Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ria!uwovax.uwo.ca!telecom-request From: richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Richardson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 91 14:31:01 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Purdue University Lines: 37 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 207, Message 2 of 9 In article John Higdon writes: > rhc@agate.berkeley.edu writes: >> With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to >> compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be >> swifter/easier. > But as was to sharply demonstrated in the Bay Area 'quake of 89, > diverse facilities is a plus, not a minus. Calls on AT&T were a joke; > the facilities were completely unavailable. This could have been due > to intentional blockage, but the fact is that I was able to > communicate with my clients while out of the area thanks to several > cheaptone OCCs that had no problem whatever completing my calls. At the risk of sounding like another one of "those AT&T employees," I thought I'd give a little background on the earthquake and the network management techniques AT&T used. Actually, after the earthquake, AT&T facilities were operating properly, albeit under an extremely heavy load. The day after the quake was the busiest day in the AT&T network ever (at that time). Most residents of Northern California had problems completing calls because they couldn't get to the AT&T network because of failures in the local network. As regards to intentional blockage, the philosophy is to permit as many calls as possible OUT of the affected area, while severely limiting the number of calls INTO the affected area. Thus, intentional blockage was used around the rest of the country (to the tune of 90% of attempts were not allowed to try to complete), while all calls reaching the AT&T network from the bay area were allowed through the network. Bryan Richardson richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.