deles...@gmail.com wrote: > 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.
Internet lawyering is a different mailing list... joel > 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 > >
