:Why by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, the poster is exactly right. The bird flu is the new Y2K. That is, lots of people who know what they are doing are working hard at mitigating the risks while the press jabbers on blindly with scare stores.

    The thing that people don't seem to realize about "bird flu" is that its really just one part of a larger issue. No one really knows if it will make the jump to human-to-human transmission. The people who know what the hell they are doing are doing their best to reduce that chance. (By preventing bird-to-human infections.) But the larger issue is that an entirely different disease that is currently neither known nor tracked could do the same thing. The chance of some other unknown disease becoming a pandemic is probably more likely than that of "bird flu" becoming a pandemic.

    If "bird flu" never comes to anything, it may well be precisely because a lot of doctors and biologists worked very hard to prevent it. And if "bird flu" never comes to anything, the press will probably ignorantly blather on about how maybe the original fears were overblown just like today they are blathering on with panic and scare stories. Just like Y2K.

    --
    The cake is a pie