Re: Leaky Coax [was: London incidents]
Matt Ghali wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Adam Rothschild wrote: As I understand it, cellular service in the tunnels is provided by cells co-located in the Weehawken, NJ and New York City, NY vent buildings, with leaky coax cable shared by all carriers running inside the tubes. I was intrigued by the concept, and did a bit of googling. I managed to dig up a fascinating article on the applications for leaky coax antennas, in the tunnels we are discussing, to boot! http://wirelessreview.com/mag/wireless_trouble_tunnels/ matto It works great for in-building Wifi too if you do the proper engineering. Thomas
RE: Leaky Coax [was: London incidents]
Orange used to supply something like this to put in your building to improve coverage - worked reasonably well also. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Kernen Sent: 15 July 2005 10:21 To: Matt Ghali Cc: Adam Rothschild; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Leaky Coax [was: London incidents] Matt Ghali wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Adam Rothschild wrote: As I understand it, cellular service in the tunnels is provided by cells co-located in the Weehawken, NJ and New York City, NY vent buildings, with leaky coax cable shared by all carriers running inside the tubes. I was intrigued by the concept, and did a bit of googling. I managed to dig up a fascinating article on the applications for leaky coax antennas, in the tunnels we are discussing, to boot! http://wirelessreview.com/mag/wireless_trouble_tunnels/ matto It works great for in-building Wifi too if you do the proper engineering. Thomas
RE: London incidents
UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service. And they are correct. There was no shutdown of the mobile phone networks during or after the incidents. There was a request to give priority to emergency services and/or to limit cell site logins so that capacity was always available. This was confirmed during a conf call of all the major operators in the UK just after the events. [source - me, I was on the call :-)]
Leaky Coax [was: London incidents]
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Adam Rothschild wrote: As I understand it, cellular service in the tunnels is provided by cells co-located in the Weehawken, NJ and New York City, NY vent buildings, with leaky coax cable shared by all carriers running inside the tubes. I was intrigued by the concept, and did a bit of googling. I managed to dig up a fascinating article on the applications for leaky coax antennas, in the tunnels we are discussing, to boot! http://wirelessreview.com/mag/wireless_trouble_tunnels/ matto [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Re: London incidents
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 00:19 -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote: Indeed it does, but I have to question whether the cellphone decision was well-thought-out. I really can't believe it was. Are spontaneous moments notice decisions ever well-thought-out? Take this scenario away from terrorism and apply it to a presumed pending DoS/Spam attacks of years past. I know of a few m-f (Mon - Fri, not mother f...) businesses who would shut down corp email servers on the weekend just to avoid problems. Is that a half-baked solution, sure is. Did it help, who knows? What we know is those admins slept well that weekend. :-) -Jim P. (die thread die!)
Re: London incidents
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:57:55PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Nash writes: Would the folks posting news related events please footnote source URLS, especially if arguing over factual details? http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39150177,00.htm has what Sean was referring to. Then we have this: http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/tunnels.cell.phones.ap/index.html The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs area transit hubs, bridges and tunnels, decided last Thursday to indefinitely sever power to transmitters providing wireless service in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, spokesman Tony Ciavolella said Monday. [ ... ] The Department of Homeland Security said the decision in New York to cut off cellular service was made without any recommendation by the federal government's National Communications System, which ensures communications are available during national emergencies. I gotta say, this is pretty typical of the lack of coordination and actual rational thought that goes into reacting to security incidents. There's been -nothing- from the Brits to say that cellphones were involved in their explosions; And DHS says they haven't made any recommendations one way or the other; And there's no reason to believe that the threat to the New York subway system is any higher than usual; And yet someone at the Port Authority has made a unilateral decision to shut off the cells, and now if there -is- a real emergency nobody can call 911. Breathtaking. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: London incidents
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 19:20 +0930, Mark Newton wrote: There's been -nothing- from the Brits to say that cellphones were involved in their explosions; And DHS says they haven't made any recommendations one way or the other; And there's no reason to believe that the threat to the New York subway system is any higher than usual; And yet someone at the Port Authority has made a unilateral decision to shut off the cells, and now if there -is- a real emergency nobody can call 911. Basically it's damned if you do take action, damned if you don't. Once again we see that you can't please all the people (yes, even those not using NYC tunnels) all the time. I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again before doing something? AFAIK Emergency Only mode allows for 911 calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving good again. -Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving, slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone drivers)
Re: London incidents
At 6:16 AM -0400 2005-07-12, Jim Popovitch wrote: I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again before doing something? What do you suggest? Eliminating the entire mobile telephone industry? AFAIK Emergency Only mode allows for 911 calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. You can only change to something like that after an emergency has happened, by which time it is too late. If the bombers do the kind of thing they did in Madrid (using the alarm function), then you don't need mobile phones at all, except as a cheap source of easily programmable digital alarm clocks. I'm sorry, I just don't see mobile phones being the bad guy here. I don't see any kind of activity designed to restrict their use as being a positive thing, regardless of the timing. Besides, the US (at least) is full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving good again. -Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving, slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone drivers) All testing results I've heard of indicate that the real problem is that the driver is distracted when doing anything but driving. Many accidents happen when drivers are futzing about with their radios. Many happen when drivers are talking to other people in the car. The problem with mobile phones in the car has less to do with taking a person's hand off the wheel (although that is something to be concerned about), and more to do with the fact that the driver is distracted by talking to the person on the other end. So, to make good on this, you'd have to outlaw all activities which could potentially interfere with driving. All mobile phones of all sorts would have to be kept out of the range of hearing of the driver (also eliminating all hands-free units), all car audio/video systems would have to be eliminated, you could not allow any GPS devices, you'd have to outlaw eating food and/or drinking beverages while driving (including soft drinks, coffee, etc...), and you'd have to have a muzzle law for all passengers. Drivers would have to be completely isolated from all sights, sounds, and other distractions not directly related to driving. Do you honestly think that there's a snowball's chance of ever being able to achieve even one of these goals? Believe me, I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, since we have the best government that money can buy (or worse, depending on what country you live in), I don't see that you or I or anyone else will be able to do anything to even slow down the introduction of new technologies whose primary goal (or side-effect) is to further distract drivers. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See http://www.sage.org/ for more info.
Re: London incidents
I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. They can go back to alarm clocks with big bells. The point is people are only inconveniencing themselves in accepting such knee jerk responses in the name of fighting terrorists. The terrorists don't care, self imposed constant fear is just doing their job for them. You may as well go hide in a cave just in case, the rest of us would prefer to not have our personal freedom infringed brandon
Re: London incidents
http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39150177,00.htm has what Sean was referring to. UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service. In London, the mobile operators do not provide any service anywhere in the London underground network. The only place that I know of where there is service is on the Heathrow Express platforms at Heathrow but that is technically not part of the London underground. Outside of Central London the lines run aboveground and there is obviously mobile coverage in those areas. Also, some of the lines run in shallow tunnels, sometimes little more than uncovered trenches and so there are areas where the signal from local cells does penetrate into the trains. There has been some talk recently of setting up microcells inside the tunnels to give mobile coverage throughout the system as is found in other countries. I wonder if this will now be reconsidered. There are always tradeoffs when building infrastructures of any type. Like the requirement for generator capacity at 60 Hudson versus the desire of Tribeca residents to not live next door to a fuel dump. --Michael Dillon
Re: London incidents
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:49:47PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my mobile to ring the office. Some cell relays were temporarily shut to prevent a remote detonation of additional explosives. Cellular remotes seem to be a favorite of Al Qaeda and others. UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service. My personal experience, with the last few disasters, is that cell 'phone services tend to shut themselves down in the affected areas. Sort of a natural feedback type of thing. ;-] -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
Re: London incidents
An entity claiming to be Joseph S D Yao ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:49:47PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: : On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: :All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my :mobile to ring the office. : : Some cell relays were temporarily shut to prevent a remote : detonation of additional explosives. Cellular remotes seem : to be a favorite of Al Qaeda and others. : : UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service. : : My personal experience, with the last few disasters, is that cell 'phone : services tend to shut themselves down in the affected areas. Sort of a : natural feedback type of thing. ;-] : I heard it was a feature called Catastrophic Response Adaptive SHutdown. Mark -- [] | [] Mark Rogaski|I think there is a world market [] [EMAIL PROTECTED] |for maybe five computers. [] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 [] | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: London incidents
My little experience is that cell phones are in the most of cases nearly congenstion: a simple crow of people calling all together can shut down or delay every calls and sms Francesco
RE: London incidents
The logical conclusion to that line of thought would seem to be that all cell phone services should be turned off in all densely populated areas. Is this really what we want? (It's certainly not what *I* want.) Not sure about that, a life with no mobile phones? It certainly has its plus points! :) Regards, Neil.
Re: London incidents
On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:16 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote: On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 19:20 +0930, Mark Newton wrote: There's been -nothing- from the Brits to say that cellphones were involved in their explosions; And DHS says they haven't made any recommendations one way or the other; And there's no reason to believe that the threat to the New York subway system is any higher than usual; And yet someone at the Port Authority has made a unilateral decision to shut off the cells, and now if there -is- a real emergency nobody can call 911. Basically it's damned if you do take action, damned if you don't. Once again we see that you can't please all the people (yes, even those not using NYC tunnels) all the time. No, it's damned if you take stupid action, damned if you do not do something you should. People in charge of our security should not be allowed to take whatever action comes to mind in the name of security. Intelligent, useful, competent decisions should be made. If they cannot make them, we should find someone who can. Billions of dollars, millions of person-hours, and more frustration than I can quantify is not a good price to pay for the infinitesimal increase in security (if any) we have received through decisions like this one. I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again before doing something? AFAIK Emergency Only mode allows for 911 calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving good again. Your logic is ... illogical. If you cannot see why, I will not be able to explain it to you. (But you probably feel safer knowing I can't pack a Zippo in my checked in baggage.) As for the Emergency Only mode, the original poster said _power was cut_ to the repeaters. Could you explain to me how this allows for 911 calls please? -Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving, slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone drivers) Not really relevant to the discussion at hand. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: London incidents
--- Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it's damned if you take stupid action, damned if you do not do something you should. People in charge of our security should not be allowed to take whatever action comes to mind in the name of security. Then who should, and with data from who's mind? I suppose they (the ones in charge) could spend their time polling the audience, but that has it's price and uncertainty too. Intelligent, useful, competent decisions should be made. If they cannot make them, we should find someone who can. But they did make a decision, it is only some (majority or not, but clearly not all) that are still not convinced of the competency of their decision. (note: some will never be convinced, some will always be convinced). Billions of dollars, millions of person-hours, and more frustration than I can quantify is not a good price to pay for the infinitesimal increase in security (if any) we have received through decisions like this one. How can you accurately know this? I think you are just presuming, but you (like I) will never really truly know. We don't like spending that money, but we have no proof that not spending it is better. We can all agree that it could probably be spent wiser, but this is the US Government. I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again before doing something? AFAIK Emergency Only mode allows for 911 calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving good again. Your logic is ... illogical. If you cannot see why, I will not be able to explain it to you. (But you probably feel safer knowing I can't pack a Zippo in my checked in baggage.) No, your logic is ... illogical.., and I will not show you where. ;-) As for the Emergency Only mode, the original poster said _power was cut_ to the repeaters. Could you explain to me how this allows for 911 calls please? The original poster quoted a news report, how may times have you seen technically accurate news reports? I don't know the source of the report but I do know that some people think the the whole internet is down when only it is their connection. In this case (someone saying that the port authority had shutdown cellphone access) there are so many possible interpretations that it is impossible to really know without firsthand knowledge. Speculation as to how, is just as bad as speculation as to why (which is why I jumped into this cat fight). -Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving, slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone drivers) Not really relevant to the discussion at hand. Mom? :-) --- notice the smiley -Jim P.
Re: London incidents
Francesco Usseglio Gaudi wrote: My little experience is that cell phones are in the most of cases nearly congenstion: a simple crow of people calling all together can shut down or delay every calls and sms GSM networks running TFR or EFR audio codecs have 8 timeslots on a cell. Usual 900MHz frequency allocation plans allow for 4-5 usable cells but most handsets try only the two with best reception to get an available timeslot. If you happen to be in a neighborhood with 850/1900 or 900/1800 service, the odds of having more capacity available are better. This translates to 16 people with the same network dialing simultaneously can congest the two local cells. Almost all GSM networks implement emergency priority where a call with the bit set will pre-empt capacity in the primary cell. Some handset firmware can be modified to set the neccessary bit on demand. Not sure how long one would get away with it or if the BTS firmware would check the number dialed before granting pre-emption. Pete
Re: London incidents
On Jul 12, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: Billions of dollars, millions of person-hours, and more frustration than I can quantify is not a good price to pay for the infinitesimal increase in security (if any) we have received through decisions like this one. How can you accurately know this? I think you are just presuming, but you (like I) will never really truly know. We don't like spending that money, but we have no proof that not spending it is better. We can all agree that it could probably be spent wiser, but this is the US Government. To date, the TSA, the OMB, Congress, the FBI, and the CIA all agree that the TSA has not made us any safer. (Note the first department in that list.) Of course, maybe we averted World War III, but everyone who's been asked (including the security people themselves), and real-world tests of our security efforts, show that we are not any safer. IOW: No, it is not a presumption. I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again before doing something? AFAIK Emergency Only mode allows for 911 calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving good again. Your logic is ... illogical. If you cannot see why, I will not be able to explain it to you. (But you probably feel safer knowing I can't pack a Zippo in my checked in baggage.) No, your logic is ... illogical.., and I will not show you where. ;-) Others in the thread have shown fallacies in your argument. I am sorry you did not understand them. As for the Emergency Only mode, the original poster said _power was cut_ to the repeaters. Could you explain to me how this allows for 911 calls please? The original poster quoted a news report, how may times have you seen technically accurate news reports? I don't know the source of the report but I do know that some people think the the whole internet is down when only it is their connection. In this case (someone saying that the port authority had shutdown cellphone access) there are so many possible interpretations that it is impossible to really know without firsthand knowledge. Speculation as to how, is just as bad as speculation as to why (which is why I jumped into this cat fight). I was not speculating. From the post: Then we have this: http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/tunnels.cell.phones.ap/index.html The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs area transit hubs, bridges and tunnels, decided last Thursday to indefinitely sever power to transmitters providing wireless service in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, spokesman Tony Ciavolella said Monday. The Port Authority spokesman said they decided to indefinitely sever power to transmitters. The source seems reliable, knowledgeable, and specific. So you jumped into this cat fight by speculating on something when you had an authoritative source with good, specific information. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: London incidents
On 2005-07-12-12:56:42, Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the Emergency Only mode, the original poster said _power was cut_ to the repeaters. Could you explain to me how this allows for 911 calls please? The original poster quoted a news report, how may times have you seen technically accurate news reports? I don't know the source of the report but I do know that some people think the the whole internet is down when only it is their connection. In this case (someone saying that the port authority had shutdown cellphone access) there are so many possible interpretations that it is impossible to really know without firsthand knowledge. Speculation as to how, is just as bad as speculation as to why (which is why I jumped into this cat fight). When I was in the Lincoln Tunnel yesterday, my Cingular (GSM) phone clearly reported that it had no service, not even SOS-only mode. As I understand it, cellular service in the tunnels is provided by cells co-located in the Weehawken, NJ and New York City, NY vent buildings, with leaky coax cable shared by all carriers running inside the tubes. Since the vent buildings are owned operated by the NY/NJ Port Authority, it seems conceivable they could have pulled the power if they wanted to. Whether or not they did is best left as an exercise for the nanog-l army of political commentators and counter-terrorism specialists... Hope this helps, -a
Re: London incidents
On 07/12/2005 13:51 PM, Adam Rothschild allegedly wrote: Since the vent buildings are owned operated by the NY/NJ Port Authority, it seems conceivable they could have pulled the power if they wanted to. Whether or not they did is best left as an exercise for the nanog-l army of political commentators and counter-terrorism specialists... Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off.
Re: London incidents
--- Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was not speculating. From the post: Then we have this: http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/tunnels.cell.phones.ap/index.html The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs area transit hubs, bridges and tunnels, decided last Thursday to indefinitely sever power to transmitters providing wireless service in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, spokesman Tony Ciavolella said Monday. The Port Authority spokesman said they decided to indefinitely sever power to transmitters. The source seems reliable, knowledgeable, and specific. So you jumped into this cat fight by speculating on something when you had an authoritative source with good, specific information. Personal attacks/differences aside.. you need to read that article. It in no way is specific about any one thing. There are several tunnels in NYC, some which the article says have had power severed and some which they say have suspended mobile service (what if the reporter got them mixed up? which tunnel are you speaking to? etc., etc.). There is also quite a few other open-ended statments like who ordered the service to be shut off, and then their is the final paragraph which seems to refute your claim that some higher US government power orchestrated this whole thing (presumably to get under your skin) I stand by my claim that, in the absense of more data, speculation on why is best left to others. I am not going to second guess their every decision until such time that I have as much info as they do. I'm sure they are not perfect, so I don't expect perfection either. YMMV. -Jim P.
Re: London incidents
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott W Brim writes: On 07/12/2005 13:51 PM, Adam Rothschild allegedly wrote: Since the vent buildings are owned operated by the NY/NJ Port Authority, it seems conceivable they could have pulled the power if they wanted to. Whether or not they did is best left as an exercise for the nanog-l army of political commentators and counter-terrorism specialists... Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off. Partially restored: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/nyregion/12cell.html --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: London incidents
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off. Partially restored: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/nyregion/12cell.html And as is commonplace with this kind of gross technology botch, everybody's pointing his finger in the direction of the guy on my left. -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: London incidents
I'm with stupid. ;-) - ferg -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off. Partially restored: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/nyregion/12cell.html And as is commonplace with this kind of gross technology botch, everybody's pointing his finger in the direction of the guy on my left.
Re: London incidents
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: The problem with mobile phones in the car has less to do with taking a person's hand off the wheel (although that is something to be concerned about), and more to do with the fact that the driver is distracted by talking to the person on the other end. They say this, but it doesn't work that way for me, as a datapoint. It's not the conversation that's the big thing, IME; it's *holding a phone up to your ear*, which is an action we train ourselves to follow up with *ignoring what's going on around us*. When I talk while driving *without* a headset, my driving's usually fine... it's my *navigation* that fails totally. Using a headset, both are fine. YMMV. Shutting down the networks just because they can be used to trigger a bomb is asinine, though, yes. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: London incidents
- Original Message - From: Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: Re: London incidents On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: The problem with mobile phones in the car has less to do with taking a person's hand off the wheel (although that is something to be concerned about), and more to do with the fact that the driver is distracted by talking to the person on the other end. They say this, but it doesn't work that way for me, as a datapoint. It's not the conversation that's the big thing, IME; it's *holding a phone up to your ear*, which is an action we train ourselves to follow up with *ignoring what's going on around us*. When I talk while driving *without* a headset, my driving's usually fine... it's my *navigation* that fails totally. Using a headset, both are fine. YMMV. Shutting down the networks just because they can be used to trigger a bomb is asinine, though, yes. Its the first step toward the Police State mentality that I fear is going to develop over time. And damned if I know what to do about it. But the enhanced security required when crossing borders now is case in point. Are they just going to keep on locking down all the freedoms which we've come to enjoy in the last 50 years, in order to prevent their use in assistance of, or vulnerability to, terrorist activity? Thats a _big_ can of worms. Funny the cellphone stuff is being discussed, tho - Local Media had this today: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3343357a11,00.html People using cellphones while driving are four times more likely to have a serious crash than non-users, and using a hands-free phone does not lower the risk, new research has found. The British Medical Journal has today published the results of a Perth study of drivers using cellphones who have been involved in road crashes requiring hospital treatment. Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. This was associated with a four-fold increased likelihood of crashing, and the risk was irrespective of age, sex or whether the phone was hands-free. Researchers said more new vehicles were being equipped with hands-free technology. Although this could lead to fewer hand-held phones in cars, the study showed it might not eliminate the risk. I'm saddened by it, because IMHO people who let their driving suffer through cellphone use have gotten it the wrong way around. Personally I let my conversation skills slip :) Safer that way. Seems to make sense. Or is that just too obvious? Mark.
Re: London incidents
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:26:33AM +1200, Mark Foster wrote: Shutting down the networks just because they can be used to trigger a bomb is asinine, though, yes. Its the first step toward the Police State mentality that I fear is going to develop over time. And damned if I know what to do about it. Well, the terrorists wanted to deprive us of the freedoms we enjoy, and they've talked us into doing the hard parts for them... but I see no way to configure a router to enhance personal freedom, so I guess we'll take this subthread off list. ;-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: London incidents
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again before doing something? The logical conclusion to that line of thought would seem to be that all cell phone services should be turned off in all densely populated areas. Is this really what we want? Doesn't Al Queda use the Internet to communicate? Probably would be a good idea to shut that down too... - -- Chris A. Epler [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP KeyID: 0xBD1BE609 HostMySite.com - Network Operations| 6092 42BA 666E 73CF 91C9 UGZY znvy vf gur fcnja bs FNGNA! | 34AC 38D5 DDBA BD1B E609 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC1DahONXdur0b5gkRAsxwAKCToM7KwFw8dmDTNgn9SgvnBT3LpgCfUcNo iF2LDCsCvSTps6wKFnun+x0= =47na -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: London incidents
Mark Foster wrote: Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. There are 3 kinds of lies: lies damn lies statistics They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. This was associated with a four-fold increased likelihood of crashing, and the risk was irrespective of age, sex or whether the phone was hands-free. Researchers said more new vehicles were being equipped with hands-free technology. Although this could lead to fewer hand-held phones in cars, the study showed it might not eliminate the risk. Coincidence != cause and effect. Despite all these studies saying that cell phone use causes accidents, the overall accident rate is NOT going up. Therefore, the cell phone using drivers who get in accidents are drivers who would have been in an accident *anyway*. They are inattentive drivers. Take away their cell phones and they will get in accidents while driving and eating, or driving and tuning the radio, or driving and arguing with a passenger. Take the above four-fold increase. Suppose you go BACK a step and find out why they were making a phone call within the 10 minutes before a crash. Odds are that the reason they made the phone call is highly related to the reason they got in a crash - they were running late - their boss called and yelled at them (employee) - they called home and were chewed out for not being home yet (teenager) - just had an argument with spouse, etc. So after engaging in a call of this nature (while driving or while NOT driving), they are more likely to get in an accident due to being upset and/or in a hurry. The *cell* phone use was totally incidental, rather than cause/effect. jc
Re: London incidents
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said: Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. And the *other* 2/3rd of the calls were made on what, exactly? A land line just before departure, followed by a crash less than 10 minutes into the drive? (This would tie in well with the agitated by the phone call theory advanced by JC Dill...) pgpYeIXmiOInM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: London incidents
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said: Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. And the *other* 2/3rd of the calls were made on what, exactly? A land line just before departure, followed by a crash less than 10 minutes into the drive? (This would tie in well with the agitated by the phone call theory advanced by JC Dill...) Oh, gawd. Now I have to go read it myself. You can track this down pretty easily at the BMJ site, bmj.com, and download a PDF version. It's only 5 pages long. I don't see where they got that one third of the calls number above. As far as I can tell, the study only looks at mobile phone calls. As for the inattentive-risky driver and agitated driver theories, the researchers took (tried to take) this into acount by using a case-crossover design whereby individual drivers are their own control. Feel free to argue the results of the study, but read the study, not some confused newspaper summary, and please don't do it on NANOG. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387
Re: London incidents
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Valdis.Kletni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --==_Exmh_1121206268_8796P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said: Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. And the *other* 2/3rd of the calls were made on what, exactly? A land line just before departure, followed by a crash less than 10 minutes in to the drive? (This would tie in well with the agitated by the phone call theor y advanced by JC Dill...) Sure, but there have been other studies *on simulators* that show similar effects: it's the call, not the handset, that causes the problem. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: London incidents
Jim Popovitch wrote: I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again before doing something? AFAIK Emergency Only mode allows for 911 calls, And means nothing if power is cut to the cell sites and you can't connect to anything. Emergency mode only works where there is a signal. -Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving, slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone drivers) Well, Jim, it's a good thing that your dislike of cellphone drivers isn't completely orthogonal to this discussion, eh? It also doesn't make you sound biased. -- JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) Life's like an hourglass glued to the table --Anna Nalick, Breathe
Re: London incidents
On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. And the *other* 2/3rd of the calls were made on what, exactly? A land line just before departure, followed by a crash less than 10 minutes into the drive? (This would tie in well with the agitated by the phone call theory advanced by JC Dill...) Landline *during* the drive. Long extension cord. Really yanks the steering wheel around when you reach the end.(This probably wouldn't become any more operationally relevant if I noted that analog land lines avoid the need for IPv6 VOIP header overhead) Some fraction of phone calls made immediately before driving are conversations about Please get here right away or sorry, I'm N minutes late but I'm leaving now, which don't lead to safe driving Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: London incidents
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:11:09PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said: Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. And the *other* 2/3rd of the calls were made on what, exactly? A land line just before departure, followed by a crash less than 10 minutes into the drive? (This would tie in well with the agitated by the phone call theory advanced by JC Dill...) No doubt VOIP via satellite or other wireless LAN ... an exciting concept, no? And putatively even on topic. -- Joe Yao --- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
RE: London incidents
Mobile networks in particular have been put under pressure as people use their phones to contact friends and family following the explosions. Luckily, I was 10 minutes late leaving home otherwise I could very well have been on that first train which was attacked near Aldgate. When the Central Line shut down, I tried to get a bus, and when all the bus service into central London was shut down I gave up and started walking home. I suspected that the rumours of terrorist attack were true. All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my mobile to ring the office. Finally, I decided to try sending a text message and this worked. Text messages normally are delivered virtually instantaneously and there is a time stamp indicating when the message was sent. During the morning and early afternoon of Thursday, I was receiving text messages that had been sent between 20 minutes and one hour previous. Some of the problems on the mobile networks were the result of a protocol to reserve mobile capabilities for the emergency services. The police have the authority to switch cells to emergency service and then people with specially registered SIM cards in their mobile can take priority. Presumably, some amount of capacity is also held in reserve for these people as well. I had moved the weekend before and my landline was not yet installed. Also, I live near a large hospital. I noticed that my mobile didn't function at all even late on Thursday unless I left home and travelled a kilometer or two from the hospital. Presumably, the cells in this suburban location had also been switched to emergency service. --Michael Dillon
RE: London incidents
At 10:40 AM +0100 2005-07-11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of the problems on the mobile networks were the result of a protocol to reserve mobile capabilities for the emergency services. The police have the authority to switch cells to emergency service and then people with specially registered SIM cards in their mobile can take priority. Presumably, some amount of capacity is also held in reserve for these people as well. Yes, a certain amount of capacity can be placed on reserve for the holders of priority access SIMs. You only get those issued to you by the government. This can include critical emergency services personnel, selected government officials, important members of the financial services community, etc I don't know the specifics of how much capacity is reserved, but this sort of thing has been done on telecommunications networks for a long time. Back before cell phones existed, you could have flash traffic on the DDN or even the PSTN, and when placing a flash call the phone system would disconnect anyone that stood in your way of getting the connection you wanted. You had to be using special telephone equipment, or connected to a special operator with the right equipment, and you had damn well better be sure that your call was worthy of knocking anyone else off the network, but the capability was there. Even the President would normally make his calls at lower than flash priority. There were lower levels of priority that you could also use, but flash was the top one that I heard about. I had moved the weekend before and my landline was not yet installed. Also, I live near a large hospital. I noticed that my mobile didn't function at all even late on Thursday unless I left home and travelled a kilometer or two from the hospital. Presumably, the cells in this suburban location had also been switched to emergency service. Could be, but I'd be willing to bet it was more a matter of the cell just being overloaded. Traffic reservation for priority access SIMs is only going to take a small amount of the bandwidth available. The problem is that even normal heavy traffic can overload a cell, and what was seen during the time you're talking about was anything but normal heavy. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See http://www.sage.org/ for more info.
Re: London incidents
On 11-jul-2005, at 11:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had moved the weekend before and my landline was not yet installed. Also, I live near a large hospital. I noticed that my mobile didn't function at all even late on Thursday unless I left home and travelled a kilometer or two from the hospital. Presumably, the cells in this suburban location had also been switched to emergency service. A hospital using up emergency mode GSM capacity doesn't make much sense to me. You're not supposed to use cell phones in many places in hospitals, and the ones that I've seen have an ample supply of fixed lines that are cheaper, more reliable and pose less risk of interference with the equipment. It's probably just congestion. Cellular networks don't come close to being able to absorb the burstiness of the (potential) usage patterns in situations like this. (The bean counters don't like cell towers that are idle 99% of the time.) When all the time slots on all the sites in range are filled up you can't get through with voice or data, but SMS which just uses signalling still works. When it gets really bad the random access channel gets clogged and all mobile- intiated communication, including SMS, is dead in the water. (The random access channel is the one not under control of the network: handsets use it to signal their desire to communicate. As such, it is very prone to collisions and congestion collapse under heavy loads.)
RE: London incidents
Some of the problems on the mobile networks were the result of a protocol to reserve mobile capabilities for the emergency services. The police have the authority to switch cells to emergency service and then people with specially registered SIM cards in their mobile can take priority. Presumably, some amount of capacity is also held in reserve for these people as well. Requests from the police on specific SIM numbers on certain mobile networks whilst others applied such that you got no access to a cell site, others deployed a limit on normal SIM cards to limit the access down by 50% so that there was some level of service. Regards, Neil.
Re: London incidents
A hospital using up emergency mode GSM capacity doesn't make much sense to me. You're not supposed to use cell phones in many places in hospitals, and the ones that I've seen have an ample supply of fixed lines that are cheaper, more reliable and pose less risk of interference with the equipment. This was just a guess on my part because the congestion in this suburban area lasted well into the evening. The only time I was able to make phonecalls on my mobile was when I took a bus out of the area. I planned to travel away from the city to get away from mobile congestion but the phone started working again before I had gotten any further from the centre. However I had moved a km or two from the hospital. Later, I returned home and lost the ability to use the mobile even as late as 11:30 p.m. It's probably just congestion. Cellular networks don't come close to being able to absorb the burstiness of the (potential) usage patterns in situations like this. This, I understand. But it doesn't explain why this area would have suffered such a prolonged problem. When it gets really bad the random access channel gets clogged and all mobile- intiated communication, including SMS, is dead in the water. I never had a problem sending or receiving SMS other than the long delays. The people on the other end were near Aldgate on the edge of central London so even there, SMS was still functioning. It was an interesting experience which seems to show that it is better to have several completely different communications channels to choose from. In my case I had lost landline and DSL Internet access due to moving house, and I lost mobile voice access due to congestion. But SMS still functioned. I haven't heard of any Internet outages caused by the attacks although everyone who has travelled on the tube knows that there are lots of cables in the tunnels. Presumably, there are so many tunnels with cables that breaks in three places are easily covered by protection switching. --Michael Dillon
Re: London incidents
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There were lower levels of priority that you could also use, but flash was the top one that I heard about. The four buttons on the 1633 row of an AUTOVON telephone are labeled P, I, F, and FO for Priority, Immediate, Flash, and Flash-Override. The fifth (normal) level is of course routine, with no priority code attached. My understanding is that many (most?) phones could not issue the higher priority levels. Don't want some E-2 in a guard shack to misdial a number and knock off a four-star who's speaking with the Joint Chiefs. :) ---Rob
Re: London incidents
Most of the US Carriers have Priority systems setup on the Cell Networks for Government Users. You either enter in a Prefix code on your phone, or your phone's SIM id is registered as a priority user. Spencer Spencer Wood, Network Manager Ohio Department Of Transportation 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 614.644.5422/Fax: 614.887.4021/Cell: 614.774.3123 * Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/2005 07:05 PM To nanog@merit.edu cc Subject Re: London incidents On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: I wonder, has anyone ever prepared a best practices paper of some sort as to what can be expected in cases of big emergencies and mass hysteria, for networks? Yes, there have been several studies and papers about what happens to networks during public emergencies. Look at the FCC NRIC (www.nric.org) and the US National Academies of Science. Unfortunately, in the USA at least, the government is fixated on trying to force a particular solution instead of trying to understand the different problems. Some people think pre-emption is the answer, and have hired numerous consultants to try to push it through any standards group they can find.
Re: London incidents
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert E.Seastrom writes: Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There were lower levels of priority that you could also use, but flash was the top one that I heard about. The four buttons on the 1633 row of an AUTOVON telephone are labeled P, I, F, and FO for Priority, Immediate, Flash, and Flash-Override. The fifth (normal) level is of course routine, with no priority code attached. And those levels appear as the TOS bits in RFC 791 --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: London incidents
On 11-jul-2005, at 13:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A hospital using up emergency mode GSM capacity doesn't make much sense to me. This was just a guess on my part because the congestion in this suburban area lasted well into the evening. Could be lots of things. Maybe it was really the hospital, but then simply the people in the waiting area calling all over the place. Or maybe some completely unrelated problem with the cell network in your area. When it gets really bad the random access channel gets clogged and all mobile- intiated communication, including SMS, is dead in the water. I never had a problem sending or receiving SMS other than the long delays. The people on the other end were near Aldgate on the edge of central London so even there, SMS was still functioning. Follow the money... At several hundreds of your favorite currency unit per megabyte, I'm not surprised they manage to keep this service running. Here in the Netherlands we had free airtime for a few hours at the beginning of the new year several times, and it was interesting to see what this did to the networks.
Re: London incidents
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert E.Seastrom writes: Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There were lower levels of priority that you could also use, but flash was the top one that I heard about. The four buttons on the 1633 row of an AUTOVON telephone are labeled P, I, F, and FO for Priority, Immediate, Flash, and Flash-Override. The fifth (normal) level is of course routine, with no priority code attached. And those levels appear as the TOS bits in RFC 791 Yes, but nobody ever wrote a song about the TOS bits in Internet Protocol (this song dates to 1980): http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00182.html ---Rob
Re: London incidents
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 09:21:24AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom allegedly wrote: Yes, but nobody ever wrote a song about the TOS bits in Internet Protocol (this song dates to 1980): http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00182.html If anyone has the words to Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory of the Architectural View, please let me know.
Re: London incidents
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: I don't know the specifics of how much capacity is reserved, but this sort of thing has been done on telecommunications networks for a long time. Back before cell phones existed, you could have flash traffic on the DDN or even the PSTN, and when placing a flash call the phone system would disconnect anyone that stood in your way of getting the connection you wanted. You had to be using special telephone equipment, or connected to a special operator with the right equipment, and you had damn well better be sure that your call was worthy of knocking anyone else off the network, but the capability was there. Even the President would normally make his calls at lower than flash priority. See also http://tsp.ncs.gov/ and http://wps.ncs.gov/ , as well as http://www.disa.mil/gs/dsn/tut_mlpp.html and http://www.disa.mil/gs/dsn/tut_precedence.html which explain those Fo, F, I and P keys on AutoVON 16-button WECo 2500s. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: London incidents
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 12:31:35PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was an interesting experience which seems to show that it is better to have several completely different communications channels to choose from. In my case I had lost landline and DSL Internet access due to moving house, and I lost mobile voice access due to congestion. But SMS still functioned. The lower the bandwidth channel, the less likely it is to break. Cheers, -- jr 'cf: Morse Code' a -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
RE: London incidents
All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my mobile to ring the office. Some cell relays were temporarily shut to prevent a remote detonation of additional explosives. Cellular remotes seem to be a favorite of Al Qaeda and others. -M
RE: London incidents
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my mobile to ring the office. Some cell relays were temporarily shut to prevent a remote detonation of additional explosives. Cellular remotes seem to be a favorite of Al Qaeda and others. UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service.
RE: London incidents
Would the folks posting news related events please footnote source URLS, especially if arguing over factual details? Thanks. - billn On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my mobile to ring the office. Some cell relays were temporarily shut to prevent a remote detonation of additional explosives. Cellular remotes seem to be a favorite of Al Qaeda and others. UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service.
Re: London incidents
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Nash writ es: Would the folks posting news related events please footnote source URLS, especially if arguing over factual details? http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39150177,00.htm has what Sean was referring to. - billn On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my mobile to ring the office. Some cell relays were temporarily shut to prevent a remote detonation of additional explosives. Cellular remotes seem to be a favorite of Al Qaeda and others. UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service. http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39150177,00.htm --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: London incidents
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Gadi Evron wrote: I wonder, has anyone ever prepared a best practices paper of some sort as to what can be expected in cases of big emergencies and mass hysteria, for networks? Yes, there have been several studies and papers about what happens to networks during public emergencies. Look at the FCC NRIC (www.nric.org) and the US National Academies of Science. Unfortunately, in the USA at least, the government is fixated on trying to force a particular solution instead of trying to understand the different problems. Some people think pre-emption is the answer, and have hired numerous consultants to try to push it through any standards group they can find.
London incidents
A number of explosion incidents have happened in London affecting the tube causing website and mobile phone saturation and some localised issues with the PSTN. From here we are able to route calls ok and networks seems a little busier, The BBC and Sky TV websites are very busy. Regards, Neil.
Re: London incidents
At 11:13 AM +0100 2005-07-07, Neil J. McRae wrote: A number of explosion incidents have happened in London affecting the tube causing website and mobile phone saturation and some localised issues with the PSTN. From here we are able to route calls ok and networks seems a little busier, The BBC and Sky TV websites are very busy. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4659093.stm: Thursday, 7 July, 2005, 10:03 GMT 11:03 UK Multiple blasts paralyse London Several people have been injured after explosions on the Underground network and a double-decker bus in London. A police spokesman said there were quite a large number of casualties at Aldgate Tube Station. And Scotland Yard confirmed one of several reports of explosions on buses in the city - in Tavistock Place - but said the cause was not yet known. UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke said several explosions in central London had caused terrible injuries. The health services are in support to deal with the terrible injuries that there have been, Clarke told reporters outside Downing Street. Number 10 said it was still unsure whether the explosions were a terrorist attack and although casualties were reported, no further details were yet available. [...] British Transport Police said incidents took place at Aldgate, Edgware Road, King's Cross, Old Street and Russell Square stations. Scotland Yard confirmed they were assisting with a major incident and said there were casualties. Hospitals have said they are no longer accepting non-emergency cases, BBC Five Live reported. The National Grid, which supplies power to the Underground, said there had been no problems with its system which could have contributed to the incidents. [ ... ] The Underground Tube system is completely closed, the buses are not running, all public transport is shut down. Police spokespeople have requested that citizens do not call the Emergency Services number unless there is an immediate life-threatening situation, and that if you are not hurt, you should stay wherever you are, stay safe, and do not travel. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See http://www.sage.org/ for more info.
RE: London incidents
Mobile networks have been switched in to emergency services only owing to congestion and concern that devices may be activated by mobile. However the cause of some of the these incidents is still not clear.
RE: London incidents
Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone in London. with regard to telecommunications services, Tim Richardson writes in The Register: [snip] Phone networks have been jammed today following a series of blasts that hit London's public transport network this morning. Mobile networks in particular have been put under pressure as people use their phones to contact friends and family following the explosions. In a statement Vodafone said: Understandably we are experiencing significant network congestion but we are working closely with the emergency services. In these circumstances, we would ask all of our customers in Central London to avoid making unnecessary or lengthy phone calls. BT has also reported that its network is intact although it is witnessing a massive spike in calls. [snip] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/07/london_phone/ - ferg -- Neil J. McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mobile networks have been switched in to emergency services only owing to congestion and concern that devices may be activated by mobile. However the cause of some of the these incidents is still not clear. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: London incidents
Neil J. McRae wrote: A number of explosion incidents have happened in London affecting the tube causing website and mobile phone saturation and some localised issues with the PSTN. From here we are able to route calls ok and networks seems a little busier, The BBC and Sky TV websites are very busy. When 9/11 happened people in the US were surprised about the phone systems going down and there being silence, i.e. no tone when you pick up the phone. In Israel, unfortunately, we are pretty used to such events and what follows technically. I wonder, has anyone ever prepared a best practices paper of some sort as to what can be expected in cases of big emergencies and mass hysteria, for networks? Thanks, Gadi.
