Slashdot Mirror
How Telcos and ISPs Are Preparing For a Pandemic
alphadogg writes "Network operators and IT professionals already worried about how hurricanes and financial meltdowns will impact their work lives can add another potential catastrophe to their list of concerns: a global pandemic. During a panel sponsored by the FCC in Washington, D.C. this week, representatives from telecom carriers and ISPs discussed what steps they've been taking to prepare for the mass outbreak of a disease such as influenza, and also described the needs and challenges they would have to meet to keep communications up and running during a major global crisis. The most important tool at ISPs' disposal during a serious pandemic, panelists agreed, was that of network and bandwidth management controls."
How, exactly, does a global pandemic affect a network? Why would they need network management tools in case of such an event?
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
"The most important tool at ISPs' disposal during a serious pandemic, panelists agreed, was that of network and bandwidth management controls"
WTF? During a pandemic I should think most employees of an ISP will have far more important things to worry about (you know, trivial stuff like their families etc) than whether the network bandwidth is ok. FFS.
None of these points is unique to ISPs, and it's rather self-important of them to think that they will have any special requirements. In fact, what is more likely to affect them is the realisation, after the problems have cleared, that the business can run just as well with only half the staff doing their jobs - so the other half can be cut. Guess what? It'll be the ones who made it in to work who'll get retained.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
These guys don't have it figured out yet. The priorities are still: billing systems and still providing crappy customer service!
It should be "What ISPs and Telcos Said When Asked" etc. It's called "response bias", that someone will have an answer to pretty much anything if asked, because the asking implies they should have an answer to provide. I'm betting most respondents didn't actually have any such plans or concerns, and those that did had them placed firmly in the PR department rather than anyplace that might know about and have an effect on operations.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
will start hyping some super bug of the year. Will it be SARS II, Super Spanish Bird Flu, or will it be another year where I get a bad cold for 3 - 4 days, get over it and move on without a flu shot.
Come on, these pandemic scares happen every fall and it's boy crying wolf at this point. History indicates that eventually they will be right, but will that be this year or in 50 years...
That being said, I can understand disaster planning and having a plan just in case. But it's that time of the year when all the 24 hours news outlets will start harping what will be the next killer flu that does not materialize.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
So, while we know that the Internet is designed to provide routing protocols that can handle damaged nodes and take them out of the loop, are we still building systems in place that depend on the Internet being able to move packets from A to B, in the midst of any sort of prolonged crisis?
Currently, real "main street" business already suffer when their net goes down even for half an hour, but that's usually when the last link between them and the ISP goes down.
But in a serious or prolonged emergency situation, I'd be more concerned about links in the middle going down.
So are people building safety systems (healthcare records, utility company systems, etc) that depend on the Internet working in order to do business? Just think of what happens when the phones go down and companies can't process credit cards... but much worse. How are these ISPs and Telcos even supposed to allow their network admins to work from home... if the net is down?
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation! Free videos.
It all depends on the bug in question. Not a doctor, but at a guess...
If it was something like Ebola, where you require person-to-person contact, you just wait until the affected people die/get-quarantined/etc and the bug dies off in general.
If it's something that can survive outside the human body for a short period of time, then we isolate ourselves and wait it out.
If it's something that can jump species easily and/or survive for long periods of time away from a host? We're pretty much in the shit, unless/until a cure, vaccine, and some sort of germicide/'viruscide' can be concocted.
Personally, and I think I can speak for most human beings: I'm not going to take the chance of becoming one of the statistics, all in the name of carrying on, you know?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"Such as influenza" my ass! They're preparing for an outbreak of zombies! It's a global marketing test, in addition to a way of dealing with people who use too much bandwidth!
Well first, you can outlast epidemics by hiding long enough. For you to get be likely to get infected you need a certain amount of the bug in circulation. If you wait till that strain has gone through you may dodge the bullet. (Think about people who are thirty who get a primary varicella (chicken pox) infection. They dodged that bullet for many years (often by chance) even though VZV is always out there.
Given the example of avian influenza, the time that you get infected also changes the likelihood that you will die. If there is a major first wave that kills large volumes, that would be the time to definitely want to avoid infection. First off, we have less chance of knowing the best treatments early on in an epidemic. Treatment of a new (or newly changed) illness is developed as we gain experience with it. For example, survival in the first wave of the AIDS epidemic was abysmal while now it is markedly better.
Secondly, when there are high volumes of patients in the initial wave, your chance of getting that ICU spot, omseltavir, or a ventillator should you need one are slim. If you get it later when the demand is less, you stand a better chance of having the resources necessary to give you the best chance of survival. In addition, until you get a cadre of health care providers who survived the infection, people will be less willing to get 'up close and personal' to provide you care.
So there is a definite advantage of not being in the middle of the big bulge of sick folks. Even if your infection is inevitable, you'd like to get it when we know more and have more resources mobilized. Plus if you wait long enough we might just get an effective vaccine.
Wow, that is a good one. Let's see here, you have most all of the US on seriously asymmetrical links and you want to share your bandwidth with large commercial providers. Ha ha ha.
DSL is slowing becoming more symmetrical, but is has a long way to go in most markets. So you have 5Mb download and 500Kb upload or worse. Cable works by allocating slots and often you have the situation where out of 100 potential slots you have 90 of them for download and 10 for upload. And yes, you are fighting with all of your neighbors for those upload slots.
Fiber potentially can be symmetrical, but average use makes nonsense out of spending the resources to do so. When 80% of the people want 10x the download speed vs. upload speed the provider tends to give it to them. So YouTube is really fast but uploading 500MB for a web site is pretty slow.
The reason we're not all being asked to share our bandwidth is we don't have much upload bandwidth to share. And until the usage habits of most users change drastically, we're not likely to get much more.
The reality of the situation is much worse than that. Companies have been building their infrastructure around things like Just In Time Inventory and the like for a while. What this means is that your neighborhood shop has just enough stuff for maybe a week and then they run out.
When UPS went on strike you would have thought these folks would have learned their lesson that infrastructure is fragile and you better be ready to roll with it. Sadly, they did not. The result is any prolonged emergency that affects electricity or fuel supplies will doom many businesses, especially the smaller ones.
Also, the interdependence of our current infrastructure is incredible. We seem to have built a society on the idea that nothing bad ever happens. So that when it does everything goes at once.
All it takes is a little damage and it cripples the electric grid. Which then disables the fuel pumps for filling up the trucks needed to service the electric problems. Which then locks down all transportation in the area and makes everyone dependent on outside assistance. What? The state or federal assistance isn't coming because they are too busy elsewhere? Impossible. People will sit down and wait for help because they "know" it is coming. Real Soon Now we will all be saved. By someone. After all, someone has to help. They just have to.
Internet? I'd be a lot more worried about being trapped in a city with no food deliveries and no stockpile of food items anywhere within 300 miles.
One of the biggest problems with any drawn-out emergency is going to be information control. The government is going to want to tell people to do certain things and, if they are done, it will be better for everyone.
For example, staying off the phone. Not rushing out to the WalMart SuperCenter to get the last couple of loaves of bread. Stuff like that.
Unfortunately, a lot of these people are going to be looking at any "official" pronouncements as just so much self-serving BS. When some web site blog/chat forum/etc. says the government is out to kill as many people as possible so the Senators can each have 10,000 acre estates some will believe. When the same web forums say that if you don't want to starve you better join in the mob breaking into the WalMart SuperCenter, people will do so - even if the store was emptied two days before. Of course, all of the people in the mob will then catch whatever it is that is going around at the time - or just get injured further stressing the health care providers.
What are the chances of this not happening and everyone sitting at home listening to the government and doing what is best for everyone? Today, I'd say zero. I'd say that it would be better if the government said nothing at all - because lots of influential people will want to get on their soap box to dispute anything "the government" says, no matter how much sense it might make.
Avian flu coming to the US? Probably is, soon. When it hits, it is going to be a disaster and most people will follow whatever sort of "leader" they can latch onto. And the Internet is full of folks that will jump into that role. For better or worse. I'm expecting worse, myself.