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."
I think they just want to make sure they can keep overselling their bandwidth while being able to restrict it from all the evil pirates under the guise of controls for "just in case" there's some big calamity.
Obviously because the fight against online piracy comes before major health concerns. Who cares about a fatal illness when the guy next door is downloading Iron Man?
I think a pandemic might be the wrong event, but disaster preparedness probably is not.
If you'll recall September 11th and a few days after, there were major issues with traffic getting to certain service providers. CNN.com basically melted down--I recall ESPN's website actually carrying news headlines to try and take load off the overloaded news site.
Fast forward 7 years. We consume a lot more bandwidth these days with the rise of streaming video, VOIP, etc. And the network backbone hasn't grown as fast, so there's less network capacity.
Now, let's say Bird Flu jumps to humans, and 500 cases are identified in New York city, with possible cases in Chicago, London, Atlanta, and Paris. Think about the demand for information. And think of the need for authorities to convey information to the public in as close to real time as possible (quarrentines, vaccination sites, curfews, etc.). Would the network infrastructure we have in place allow effective communication in a situation where it will save lives?
It's worth asking the question, IMO.
You clearly have not been in any kind of call center during any kind of panic generating event. You do realize that the phone systems had huge problems keeping up with the 9/11 volume of traffic. Everyone calling everyone trying to check to see if everyone is ok. Everyone clicking refresh every 30 seconds on a dozen news sites trying to get the latest news. Nothing gets us monkeys chattering like something that spooked us.
I can easily see a need for this kind of stuff. Further, you have to assume that in a global pandemic situation that your own staff may be getting infected too. You need tools that you can use to manage large networks with only a small staff.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
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
How, exactly, does a global pandemic affect a network? Why would they need network management tools in case of such an event?
Assuming this isn't rhetorical or Trolling, I'll take a swing at answering your questions.
A pandemic drastically reduces the manpower available to operate and repair the technology. At the same time it Increases traffic across all the networks because, the theory is, more people at home or in shelters means more traffic and load on the networks with fewer technicians to manage the services and keep them operating.. Solid management tools allow fewer technicians to manage more equipment remotely.
Though it wasn't extremely clear, the article DID give you that information.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
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
CNN.com (and many other sites) melted down because their servers and own network could not handle the load. The average website is not designed to be ultra-efficient (e.g. as light as possible on network/server capacity), which means that whenever huge numbers of people flog to the site in question, it is essentially DDoS'ed by it's own design. CNN solved it by turning to a dressed down simple site without the fluff. So did many other sites. The other issue (for european users) was that most traffic was routed through a NY-location which was no longer up after the attacks.
Second, I guess it depends on where you live, but network backbones can pretty much keep up with the growth, if properly invested in. AFAIC, the whole discussion in US (and some other countries) about broadband and internet infrastructure is all about ISP's trying to move from investing in the network to selling bandwidth off as a scarce commodity to make shareholders happy.
AFAIK, this is nothing more than a backdoor for ISP's to implement network monitoring, traffic shaping and start working to an internet where bandwidth is virtually scarce.
In the case authorities need to convey information to the public in as close to realtime as possible, we have old-fashioned tv and radio. That is what broadcast-media are well suited for. Providing masses with information in a short time in a reliable manner. AFAIK, the fact that people start scouring every online newssite is more a panic reaction.
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.
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.
Come on, these pandemic scares happen every fall and it's boy crying wolf at this point.
Wow. I remember that same thing when I lived in New Orleans from 2002-2005. Every time there was a hurricane in the gulf people would be asked to evacuate and idiots like you would decide to stay, since its just the government crying wolf.
You could also make that same argument for using seatbelts. Or helmets. You could point out that 99.9% of the time its totally useless. As an ER doctor, I hear that argument all of the time.
Generally from people on whom I am reducing a fracture or sewing a laceration or prepping for the OR so they can be rid of their pesky little spleen.
The whole point for disaster preparedness and injury prevention is to have something you don't need 99.9% of the time so you can save lives when the time comes that you do need it. You may think its crazy or paranoid, but having been the ER chief resident in Brooklyn's largest trauma center on September 11, 2001 and having narrowly missed Katrina call me an overcautious kinda guy... But I've seen the results of shitty planning and blase attitudes like yours before.
So stop whining, get your flu shot, wear your seatbelt and helmet, and make sure you have a personal plan for when the shit hits the fan. You don't have to encase your house in plastic sheeting and duct tape, wear a tin foil hat, and have a mound of guns in your fallout shelter basement. But having a plan and a small emergency kit is a good idea for anyone.
Actually a network requires constant maintenance and repairs (and adjustments when some script kiddie starts dossing). Not to mention power supply (which means diesel distribution) and staffing of the NOC's. A good network will keep working once the last guy dies for about 48 hours or so, even though some parts will remain operational for much, much longer.
If it didn't everybody and their dog would have a global network.