[25724] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sep 29 outage report withdrawn by Qwest
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nicholas harteau)
Sun Nov 7 02:55:23 1999
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:53:41 -0600
From: nicholas harteau <nrh@ikami.com>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <19991107015341.K740@execpc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <19991107031141.1351.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>; from Sean Donelan on Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 07:11:41PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Speaking of interesting Qwest incidents, I read in a local indie paper
today that the DNR fined Qwest something like $115k for damage to
wildlife and flora while it layed fiber between Green Bay, WI, and
someplace in Canada, and between Milwaukee, WI and Chicago, IL.
Interesting incidents if you're into buying politically correct
bandwidth.
Apparently thier contractors tore up a number of stream beds and whatnot
during thier trenching and made no efforts to repair them. Not very
nice.
Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> You may remember a major fiber cut in Ohio on September 29 which
> affected several providers (Abovenet, GTE, QWEST, and MFS) when
> four OC-192 circuits were cut.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,2345933,00.html
>
> At the time of the initial incident Qwest filed an outage report
> with the FCC. They have since withdrawn it because it did not
> meet the FCC's definition of a reportable outage.
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Filings/Network_Outage/1999/reports/99-179.pdf
>
> I don't mean to pick on Qwest, since as far as I can tell they were
> the only one of the affected providers who filed even an initial
> report. But the definition of a major outage is really goofy, which
> if viewed as traditional voice lines would be over 500,000 channels,
> isn't considered an event worthy of reporting or including in the
> analysis.
>
>
--
nicholas harteau
nrh@ikami.com
