Take a look at this site.

http://www.uswest.com/com/insideusw/news/030399.html

Do you think we still will have FAILURES with one leg of the iron triangle?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 04, 1999

Answers

unfortunately I couldn't follow their link to www.telcoyear2000.org to read their actual report. The return was "unable to establish link, server was reset" . Anyone else able to get to the report??

cr

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 04, 1999.

Maria,

My local carrier is BellSouth. The phone system isn't my biggest concern about Y2K. However, here's why I'm not exactly confident about my telephone service.

This is from BellSouth's 10-Q filing with the SEC:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/92088/0000732713-98-000017.txt

[snip]

Some of the costs associated with BellSouth Telecommunications' Year 2000 compliance efforts were incurred in 1997. The remainder has been or will be incurred during 1998 and 1999. As of September 30, 1998, approximately $30 had been expended towards Year 2000 compliance. BellSouth Telecommunications estimates the total cost of its compliance efforts will be between $200 and $280 over the life of the project.

[snip]

It sounds to me as if BellSouth had only spent 12.5% of its Y2K budget as of September 30, 1998. Furthermore, the SEC 10-Q filing shows that much of the money spent by that date had been on billing and customer service.

Maria, is there any reason why I should consider BellSouth's SEC filing to be good news?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 1999.

Maria, similar to the question I asked Mary: Will the phones work without electricity?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 04, 1999.

Kevin, I'm not a budget person working for BellSouth. It seems they should have spent more than 30 on their Y2K effort but I don't know the size of their systems. I can't get to some of the sites but I remember seeing BellSouth on the list of participants in this testing. So, some remediation would have had to take place.

Yes you can still make calls with power outages. Of course, your house would need electricity but if it didn't pay phones are still working. Companies have backup, so they are running.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 04, 1999.

Here's a snipit from BellSouth's 1999/02/25 10K:

The first focus area, network components, consists of the switches, transmission systems and associated software that comprise the core of BellSouth's telephony systems including land-line and wireless domestic and international services. Outside suppliers provide all hardware and most software that comprise BellSouth's networks; these components are being remediated by those third party suppliers. Testing of these components for Year 2000 compliance is being performed by the vendors, BellSouth, and industry groups such as the Telco Year 2000 Forum. As of December 31, 1998, the planning, inventory and impact analysis phases for BellSouth Telecommunications were 100% complete with the remaining phases each approximately 65% complete. The planning, inventory and impact analysis phases for BellSouth's other domestic operations were each almost 100% complete with the remaining phases each more than 25% complete. The planning, inventory and impact analysis phases for BellSouth's international operations were each approximately 70% complete with the remaining phases each approximately 50% complete.

end snip

So as of the end of February, BellSouth is 65% completed with the remaining phases (conversion, testing, implementation)of their most important network components for Domestic traffic. Not sure, though, how much direct participation they will have during testing as opposed to just letting their vendors handle all of the testing.

Expenses for y2k are (another snip from the same 10k):

As of December 31, 1998, approximately $87 of external costs had been expended towards Year 2000 compliance. BellSouth estimates the total external cost of its compliance efforts will be between $250 and $350 over the life of the project.

end snip

(I like the way they casually toss $87, $250, $250 around expecting you to know that it is in millions......)

So now they've spent 30% of their budget. One thing to remember with these statements is that their total y2k budget does not end in 1999. They will continue to have expenses in 2000 for additional testing, maybe more equipment, and all of the follow-up paperwork and documentation. However, I would not expect it to be more than they spent in 1997. (Can't find that number.) Also, they expect to have remeditated all critical systems by june 30th of this year, but no definition anywhere of "critical systems".

BTW, most of the large telco's have their own backup power. I'm not sure how long it will last, but there should not be a loss of telcom service specifically due to a loss of electrical power - at least at the start. I would guess that they have at least a week (maybe as much as a month) of back-up power.

My read on the BellSouth 10K is that they will definetly have domestic service ready to go and may also be ready with international, but that is not as sure.

here's the url for their press release:

http://sec.yahoo.com/e/l/b/bls.html

here's the url for the 10k:

http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edgardoc/gethtml.pl?duplicate_request= 1&formfilename=0001047469-99-007204&docname=BELLSOUTH+CORP&doctype=10- K&cik=732713&filingdate=Feb+25+1999++8%3A10AM&accept_doc=View&nad=&x=3 3&y=10

-- Gail (anontoo@ymous.com), March 04, 1999.

Will phones work without power?

At a city council Y2K meeting in June of 1998 Pacific Bell (Southern California) told our august city council (!) that they had backup power for 10 days to 2 weeks of operation. I assumed that to mean for all internal mechanisms that require power in order for the system to run. And after that????

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), March 04, 1999.

Maria, have you read the entire Senate report? I notice that The Forum contracted Bellcore for assistance.

In testamony before the Committee,Judith List,PH.D., vice president and general manager, Integrated Technology Solutions Business Unit, Bellcore noted the following:

"Finally, there will be problems, and there is a level of uncertainty in this area that makes it difficult to predict where the problems will be."

This is a very informative paragraph..software anomalies...backup systems have the same problems..etc.

"The interaction of complexity and new technologies will almost certainly expand the universe of ways in which system failure can occur, and, unlike natural disasters, there is no assurance that such failures will be localized."

It does not matter to me what these companies say. This group was formed for one reason only and that is to defray attention from Y2K. Having read the entire report from the Senate Committee, I can say that things are at least as bad as I thought. Most people will never read it so they will accept the spin. Running around looking for good news is really sad. We should be in a position to be searching for only the bad news, and at this point there should be little of it. Read the report!

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), March 04, 1999.

(Maria) -- "Yes you can still make calls with power outages."

To maintain operattion of the exchanges in a power outage backup generators must be running. Are the generators there? How much fuel will they have available? How much will they need? I expect the answers will vary widely among the various carriers.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 04, 1999.

Troll Maria,

You continue to present yourself as a deceptive entity, and consistently demonstrate your somewhat less than competent skills at intellectual manipulation and misdirection.

"Old Git" asked you a simple question, "Will the phones work without electricity?"

You did not answer her question. Your reply, "Yes you can still make calls with power outages. Of course, your house would need electricity but if it didn't pay phones are still working. Companies have backup, so they are running.", is an answer to another question (can you make calls during a power outage?) but not to the one asked. By ignoring the original question, you not only insult the one who asked the question, you establish your credentials as either stupid (I'm not betting on this one) or intentionally manipulative. Your additional, unasked for information that you would need electricity in your house is incorrect. I have several telephone instruments that draw all of their electricity from the telco line, and such instruments have been the standard for many years. In addition, when you say that, "companies" have backup, you invite the listener to assume that all companies have backup. Not entirely dishonest perhaps, but certainly deceptive unless each and every telco has such backup. I know of at least one that does not.

You refused to answer the same question from the same party on this thread Will phones work? Update .

I answered "Old Git's" question there as follows:

"Old Git",

Despite "Troll Maria's" terse answer ("Yes."), there is no simple answer.

At its most basic level, the answer is that no telecommunications will function without electricity, unless you're talking about two tin cans with a string stretched between them.

Our telephone system in the US has batteries for power. As long as these batteries are charged, the circuitry has electricity.

If something prevents the telcos from getting electricity from the grid, many of them have backup sources (in-house diesel generators, etc.) to charge the batteries with.

As long as the telcos can obtain fuel for these backups (or until they run out), they will be able to charge their batteries.

As long as the telcos can find electricity, somewhere, their circuits will work.

The Y2K problems in their software are entirely separate from all of this.

The Y2K problems in their hardware are entirely separate from all of this.

Despite all of their best efforts, the telcos are as enmeshed in the interconnection of our global technology as any other "player".

Is my answer correct in its entirety, partially correct, or totally incorrect?

I would suggest that if you do not begin to come across with some straight and direct answers to such questions as you may be asked, any credibility that you may currently enjoy will disappear completely and any hope you might have entertained of convincing anyone here that you have a legitimate contribution to make will be gone.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 04, 1999.

Hardliner, I'm picturing Lily Tomlin in her Ma Bell role, answering phones by candelight. I was assuming she had a console and containing compliant embedded chips.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 04, 1999.

Sorry for the scrambling. Must get that chip replaced.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 04, 1999.

Old Git,

When "One ringy-dingy" was state of the art technology, chips (integrated circuits), embedded or otherwise, were science fiction!

Uhura: Captain! Sub-space is completely silent!

Kirk: Keep trying, Lieutenant. Spock has to be somewhere in that mess down there!

Uhura: Aye aye, sir.

Now they've got embedded chips!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 04, 1999.

Mike Lang hit the nail on the head here, for sure:

"...looking for good news is really sad. We should be ... searching for only the bad news"

Mike, you've come to just exactly the right place. And if we can't find news bad enough to suit us, why, we invent it.

So don't worry. Things will all turn out much worse than we will 0ever realize. I'm confident that in a year, the search for bad news will be just as successful as it is now, whether it exists or not.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 1999.

Flint, that is such bullshit. Again, Maria here's that coldlink just for you http://www.ceri.com

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 05, 1999.

Some pay phones do require electricity (generally from the closest buisiness) and some don't.

Oh, and even if phones work, you may not be able to get through to buisnesses or government offices because their pbx's or fancy phones require power. And some are non-compliant.

-- y2kbiker (y2kbiker@bellatlantic.net), March 05, 1999.

Hardliner, All companies have UPS. How much, I can't answer. My point on this thread is that the communications industry has taken positive steps in resolving Y2K. I know little about power plants and their Y2K remediation efforts, so I'm not about to comment. I can't predict how long power will be available. Congratulations on your phones not requiring power, mine still do. Can you explain this statement "Despite all of their best efforts, the telcos are as enmeshed in the interconnection of our global technology as any other "player"."

The important thing about this post is that not only have the telecomm businesses remediated and tested (end-to-end, integration, with vendors and suppliers) code but they have worked together in an industry wide test. When I first learned about this test, I thought it would never come off. Well, it did. This is a case in point that faced with a challenge even competing businesses can work together.

Mike (I think), I haven't read the report cover to cover but I do know about Dr List. Her comment on "there will be problems" is correct. Anybody who believes otherwise is a moron. I've always said there will be problems but not failures. This post shows that one leg of your iron triangle has gone far to minimize the problems that will occur. I know you won't see it that way, but I believe there won't be a collaspe in the infrastructure (I'm taking deJager's point of view).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 05, 1999.

BTW thank you hardliner for your assessment of my skills ("You continue to present yourself as a deceptive entity, and consistently demonstrate your somewhat less than competent skills at intellectual manipulation and misdirection"). I could post my assessment of your skills but these types of assessments does little to further any arguements regarding Y2K status.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 05, 1999.

Hi maria - this was at the end of a thread "Will phones work" which has full availble text of the test referenced. Would you comment please?

Thank you vrey much for the update - it is good news - but must be tempered based on what they have tested so far: ("Forum" in this sense is the group of phone companies that paid for the test site and equipment.)

<< The Forum's testing is one component of the effort needed for overall Year 2000 compliance in the telecommunications industry. Other individual companies and other industry groups are carrying out several levels of testing using a building block approach. This multi-layered strategy supports a cohesive and cooperative approach to testing activities and scope beyond the Forum's reach. "We are sharing our results widely, including with other telephone companies, in order to be ready for the Year 2000," said Roth.>>

See - they haven't quite finished yet - the "building block" approach to get to full integrated system testing he mentioned is fine - these major companies probably have enough time to do it still, and probably still enough time to recover and repeat when they find problems after their first real "installed" integrated test - BUT this single level of laboratory tests is a step on the whole process to getting a dial tone next year.

It isn't there yet. It is good that they lab-tested various simulated equipment - which isn't the same as getting it to run in the field in real installations - but will help eliminate future "in field" problems.

It is important to remeber that Y2K problems can be found and solved, then the system tested and verified that it will likely work next year. But this single lab-test doesn't do that yet.

Overall:

The more likely it is that telecommunication will work - and judging from this, they may be out for only a little while, very unlikely to be more thatn 1-2 weeks, most likely continuous but spotty service everywhere but threatened most by colateral damage in big cities - the more likely it is that other distributed systems will recover faster.

This includes water, natural gas, some sewage, irrigation and flood control, power, satellites, and networked databases.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 05, 1999.

"Troll Maria",

Yet again, you have ignored a straightforward question directed specifically to you, to wit: Is my answer correct in its entirety, partially correct, or totally incorrect?

Unless and/or until you render a civil answer I shall not converse with you further. I will not refrain, however, from comment on such postings as you may make in the future.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 05, 1999.

Thanks for your post, Robert. You make excellent points and I agree with them. Your judgment on the length of outages is, IMO, a little pessimistic but I generally agree that service may be spotty. And since comm is underlying just about every other sector, this effort supports a faster recovery of these other sectors. I agree, people can concentrate on their systems Y2K problems relying on the stability of the infrastructure (within the company).

This is a multi-step approach for testing. Thats the best way to test anything, starting with unit test and building from there. They are not complete but they do have until the end of the year, a nice position to be in, instead of still trying to remediate in Dec 99.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 05, 1999.

My answer to hardliner: As long as the telcos can find electricity, somewhere, their circuits will work. True

The Y2K problems in their software are entirely separate from all of this. True

The Y2K problems in their hardware are entirely separate from all of this. True

Despite all of their best efforts, the telcos are as enmeshed in the interconnection of our global technology as any other "player". I havent a clue. I asked you to explain.

Is my answer correct in its entirety, partially correct, or totally incorrect? partially

I would suggest that if you do not begin to come across with some straight and direct answers to such questions as you may be asked, Hardliner, its a free country and I can choose to respond or not. The fact is its my choice.

any credibility that you may currently enjoy will disappear completely Ill accept that.

and any hope you might have entertained of convincing anyone here that you have a legitimate contribution to make will be gone. I gave up a long time ago on convincing anyone here anything. You can believe things I post or not. Thats entirely up to you. If you think I have a legitimate contribution fine. If you dont thats fine too.

Unless and/or until you render a civil answer I shall not converse with you further. Do you actually believe that your answers to my posts are civil conversations? I really never viewed them that way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I will not refrain, however, from comment on such postings as you may make in the future. Have a good time. Knock yourself out.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 05, 1999.

"Troll Maria",

Thank you for your response.

Perhaps a definition of civility (the adverbial form of the word civil) is in order here. According to my dictionary which lists nine definitions for the word, it would seem that numbers 6 and 7 are relevant here and constitute my understanding of the concept.

6. In accordance with the requirements of civilization; civilized.

7. Observing the recognized social amenities; proper; polite.

Neither of these mention amiability or hostility nor do they imply such. I take this to mean, for example, that to call someone a, "filthy, rotten liar" is uncivil but to suggest that they, "appear to be a deceptive entity" meets the test. If you disagree with this, or wish to suggest another standard, please do so.

I would also like to explain again that the source of such hostility on my part as you may detect is your continued attempts to "spin" my words in order that they represent your views rather than mine. This is precisely what you do each time you ignore someone's question and answer another, the answer to which reflects the image that you wish to engender in the reader's mind instead of that which the answer to the original question would produce.

I did not say, imply or suggest that you were in any way, shape or form obligated to reply to my, or anyone's, questions. It is indeed your choice. What I did say was that if such answers as you did choose to offer were not straightforward. . .etc. Did you truly not understand that?

No one here needs your permission or blessing to accept or reject such contributions as you might make. Each will do as he or she decides according to their own criteria.

As for your statement, "I gave up a long time ago on convincing anyone here (of)anything.", I would ask, why then, do you continue to participate in this forum?

Now, to business. You have answered my question, as I asked, with the single work, "partially". I take this to mean that you agree with the statements that you quoted and responded to and question the meaning of one. As to the statements that you ignored, I can not perceive an answer, one way or the other.

However, in the spirit of cooperative discourse that I honestly wish to foster in spite of such animosity as may currently exist, I shall answer you before I ask any more of you.

"Can you explain this statement, 'Despite all of their best efforts, the telcos are as enmeshed in the interconnection of our global technology as any other "player'.", you asked.

Let's begin by assuming that the telecommunications companies have been, and are continuing to, exert the most effective remedies to such Y2K problems as they may perceive that they are capable of. I think this is a reasonable assumption in light of the fact that their very survival is dependent on resolving the issue and that they are surely aware of such.

Let's further assume that as a result of these efforts they have either resolved or are close to resolving all Y2K problems within their own software and hardware.

With these assumptions in place, all that is accomplished is the existence of a vast machine, which still requires human beings to tend it, use it and for whom it exists in the first place. I think you would agree that in all eventualities it would be safe to assume no shortage of people who desired to use this machine, indeed who would need to use it.

This machine, however, is not the only machine that is required in order to sustain itself. Let's look at a few of the others.

Because the telecomm functions, the pharmaceuticals are able to talk to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the drug companies may suffer supply disruptions which result in certain employees of the telecomms being unable to obtain necessary medication and therefore to function well enough to report for work. Perhaps even enough of them that the telecomms could not function. Not likely by itself surely, but perhaps an ingredient in a larger witches' brew of Y2K disruptions to make a critical difference.

Because the telecomms function, the various branches of the postal service would be able to ascertain how badly they were crippled by the failure of their mail processing equipment. Without the mail, the telecomms would find themselves unable to bill their customers, and find themselves in a cash flow bind that would likely become fatal in very short order. Without the mail, ALL of the employees of the telecomms would suffer disruptions in their personal lives which would likely preclude their even reporting for work let alone functioning normally if they did. Without the mail, the various vendors that the telecomms rely on for operating supplies would fail and with them, the telecomms themselves. Examples abound, but the most telling is that you (Troll Maria) evaluate your own reliance on the mail and the ramifications of its loss.

Because the telecomms function, the many producers of electricity can communicate. Unfortunately, should they find themselves without a functioning distribution system (for any reason), the telecomms would be forced to such backup power generation facilities as they posses. In such a situation, fuel becomes critical, and simple arithmetic easily demonstrates how much would be required and how long it would last. Suffice it to say that it would not be long and if the fuel supplies were not replenished in time, the dial tone would go silent. (BTW, the UPS that you referred to, Uninterruptible Power Supplies is a fifty cent term for batteries and while they are rechargeable, they don't have an inexhaustable charge)

It would be easy to go on and on, but I'm sure that you can do so as well as any of us. The conclusion that the telecomms are as dependent on (enmeshed in) all of the other technologies of our civilization as they all are on the telecomms is inescapable.

Now, I ask you to either accept or reject each of the remaining parts of my answer to the original question, "Will the phones work without electricity?"

At its most basic level, the answer is that no telecommunications will function without electricity, unless you're talking about two tin cans with a string stretched between them.

Our telephone system in the US has batteries for power. As long as these batteries are charged, the circuitry has electricity.

If something prevents the telcos from getting electricity from the grid, many of them have backup sources (in-house diesel generators, etc.) to charge the batteries with.

As long as the telcos can obtain fuel for these backups (or until they run out), they will be able to charge their batteries.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 05, 1999.