Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!pollux!attctc!vector!telecom-gateway From: jhf@cblpe.att.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: "Disaster Authority" Message-ID: Date: 25 Oct 89 13:59:00 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 24 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 473, message 1 of 10 In TELECOM Digest V9 #470, Joe Konstan writes: >BTW, why doesn't AT&T retain "disaster authority" over >its lines, to prevent resellers from mishandling the situation and from >using capacity that AT&T customers could use? I don't think this is very feasible. My understanding is that "resellers" buy trunks that are "nailed up" via a DACS (or something similar). In order to reclaim capacity, AT&T would have to disconnect the reseller in question. I doubt this would sit very well with the FCC. One thing that might change this is a new (to me, anyway) philosophy that I've heard: all types of service should be handled by the normal message network. This would (I think) allow customers to use a software defined network that would mimic a network of "nailed up" trunks. With an SDN, a customer would fall under the reign of network controls. Jeff Frontz Work: +1 614 860 2797 AT&T-Bell Labs (CB 1C-356) Cornet: 353-2797 att!jeff.frontz jeff.frontz@att.com Home: +1 614 794 3986