Not to turn this into an ethical typ discussion but this arguement would have to assume you could sue the telco not the 'vandal' due to a loss of life if it occured, and that, that dollar amt would be greater then 'securing' all cables.
The cost to fix all pintos' gas tanks was only $11 per car unit and it was gambled, though they lost it was cheeper then the lawsuits, I'm betting the while fewer units, its order of magnatitudes more then 11$ per unit to 'secure' access points with a lot less certain negative lawsuit outcomes. Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -----Original Message----- From: Ravi Pina <r...@cow.org> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:51:16 To: JC Dill<jcdill.li...@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes! On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:22:41PM -0700, JC Dill wrote: > Ravi Pina wrote: > > > >That said one would *hope* vault access > >is not trivial and there are mechanisms in place to alert of > >unauthorized, unlawful entry. > > I regularly drove on these roads when these lines were being put in > up-and-down the SF Peninsula. There are 4 manhole covers every 1/4 mile > or so that provide access to this fiber. Do the math. Multiply by the > number of miles of fiber runs across the world, and the number of access > points per mile on each run. Exactly how do you plan to make "vault > access non-trivial" and yet make the access as easy as it needs to be > for routine maintenance and repair? Having never been in a vault or know how to get in one other than apparently lifting a manhole cover I can't possible answer that with anything more than guessing. > My guess is that it is probably less expensive in the long run to leave > them unprotected and just fix the problems when they occur than to try > to "secure" the vaults and deal with the costs and extended outage > delays when access it "secured" and it takes longer to get into a vault > to fix things. I wasn't thinking Exodus/C&W/SAVVIS/Whoever level security, but considering communications cables traverse such sites it is hardly unreasonable to think they could implement some alarm that is centrally monitored by a NOC. I'm guessing *anything* is better than what appears to be the *nothing* that is in place now. Also not to get sensationalist, but less expensive than a life that could be lost if an emergency call can't be put through? -r
