Fiber Optic Cable System Vandalism A National Security Problem

 

More at Zennie62.com

At YouTube, Yahoo, MySpace, Metacafe, DailyMotion, Blip.tv, Stupid Videos, Sclipo, Viddler and Howcast

On Thursday April 9th a criminal incident impacting nearly a million people in three counties of Silicon Valley went largely unnoticed by the media, both mainstream and blogs, yet has enormous national security implications far beyond the scale and scope of September 11th 2001 or "9-11" and potentially impacting millions of Americans. What was it and why?

On that day, someone one or a group of people cut a fiber-optic and landline network placed beneath a manhole cover in San Jose, California. No one knows who did it, but the act crippled operations in hospitals, stores, banks, and supermarkets. No one could make a call using a cell phone or regular phone, or get information from the Internet. The full extent of the impact of this act is as of this writing not known, but imagine not being able to call the police or the fire department or your loved one for any reason especially if they need your help. And forget using "Skype", the Internet phone service, because access to the Internet itself was down.

That's what happened yesterday.

To explain the importance of this, I go back in time in my own life, to 1988.

Then, I worked a temporary job at a firm called "The San Francisco Consulting Group" (SFCG) in of course San Francisco, California, and which still exists. (I must report I write this without contact with anyone at the firm. My friend who was a partner there and told the firm to work with me, Michael Taylor, passed away due to brain cancer in 2003 and who's survived by his wife and my friend Sandra Taylor.)

In an innocent conversation the human resources representative discovered that the person hired to help them with spreadsheets - me - was using a software program called "STELLA", knew the modeling paradigm "System Dynamics" or "SD" and as it happens "SD" was used by SFCG, so my value immediately increased dramatically. Michael and his staff wanted to use System Dynamics to make this "economic soft landing" computer simulation for a client.

What was changing is the provision of access by long distance companies to the cable fiber-optic lines owned by AT&T. With all of these companies now able to "poach" off lines owned by AT&T, the firm was certain to lose money, the question was "how much."


At the time, the Internet was not invented by Al Gore, but the fact was then and is now that national communications depend on the same fiber-optic and coaxial cables that are mostly owned by AT&T and were vandalized in San Jose.

In 2006, I pointed to the communications system that was established as vulnerable to attack by a hacker. I wrote in my Zennie62.com blog:

The Old Economy firms are threatened by the continuation of a process that started almost 20 years ago: the constant and inexorable decrease in market value that they have suffered since the mid-80s. A chain of events started when the Federal Government forced the then-powerful AT&T to share its cable lines with other long distance providers as part of the breakup of AT&T. Ever since that point in the early 70s, the "Baby Bells" have been trying to slow the rate of decrease in market share and in any way.


Now, the only proof I have of this is rather powerful. In 1988 I was to be hired as part of a consulting team led by The San Francisco Consulting Group. I was to constuct a System Dynamics model of the US long distance telephone industry. That team was to determine how the market for long distance service was changing and how the client -- GTE -- should respond to this change. In other words, how they should achieve "a soft landing" as their market share decreased. The schematic I created for the model was formed to have a pattern of numerical behavior such that each long distance company was losing market share as new players arrived on the scene.


That was before the emergence of the Internet, which didn't become a major factor in how we communicate until 1995. But after that year, the number of Internet-equipped computers increased dramatically, as did the number of Internet-based services and companies. In 10 years, we've went from dial up to DSL to Broadband, and the one constant in this process has been the use of phone lines used by companies like AT&T.


Ever hungry for new forms of revenue generation, the firms that provide Broadband service -- and standard telephone service -- saw a way to cut off competition from the "Vonages" of the World: force them to pay for faster Internet speeds.

In this, they found the perfect driver to increase revenues and at the same time hamper the growth of the Global Economy. It's easier now than even before in our history for a small business to have a global reach using the World Wide Web. The cost barrier to entry for many is close to zero if one knows how to find the free services needed.


But from the perspective of thee AT&T's of the World, their revenue gain would be unescapable; absent a way of hacking the system, billions of users would have to pay them for faster access, thus introducing a new barrier to entry for small companies in the Global market.

To put it simply and to repeat my message folks, the fiber-optic cable lines that AT&T  created in the late 40s and up to the 80s and then had to share with new firms in the 90s and beyond, that sunk infrastructure of lines that carry the information that makes up what we call the World Wide Web, and the cell phone and telephone communications industry is still largely concentrated in the same system that was the victim of vandals in Silicon Valley on Thursday.  But when the matter of security has been discussed in the past, it was always from the perspective of stealing information from the network, not destroying it as was the case on April 9th. 

All the vandals did yesterday was open a manhole cover, go down below ground to the space under the streets that holds our fiber-optic system, find the lines, and cut them, then escape the scene of the crime just by climbing our and running away from the scene of the crime. Again, no suspects were captured as of this writing. No security camera was in place to "see" the crime. No locks on the manhole covers. Nothing. A group of people went in and then got out and crippled much of Silicon Valley's economy and lifestyle in the process. But it could have caused the loss of life just be not being able to contact and help someone in need.

And to add insult to injury, the talks about fiber-optic security that are available online only concern someone tapping the lines to get information, not destroying them altogether. The assumption is others will want to maintain the lines, but that's a terrible guess to make. This act of vandalism proves that there are people who want to cripple our economy and may have stumbled on something. We have to stop them.

How do we know this wasn't a dry run for some larger act of vandalism? Sorry to be a conspriracy theorist, but hey, I've got reasonable evidence to back my concern. I now state that a well-financed anti-USA terrorist effort could successfully cripple much of America's Internet and communications infrastructure in much the same way that vandals damaged fiber-optic cables on Thursday. Prove me wrong. Where's your counter-evidence?

This is such an important issue that the Federal Government, and specifically the Federal Communications Commission should work with the Department of Homeland Security to first eliminate the development of an Internet access system that's in the control of a few large corporations because of the problem of having such an important system concentrated in the hands of a few.  It's not that they're bad; it's a matter of protection. 

Municipalities should call for an end to Comcasts' exclusive control of cable access in cities like Oakland. The overall objective must be decentralization and redundancy (in other words having more than one of the same lines) of Internet-related access and control. We have to lay new lines of cable to act as a replacement and redundancy system for what's there now and make sure that those lines are secure from vandalism -- right now, given the events of Thursday April 9th, I write with great concern that our national system of fiber-optic cables is not secure and subject to attack.

I welcome anyone out there to prove I'm wrong. I already have my example of why I'm right in San Jose -- where's your proof?

Follow me on Twitter | Video on YouTube

Tired Of Fox and CNN Covered Bias - Well FCC Let's Them Own Newspapers Now

The FCC changed a 32-year-old ban on broadcasters -- who mine the TV airwaves -- from owning newspapers, opening the door to a major round of media consolidation. I personally think this is a terrible blow to the power of New Media to give the "little gal" a voice, as it allows big media to get, well, bigger. The only solace I take is that many employees of large broadcasters and newspapers still don't know what they're doing when it comes to New Media.

Here's the rest of the story from the SF Chronicle:

(12-18) 10:58 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The Federal Communications Commission, overturning a 32-year-old ban, voted Tuesday to allow broadcasters in the nation's 20 largest media markets to also own a newspaper.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin was joined by his two Republican colleagues in favor of the proposal, while the commission's two Democrats voted against it.
Martin pushed the vote through despite intense pressure from House and Senate members on Capitol Hill to delay it. The chairman, however, has the support of the White House, which has pledged to turn back any congressional action that seeks to undo the agency vote.
At Tuesday's meeting, the chairman described the media ownership proceeding as "the most contentious and divisive issue" to come before him.
That proved true as the two Democrats in the commission blasted the proposal in unusually strong language for the normally sedate agency.
Martin, noting the steady decline in revenue for newspapers, said his proposal "strikes a balance" between the changing media marketplace and the need to protect diversity and competition.
The Democrats blasted the chairman for making changes to the proposal "in the dead of night" and just before the meeting that created new ownership loopholes instead of closing them, as he pledged during a recent hearing on Capitol Hill.
"Anybody who thinks our processes are open, thoughtful or deliberative should think twice in light of these nocturnal escapades," said Democrat Jonathan Adelstein.
The Democrat said Martin's proposal "will allow for waivers for six new newspaper-broadcast combinations and 36 grandfathered stations."
Copps described the commission's action as a "terrible decision."
"In the final analysis, the real winners today are businesses that are in many cases quite healthy, and the real losers are going to be all of us who depend on the news media to learn what's happening in our communities and to keep an eye on local government," he said.
Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate described the process as "transparent and thorough." She said the changes proposed are narrow, and hinted she was in favor of a greater liberalization of the media ownership rules.
Fellow Republican Commission Robert McDowell also defended the proposal noted the explosion of new media in the modern marketplace and denied the proposal was "pockmarked with loopholes" as claimed by the Democrats.
Martin, addressing the comment about the new markets, said the great majority were existing combinations that predated the 1975 ownership ban. The others are apparently for stations that are operating under existing waivers.
The cross-ownership ban was approved by the FCC in 1975 to serve "the twin goals of diversity of viewpoints and economic competition." The FCC at the time noted that "it is unrealistic to expect true diversity from a commonly owned station-newspaper combination."
Opponents of the ban say in the past decade there has been an explosion of news outlets thanks to cable television and the Internet and that such restrictions are no longer necessary. Ban supporters say there may be additional outlets, but there has been no corresponding increase in news gatherers and producers, especially at the local level.
On Monday, 25 senators, including four Republicans, sent Martin a letter threatening that if he goes ahead with the vote, they will move legislation to revoke the rule and nullify the commission's action.
But a letter that surfaced late Monday makes it clear the chairman has the full support of the White House. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez wrote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Dec. 4 opposing a Senate bill that would have delayed the vote, "or any other attempt to delay or overturn these revised rules by legislative means."
The agency first tried to loosen the ban in 2003, but the move was rejected by a federal appeals court. Since then, the commissioners have been trying to craft a new set of rules that will survive judicial scrutiny.
Under Martin's proposal, one entity would be permitted to own a newspaper and one broadcast station in the same market.
But it must be among the 20 largest in the nation and following the transaction, at least eight independently owned-and-operated media voices must remain. In addition, the television station may not be among the top four in the market.