Re: WSJ: Trade Center Attack Highlights Problem

[Frank Coluccio <fcoluccio () dticonsulting com>]

re: >One interesting thing I found during my research since September 11
is the Internet held up well because of its extensive use of alternate
providers. <

Lest we forget, there were considerable problems bringing certain IXs back on 
line that were in the affected zone back on line for a over a week after the day 
of the attacks, due to problems assoicated with on-site power generation. But 
ignoring those exceptions...

... yes, the Internet held up nicely, like you say, but for many reasons, 
including its use of alternate providers. 

Another reason, if we're to look at this in a comparative sense (which I've 
inferred is the case), that is, how the 'Net fared versus how 140 West Street 
did, was because none of the Internet's main exchanges or hubs took direct hits. 

ISPs and NSPs were spared a tremendous amount of grief, imo, but only as a result 
of serendipitous consequences, because the Twin Towers were NOT located just a 
couple of blocks closer to 60 Hudson Street. Even as it was, there was ongoing 
speculation that structural damage did exist at 60 Hudson, but fortunately those 
were _only_ speculations, as it turns out (and as far as I know). 

But had the towers been an 8th of a mile closer to 60 Hudson things would have 
turned out far differently for the 'Net, not only domestically, but 
internationally as well.

Has anyone assessed the level of risk that exists to the 'Net due to the high 
levels of traffic concentration at 60 Hudson. Or, 1 Wilshire in LA, for that 
matter? Curious.

-FAC


> Tommorrow's edition (Oct 19) of the Wall Street Journal
> has yet another article about Verizon's 140 West Street
> office.
>
>   "Others say the extensive damage to Verizon's hub demonstrated that it
>   is dangerous to rely on one company. They point out that only with the
>   help of smaller competitors did parts of New York get their dial tones
>   back.
>
>   "We have buildings that would have been waiting for Verizon to get the
>   service up if there were not alternatives," says Agostino Cangemi, the
>   New York City commissioner in charge of telecom franchising
>
> One interesting thing I found during my research since September 11
> is the Internet held up well because of its extensive use of alternate
> providers.  Verizon tends to be very expensive, so ISPs needing lots
> of "cheap" bandwidth purchased service from a variety of competitors.
> Much of this was not planned, nor did ISPs have a clue where their
> circuits ran.  It just happened due to Adam Smith's invisible hand.
>
> That's not to say CLECs didn't have problems.  AT&T/TCG was walloped
> hard, and several ISPs have essentially abandoned some TCG facilities
> because they won't be repaired for a long time.  MFN lost a huge
> amount of fiber.  Worldcom won't say how bad MFS/Brooks/etc was hit
> but Worldcom customers report their circuits were out for 3-4 weeks
> and may not be repaired until the end of the year.