How Telcos and ISPs Are Preparing For a Pandemic 107
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."
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
same as any other business (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wrong Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys don't have it figured out yet. The priorities are still: billing systems and still providing crappy customer service!
Re:What planet are these people on? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
Pandemics don't stop society from funtioning, they change how it functions because more people sicken and die.
Internet communication will be necessary (and even more useful, since personal contact should be avoided), and those who maintain ISPs will still need jobs. Working in a server room will be much safer than, say, checkout drone at Wal-Mart.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Misstated Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It must be close to October, when the media... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Great, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think it's a great idea to protect such a critical resource during a time of crisis. It seems like the importance of networks are often undervalued in emergencies.
However, *dons a tinfoil hat* does anyone else see a potential for other uses of such crisis plans? Who gets to determine what a crisis is, and how an ISP is supposed to respond? While I am going to try to be optimistic and assume everyone behind this has good intentions, the implications for its misuse are scary.
Say that a bunch of people get pissed off at their government and revolt, peacefully protest, or whatever. Now instead of just calling out the riot police, the powers that be can simply flick off the switch for one of the most important tools for free speech and communication. Only "critical sources of information" such as Big Media news sites are available because "terrorists" are using the Internet to communicate.
I don't really think this will happen any time soon, but it's certainly something to think about.
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of (ahem!) "network management", yeah you're probably right. Keep a lid on what's going on so the people don't freak and panic. And you know what? I don't really have a problem with that, because in many disaster scenarios a panic will kill and maim more people than the event itself.
The problem, as I see it, is that simply having such network controls in place means they'll get used for non-emergency purposes (such as, "we don't want word of {insert political leader here} bribery scandal getting out.")
Right now, there's not much that government (or the private sector) can do to prevent dissemination of specific information via the Internet, short of shutting down major segments of it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that would like to build some automated censorship into the network. The question is whether or not the ability to control information flow in an emergency is worth the risk of that capability being used in other contexts. I don't think it is: if nothing else, the recent history has unequivocally demonstrated that the Federal Government cannot be trusted with our communications network.
Re:Is hiding at home really going to help? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Oh, I see... (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, I see.
So this is their excuse to filter BitTorrent and related high-bandwidth protocols.
Interesting strategy. It reminds me of censorship in the name of protecting children.
Re:Is hiding at home really going to help? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dear CNN.com (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
What these sites need to do is have some sort of overload mode that kicks in when a major disaster occurs that would otherwise kill the site.
When hits per second exceeds some specific number, stop serving so many ads and images. Don't serve video. Serve text (news stories) and small images only. Switch to static HTML pages for the front page and major stories.
Not to mention, STOP telling people watching television to go check out the website. That's idiotic; they're ALREADY WATCHING YOU ON TV! Why direct them to the website and load it down further? I remember on 9/11 itself, CNN telling folks to "check out the latest on cnn.com" when cnn.com was *STILL DOWN* from the load!
If they took these measures they'd be able to keep serving pages in a crisis and not become useless like they did on 9/11.
I'm certain they've learned from their mistakes and have implemented something like this.
Re:Assumption of a working Internet during a crisi (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It must be close to October, when the media... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hopeless, I'd say (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hopeless, I'd say (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is a Pandemic I am going to be holed up in my place downloading Iron Man.
Networking in a Pandemic is damn well important.
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
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.