Slashdot Mirror
FairPort Accused of Faking Network Readiness Test
wytcld writes "When Verizon spun off its Northern New England lines to FairPoint, FairPoint leased Verizon's computer network to manage them. This was costly, so FairPoint readied its own network. To prove its own network was ready for the switchover a demonstration was prepared for an outside auditor, Liberty. Now a whistleblower claims: '...when Liberty was watching what they thought was "flow thru" within a system and from one system to another, they were really only seeing a small program that was created to assimilate what they wanted the systems to do. They were not actually in the systems at the time nor were they in the test systems. They were in a newly created small program that used screen shots from the real system to deceive the audience into believing that they were watching a real demonstration.' How easy is it to find auditors who can be fooled by such a simple trick? Whether or not the test was faked, the network has proved so unready that FairPoint is close to bankruptcy, and may have its licenses to operate revoked in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont."
Help! New Hampshire Internet Refugee here -
.. computers.
The reports slamming Fairpoint have not been exaggerated, I work in the tech industry in NH, and I have seen countless problems with many of my clients who have fairpoint. I personally have had endless frustration-
A new 7.1 mbps service that took them 3 months and 1000 calls later to actually hook up! The techs there seem to have little idea of what's going on, and each promises a phone call back that never happens. They've mastered stalling techniques such as "Well I put it in the system, but we'll have to wait 24-72 hours for it to 'go through'"
"go through!?" Let me tell you guys something, this is the tech's way of not dealing with you. When my problem finally got fixed (I had finally gotten through to a top tier tech), he was on the phone with me and went, oh I see the problem, and it was fixed instantly. There is no magical factory of oompa loompas out back processing these cpu instructions- it's a fucking computer network run by
Techs decide what they can and cannot do in order to get off the phone with you as soon as possible, conveinently never having access to that part of the system that can FIX anything.
There's nothing good going on behind the scenes at fairpoint, and their staff are a bunch of jokers. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get on the phone with their billing department and figure out why my auto-pay billing keeps billing but never charges the card! I've got over $300 in late fees.. and I don't know why!
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
How easy is it to find auditors who can be fooled by such a simple trick?
Very easy. While auditors tend to do a good job of detecting whether a report is realistic, their main objective is to get you to sign off saying, "This is what we do." Then, if you do not do that, you are personally liable.
They aren't detectives (though they often do some of that as well), they are guarantors of accountability. Your-ass-uncoverers for the CYA generation, if you will.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
sigh, embarrassed to admit, but was forced by employer to do the same thing at the FAA once. Talk about a scary thought.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
For several years, Enron fooled investors, market watchers, government, and even its employees, with shady accounting practices that were "audited." As it turned out, the auditing firm, Arthur Anderson, was part of the fraud.
It wouldn't surprise me that the same thing happens in IT auditing.
It means there isn't the data throughput for the system you might expect. So over selling becomes a bigger issue, as does reliability
It could be even worse, depending on why the faked the audit.
I mean, i supposed they could have faked the audit becasue they are so awesome that they wanted to keep it a secret...but that's not a likely scenario.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
First, if you don't know what a word means, please don't use it. Even if you think you know, it's most likely that you will use it wrongly.
But that's the penultimate use for the word "assimilate" that I've ever heard!
...that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."
I used to have to work with both FairPoint and Verizon with my IT duties( I had to manage mutiple t-1). It was very nice working with Verizon. I would connect to the Verizon PCC in Boston, and they didn't mess around. Even when I would call at 3 am, they had people on it. Usually tookem them less than an hour to fix ANYTHING. FailPoint, I would leave a message with FairPoint's voicemail. They usually would get someone on it withion 24 hours. Usually.
I got burned bad by this myself. In the interest of not having to retype a LOT, here's the complaint I sent to Maine's PUC, which got forwarded to someone high up at Fairpoint:
We initially contacted Fairpoint to establish DSL service near the end of January, 2009. We were informed that because of the computer system changeover, that someone would be contacting me in early February to complete our order and give us our install date, which was predicted to be roughly mid-February. After not hearing from a Fairpoint representative by mid-February, I called to follow up, and after several phone calls where I was basically told "we're still transitioning, and can't get to your order," our original order was found, and we were given an install date of March 3. On March 2, having not yet received the equipment for our DSL service, I called again, and after being on hold for roughly 5-10 min while the customer service rep was "checking on our order," I was told that we were still scheduled to have service turned on for March 3, and our equipment would most likely be recieved that same day.
After not receiving anything on March 3, I called Fairpoint again that afternoon. At that point, I was told that the computer was showing that the order was never completed because it was showing that service was not available. At this point, the rep offered to have a technician come out and check our area to see if this was actually the case. I was told that we would be called with the results of this check, and to expect a 7-10 day wait before hearing back. We were never called back with the results of this check.
In mid-March, I called to follow up on the supposed check that was done. They were not able to find our previous order anywhere in the computer system. After repeatedly being put on hold so they could try and find the previous order, eventually a new order was placed. At this point, we decided to sign up for both telephone and DSL service, as we were offered a bundle package at that time. This order was given the order number mentioned above, with the phone service date of April 2, and DSL service as of April 6.
As we had to go and purchase a phone, we were not able to test the telephone service until April 3. When the service was tested, it was not yet working. I placed another call to Fairpoint, where I was told that there was still an account from a previous tenant at our address in the system when our order was placed, and this placed a hold on our order. Note that we had lived at the service address since late January of '09, and in none of my previous calls had I been told about any existing account at this address. This hold was supposedly cleared, and they said that the phone should be working within a few days, and the DSL a few days after that.
A week later, we still had no service of any sort. I placed yet another call to Fairpoint, and was told this time that there were multiple orders in our name for our address, including one for another telephone number, but all of our information. I was also told that there was showing a problem with the third-party verification that Fairpoint uses, and this is now why our order was on hold. This issue was supposedly cleared, and again I was told to give the phone a few days, and to watch for the DSL equipment to arrive.
On April 17, we still had no service. I called Fairpoint yet again, and was again told that the previous account that was at our address was the source of the problem. After being put on hold for at least 10 minutes while the rep called to another department to try and get things worked out, I was told that everything was taken care of, and I should have a working phone by Monday or Tuesday of this week, and the DSL service would take a few days longer.
As of today, the "Tuesday of Next week" mentioned above, we still have no service. Multiple calls to the "Installation Service" telephone number since 8am today of 866-980-0642 that the last Fairpoint rep I spoke to provided me with only get me a recor
assimilate: To consume and incorporate (nutrients) into the body after digestion.
simulate: ... 2. To make a pretense of; feign: simulate interest.
kdawson: illiterate who pretends to be an editor.
I think you're misunderstanding the whole point of Sarbanes-Oxley.
A SOX auditor doesn't investigate the systems in detail. They are documentors, and usually are hired by the people who are being audited. This isn't like an IRS audit where it's a confrontational thing, it's more of a "discover and document", and it's supposed to be a partnership between the auditor and the company being audited.
The auditing company doesn't know your practices, but they have a list of acceptable (or "best" if you prefer) practices. They come in and ask you how you do things, and if your practices are not acceptable, they are supposed to give you a list of them so you can work on them for the next round of auditing.
Lying to a SOX auditor serves no useful purpose, because the auditor is not there to penalize you for bad practices, they are there to help you avoid them. At the end, they gather information about how the company works from company employees WHO THEN SIGN THEIR NAMES to the audit, along with a list of gaps the company has promised to work on for the next audit.
If/when the company practices are found to deviate from what the company officers claimed, those officers can then be held personally liable for those inconsistencies. So if you lie to a SOX auditor, you can lose your house if your name is on the report and someone can prove that you lied later on.
EXAMPLE:
You hire a SOX auditor who looks into your company's practices on passwords. The auditor asks "Do you require complex passwords that must be changed at least quarterly?" And you don't. You can answer:
YES: At which point the auditor checks off the little ticky box and you sign your name to that document. Auditor leaves happy.
NO: At which point the auditor tells you that you need them, and the two of you set a date for a re-evaluation of that point, and you sign your name to that document.
A month later, your company is hacked due to a weak or fixed password.
If you answered "YES", then it will be quickly discovered that you lied in your SOX audit, and you will be held personally and possibly criminally liable for your answer. In other words, your house and fancy car go away, and you and Bubba get to know each other really well. And Bubba loves corporate criminals because they don't fight as much.
If you answered "NO", then it will be quickly discovered that you documented this weakness and were working toward fixing it. Depending on the amount of press, you might still get scapegoated and thrown out on the street, but you have a document on file saying you told the truth about the problem, so unless you go in for a conjugal visit you and Bubba will never meet.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."