NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Readout 1 P. S. Sahni Focus Group 1 Chair July 14, 1999 (Day 170)

1

NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Readout


P. S. SahniFocus Group 1 Chair July 14, 1999 (Day 170)

2


Outline• Focus Group 1 Key Messages P. Sahni (AT&T)

•Assessment Subcommittee Readout Gerry Roth (GTE)

• Testing Subcommittee Readout L. Scerbo (Telcordia)

• Contingency Planning Subcommittee Readout Ronnie Lee Bennett (Lucent)

3


Key Messages Assessment Update (1 of 3)Domestic

• Major Carriers– Major carriers (both LECS and IXCs) currently are estimated to be 98+ % complete with their remediation and implementation programs– September 1999 is the current target for major carriers to be 100% complete with their remediation and Implementations program

• Mid / Small Local Exchange Carriers– No new information available to the committee for this report– Mid and Small sized carriers are forecasting completion by 3Q/4Q 1999

– FCC is confirming thru a survey issued at end of June; results due in July– USTA is polling key members for status: July - August– NARUC working on state-by-state readiness assessment: July- Aug

– Updated information will be available for the next NRIC report in October 1999

4


Key Messages Assessment Update (2 of 3)International Risk profile of the International traffic (~ 32B minutes*) to/from United States has improved:

• High Traffic Volume Countries: 90% (29B minutes) of US international traffic is from 53 countries ( with >100M minutes) International Traffic RisK Profile

34%20%

48%

29%

18%

51%

March June

Low RiskMedium RiskHigh Risk

* Source: Telegeography, Inc

5


Key Messages Assessment Update (3 of 3)

International

• Low Traffic Volume Countries: 10% (3B mitt) of US international traffic is from 165 countries (with <100M minutes)

– 67% of countries still remain in High Risk

6


Key Messages Testing Update

• Domestic– Testing coverage spans the majority of Access and Inter-Exchange switch and signaling vendors. No significant inter-operability testing gaps identified.– Interoperability testing by Major LECS and IXCs has been completed or scheduled. It is believed that additional testing is not warranted.– Testing by Mid/Small sized carriers is planned for 3Q/4Q.

• International– Testing completed to date under the auspices of ITU includes major International Gateway switch vendor equipment and North American service providers. Good testing coverage and progressing on schedule.

7


Key MessagesContingency Planning

• Industry Information Sharing– NRIC and USTA jointly sponsored a Contingency Planning Workshop on April 27 (Herndon, VA), to enhance Telco industry awareness and understanding of the Y2K Contingency Planning– Contingency Planning Guidelines and “What If” Scenarios on the NRIC Web site (URL - nric.org)

• Communications Plan – NCC/NCS act as the focal point for data collection (both from domestic and foreign sources) and notification, using NCC Y2K data base.– Participants include some major LECs, IXCs, Industry Forums, ITU members, and Government Agencies. – NCC will share information with FCC, Information Coordination Center (ICC), and participants– Medium and Small carriers do not have a viable approach for participation. USTA is exploring information posting on web.

8


Key Messages

Overall AssessmentDomestic:• Risk of Failure of the Domestic PSTN is minimal. • Lack of information from Mid/Small carriers is a concern.

International:• Risk of international call failure between the North America region and other world regions is minimal. • Some of the potential impacts include:

– Call setup delay due to network congestion in some foreign networks– Degradation of service quality over time due to non-compliant components of some foreign networks

Unpredictable infrastructure (Electric, Gas, Oil, etc) failures could adversely impact Telecommunications Networks

9


NRIC IV Focus Group One

Subcommittee 1Network Assessment Report #3

July 14, 1999 Washington, D.C.

Gerry RothVice President

GTE Technology Programs

This document and the information contained herein is intended, and for all purposes shall be deemed, a Year 2000 statement and a Year 2000 readiness disclosure as those terms are defined under United States federal law

10


Summary of Findings United States Public Switched Telephone Network

• As of March 1999, more than 90% of the U.S. PSTN and its supporting systems were reported Year 2000 compliant

• End of June estimates place overall implementation above 98%

• September is the current target for Telcos to be 100% converted and implemented

Implementation of Y2K Compliant Public Telecommunications Network and Support Systems Across U.S.

was reported to be 98% Complete on June 30 1999

11


Summary of Findings United States Public Switched Telephone Network

• Large Local Exchange and Inter Exchange Carriers report progress consistent with completion of all compliance activity in the 3rd Quarter 1999– Network Switches at 99+% completed in June 1999

• Mid / Small Local Exchange Carriers– No new information available to the Committee for this report

– Indications in April projected most compliant in third and fourth quarter 1999• FCC is confirming through a survey issued at end of June; results due in July

• NARUC working on state-by-state readiness assessment: July-August

• USTA is polling key members for status: July-August

– Updated information will be available for the next NRIC report in October 1999

12


Y2K Network Compliance Status Large Local Exchange Carriers

Essential Systems Only

73%

63% 64%

76%73%

83%

87%

83%

92%

99%99%99%100%100%100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Switches Ready Non-Switch NetworkComponents Ready

Network and ISApplications Ready

Sept. '98 (act.) Dec. '98 (act.) Mar. '99 (act.) Jun. '99 (est.) Sept. '99 (est.)

13


Y2K Network Compliance Status Major Inter-Exchange Carriers

Essential Systems Only

90%

71% 71%

96%

80% 80%

97%98%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Switches Ready Non-Switch NetworkComponents Ready

Network and ISApplications Ready

Dec. '98 (act.) Mar. '99 (act.) Jun. '99 (est.) Sept. '99 (est.)

100% 100% 100%

14


Likely Y2K Effects on the Domestic PSTN

• Telephony processing (ability to initiate/complete voice and data calls) not expected to be impacted by Y2K

• Unpredictable infrastructure failures, changes in consumer behavior, or CPE/private network problems could adversely impact telecommunications– Full interoperability between compliant / non-compliant elements unknown– Impact of Network congestion caused by increased call volume and ad hoc “testing”– Impact of failures due to non-compliant CPE and private networks on PSTN unknown

15


International Status

16


Key FindingsInternational Assessment

• 80% of the traffic (in minutes) to/from the U.S. is associated with medium and low risk countries

– Up from 66% in January

• Risk Perceptions of 83% of the US’s key communications partners improved or stayed the same

• Of the 219 countries evaluated, minimal substantial changes to aggregate status occurred

• Regional Summary: Changes in Perception of Risk scores

Improved: Worsened: No Substantial Change:North America Eastern Europe Asia PacificCaribbean Central & South America

Indian Sub ContinentMiddle East & North AfricaSub Sahara AfricaWestern Europe

17


Y2K Risk to U.S. International TrafficTo and From Countries with greater than 100mMitt Total Traffic

Notes:mMitt Source: Telegeography, Inc. mMitt: million of Minutes of Intercontinental Telecommunications Traffic

Countries: 53

29% 20%

51%

High Risk5,911 mMitt

Low Risk14,665 mMitt

Medium Risk8,527 mMitt

Total Traffic = 29,103 mMitt

March 1999 June 1999

48%

34%

18%

High Risk9,917 mMitt

Low Risk5,153 mMitt

Medium Risk14,036 mMitt

Total Traffic = 29,106 mMittTotal 1997 Traffic = 29,106 mMitt

Top 53 Countries 29,103 (All countries > 100mMitt) - 20% High Risk165 Countries 2,816 (Countries < 100mMitt) - 67% High RiskTotal Traffic 31,919

1997 International Traffic to/from the USA

18


International Status by Region Perceptions of Risk - June 1999

The scores blend such that the following score ranges apply: 4.1 - 5.0 = Low Risk 3.1 - 4.0 = Medium Risk 1.0 - 3.0 = High Risk; based

on uncertainty

Regional Range of

Responses

Level of Risk

High

Medium

Low

High RiskAfter 1999

Medium RiskBefore 2000

Low Risk2nd Q or Before Countries: 219

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Sub

Saha

ra A

frica

Mid

dle

East

& N

orth

Afri

ca (n

otIs

rael

)

East

ern

Euro

pe (i

nc. R

ussi

a)

Indi

an s

ub c

ontin

ent

Cent

ral &

Sou

th A

mer

ica

Asia

Pac

ific

Wes

tern

Eur

ope

(inc.

Isra

el)

Carri

bean

North

Am

eric

a

Regional Average

Score

19


International Status by RegionComparison to Prior Report

5

4

3

2

1

4 3 2 1

Countries: 191 Mar / 219 JunPrior Status - Mar 1999

Cur

rent

Sta

tus

- Ju

n 19

99

No Change

Sub Sahara Africa

Indian Sub Cont.

Central & SouthAmerica

Middle East & NorthAfrica

Eastern Europe

Asia Pacific

North America

Western Europe

Carribean

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Low

Risk

Med

ium

Risk

High

Risk

20


Note:(1) - One of the 53 countries with greater than 100mMitt traffic with the US

Source: Telegeography, Inc.

Countries Questionably Assessed As High Risk

• Low scores inconsistent with other publicly available data– Countries with substantial GDP

(Top 50 in World) should be attentive to Y2K

• Could some countries be doing better privately than they are willing to say publicly?

– A High Risk Scores suggest either:• These countries are

misrepresented in the data, or • They pose great concern for

millennium impact

– 36% of the Top 50 (18 countries) fall in this category

Country GDP Rank1997 GDP(Billions) Top 53 (1)

Risk Score

China 7 $918 * 2.3 Brazil 8 $688 * 2.5 Russia 12 $450 * 1.8 India 16 $324 * 2.3 Turkey 23 $192 2.3 Norway 25 $153 * 2.9 Poland 27 $136 * 1.7 Iran 28 $133 1.0 Saudi Arabia 30 $126 * 1.4 Greece 31 $121 * 2.9 Israel 35 $98 * 1.7 Chile 39 $77 * 2.9 Columbia 40 $76 * 1.5 Pakistan 44 $61 * 2.5 Syria 45 $60 2.3 Czech Rep 47 $52 2.8 Ukraine 48 $50 1.5 Hungary 49 $44 2.5

21


What does all this Mean?• This “perception of risk ” analysis may be more of a measure of

communication about Y2K than it is the true status of Y2K

• The analysis of data comes with several caveats:– Often excessive variability in perception of individual countries– General lack of commonly defined, public information– Some counties conservatively express late 1999 completions – Variance between “weighted Scores” and “Best Scores” is significant:

• High risk moves from 62% to 27% of countries• Medium risk is stable 21-22%• Low risk up to 51% from the weighted 18%

• Telecommunications Y2K status may be closely tied to that of the country infrastructure (electric, fuel, transportation, government)– Perceptions may be based on the more general country view

22


What are likely impacts of Y2K Internationally?• Virtually no Y2K problems will exist in remediated network

infrastructures

• Network congestion may be an issue, causing minor delays or rerouting

• Network management, provisioning, capacity issues may be detected

• Networks with non-compliant Y2K elements may experience problems locally

• Unpredictable infrastructure failures, changes in consumer behavior, or problems with CPE or private networks could adversely impact telecommunications

23


Recommendations

• Incorporate FCC / USTA / NARUC information on status of mid / small sized companies into the October report.

• Focus on “uncertainties” in data to reconcile discrepancies.

• Continue to work jointly with the Alliance for Telecommunications Users and the State Department to determine accurate country status.

24


NRIC IV Focus Group OneSubcommittee 2

Y2K Interoperability Testing Report for the July 14, 1999 NRIC Meeting

25


Y2K Interoperability Testing Focus Group One, Subcommittee 2 Members

• L. Scerbo, Telcordia ** (Chair) • R. Alpaugh, MBNA Hallmark Information Svcs. • J. Aucoin, Nortel (Bay) Networks• B. Blanken, CTIA• T. Boehm, Mankato Citizens Telephone Co.• B. Brewster, AT&T Wireless Services• E. Carlucci, AT&T• B. Check, NCTA• G. Chiappetta, SNET• B. Creighton, USTA• S. Eby, DSC• P. Egas, Siemens• D. Emmot, US West • C. Fletcher, NCS• R. Friedman, BellSouth• P. Gaughan, Sprint• J. Gervais, Nortel Networks• C. Hamilton, Telcordia• S. Hastie, Stentor• D. Hodge, McLeodUSA

• M. James, Lucent Technologies• R. Keating, Illuminet• B. Kenworthy, GTE• J. Kerr, Illuminet• D. Kinne, Cincinnati Bell • H. Kluepfel, SAIC• S. Lindsay, Nortel Networks• S. MacDonald, Cisco• D. McMurray, Alcatel• E. Morris, Ameritech• M. Neibert, COMSAT• G. Pell, AT&T• N. Pierce, ATIS• J. Pompeo, Alcatel• J. Questore, Telcordia• T. Schonfeld, Newbridge Networks• A. Scott, NCTA• M. Soha, Cisco• M. Taylor, Lucent Technologies• K. Wagner, Bell Atlantic• R. Wilson, MCI Worldcom

26


Focus Group One, Subcommittee 2Charter

• Assess Y2K Industry Testing Status & Plans• Collect and Review Data• Analyze the Gaps• Develop Recommendations

27


Methodology

Sub-Groups Explored the Following Areas:• Y2K Testing Best Practices• Y2K Network Vendor Compliance Information• Y2K Interoperability Testing

28


Y2K Testing Best Practices

• Created & Distributed Practice Questionnaire• Initial Review of Replies Completed March 1999• Conclusion: Industry Has Documented Processes for

Testing and Related Functions• Next Steps:

– Results to be Posted on NRIC Web Site at - “http://www.nric.org”

-Purpose - Information Sharing-Target - Small-Midsize Telecom Industry Partners

29


Y2K Network Vendor Compliance Information

• Unit Testing Efforts of Common Vendors– Listing of Common Products of Top Vendors

• Includes Compliant Version/Model Numbers• Includes Vendors’ URLs for Quick Update• Posted on NRIC Web Site at - “http://www.nric.org” on

4/14/1999 and Updated 6/11/1999– Purpose - Information Sharing– Target - Small-Midsize Telecom Industry Partners

30


Y2K Interoperability TestingSubcommittee Milestone Dates

• Testing Survey Mailed 01/22/1999• Responses Due 02/12/1999• Raw Data Analysis 03/18/1999• Analysis & Initial Recommendations 04/14/1999• Conclusions 07/14/1999

31


Y2K Interoperability Testing Survey Respondents

• 78 Companies Responded to the Survey Consisting of: 66 LECs 4 IXCs 5 Equipment Vendors 2 Industry Forum 1 ISP 1 Wireless Provider

1 Other * One Respondent Reported its Primary Provider Status as LEC, ISP, & Wireless

• Additional Testing Information Was Provided by Industry Groups as well as Many Bilateral Test Participants (e.g. ATIS, CTIA, CTIF, Telco Forum, and NATT-ITU)

32


Y2K Interoperability Testing Participating Telecom Providers

Aerial GTEAirtouchMCI WorldComAmeritech McLeodUSAAT&T Richmond Telephone Co.Bay Springs Telephone Co. SBC CommunicationsBell Atlantic SNETBellSouth SprintCincinnati Bell StentorGrand Telephone Co. US West

NOTE: Survey Data Was Also Derived From Test Results and Reports Submitted By Industry Groups and Bilateral Test Participants (e.g. ATIS, CTIA, CTIF, Telco Forum, and NATT-ITU)

33


Y2K Interoperability Testing Additional Data Sources

Many Industry Groups/Forums/Segments Provided Results forTheir Interoperability Test Efforts:

– ATIS Phase 11 - Signaling Interoperability (Completed)– ATIS Phase 12 - Data Network (Completed) – Telco Forum - Intra-Network (Completed) – Canadian TIF - Circuit Switched (Completed) – NATT (ITU) - International Circuit Switched (In-Progress)– Service Providers Bilateral Testing (In-Progress)– Service Provider to Industry Segment Testing (In-Progress)– ATIS Phase 13 - International Interoperability (Planned)

34


Y2K Interoperability Testing Analysis of Raw Test Data

• Several “Testing Coverage” Matrices Were Developed Based on Testing Plans and Results Reported

• Matrices Will Be Posted on NRIC Web Site - “http://www.nric.org” Following the July 14th NRIC Meeting

35


Y2K Interoperability Testing Categories of Coverage Matrices

• Domestic Switching• Wireline to Wireline• Wireless to Wireline • Wireless to Wireless

• Domestic Signaling• Domestic Transport• International PTT to North American Switching

NOTE: Matrices Will Be Posted on “http://www.nric.org” After July 14th, 1999

36


DOMESTIC WIRELINE to WIRELINE

SWITCHING INTERCONNECT

NORT

EL D

MS-

10

NORT

EL D

MS-

100

NORT

EL D

MS-

100/

200

NORT

EL D

MS-

250

NORT

EL D

MS-

500

LUCE

NT 1

AESS

LUCE

NT 4

ESS

LUCE

NT 5

ESS

ALC

ATE

L / D

SC D

EX 6

00

ALC

ATE

L / D

SC D

EX 6

00E

ALCA

TEL

1210

SIEM

ENS

DCO

SIEM

ENS

EWSD

AGC

GTD

5

ERIC

SSO

N AX

E10

NORTEL DMS-10 C

NORTEL DMS-100 C C

NORTEL DMS-100/200 C C C

NORTEL DMS-250 C C C C

NORTEL DMS-500 C I* C C

LUCENT 1AESS U C C U I* C

LUCENT 4ESS C C C C C C C

LUCENT 5ESS C C C C C C C C

ALCATEL / DSC DEX 600 C C C C C

ALCATEL / DSC DEX 600E C C C C C C

ALCATEL 1210 O O C

SIEMENS DCO U C U C U

SIEMENS EWSD C C C C U C C C U U C C

AGC GTD5 C C C C I* C C C C C

ERICSSON AXE10 U U U C I* U U U C C U

NRICFocus Group 1, Subcommittee 2 Analysis --- Status as of July 14, 1999

37


INTERNATIONAL PTT

to NORTH AMERICAN

WIRELINE SWITCHING

INTERCONNECT

DO

MES

TIC

GA

TEW

AY

SW

ITC

H

TYPE

ALC

ATE

L/D

SC D

EX 6

00

ERIC

SSO

N A

XE-1

0

LUC

ENT

4ESS

LUC

ENT

5ESS

NO

RTE

L D

MS-

300

World Region INTERNATIONAL PTT Level of

RiskImpact

of INT'L GATEWAY SWITCH TYPE

N. America ALESTRA (Mexico) H M LUCENT 5ESS C CTELMEX (Mexico) H M ERICSSON AXE-10 U

C. & S. America CANTV (Venezuela) H M LUCENT 5ESS S S

TELINTAR N. (Argentina) M M SIEMENS EWSD CW. Europe AT&T COMMS UK L H LUCENT 5ESS C C

BARAK (Israel) M M NORTEL DMS-300 SBRITISH TELECOM L H ERICSSON AXE-10 SDEUTSCHE TELEKOM (Germany) M H ALCATEL MT20 CFRANCE TELECOM L M ALCATEL MT20

and SIEMENS CSWISSCOM (Switzerland) L M SIEMENS EWSD CTELECOM ITALIA M H ALCATEL S12 STELE DANMARK M L ERICSSON AXE-10 STELEFONICA (Spain) L M TBD UTELENOR (Norway) L L ALCATEL S12 S

Asia Pacific HONGKONG TELECOM L H ERICSSON AXE-10 C CKDD (J apan) M H NEC IX/XE Series CPLDT (Philippines) H M NEC NEAX 61E

INTS SSINGTEL (Singapore) L M ALCATEL S12 C C

Middle East & North Africa J ORDAN TELECOM M L TBD SSub-Saharan Africa SOUTH AFRICA TELKOM M M SIEMENS EWSD CIndian Sub-continent VSNL (India) M M ERICSSON AXE-10 U UE. Europe

NRIC - Focus Group 1, Subcommittee 2 Analysis --- Status as of July 14, 1999

38


Y2K Interoperability TestingFinding #1 and Recommendation

• ISP Interoperability With Internet Backbone Networks - Gather and Analyze Information on Interoperability Testing Plans

7/14/1999 Status: This “gap” was identified by the NRIC Testing Subcommittee and reported to the President’s Council on Y2K at the NSTAC meeting in June. The President’s Council will pursue ISP interoperability with the NSF.

39


Y2K Interoperability Testing Finding #2 and Recommendation (page 1 of 2)

• Based on the Readiness Status (analysis by Subcommittee 1), the Testing Subcommittee is to Explore the Impacts of:

“Compliant Network to Non-Compliant Network” Interoperability

7/14/1999 Status: Assumption: Based upon analysis and review of trunking, signaling, and data interface architecture and the standards and protocols to which such interfaces are produced, all indications are that the trunking, signaling, and data interfaces of all vendors between Network Providers are non-date sensitive… that is: dates and date-related information are not relevant to the functionality of these Network provider interfaces.

Therefore, the Testing Subcommittee believes that a Y2K ready Network Provider’s equipment will not fail to inter-operate with a non-Y2K ready Network Provider’s equipment due to a change in date, and that potential Y2K impacts in the non-Y2K ready network will not propagate between interfacing networks. Therefore, no interoperability testing in this area will be pursued. (continued on next page…)

40


Y2K Interoperability Testing Finding #2 and Recommendation (page 2 of 2)

However, Non-Y2K Ready Networks May Experience:• Limited Service or Blocking Caused by the Degraded Performance of

Its Own Network• Problems in Areas of Billing, Problems with Maintenance Tools, such

as Date Comparison Errors in Search Results or Activities Not Started• Problems with Operator Interfaces, such as Incorrect Display of Date

or Day of the Week Information Especially after February 28th, 2000

The Testing Subcommittee strongly urges all Network Providers to work with their respective vendors to understand the potential impacts of non-Y2K ready equipment on their individual network operations.

* More Information is Available and Will Be Posted on the NRIC Web Site - “http://www.nric.org”

41


Y2K Interoperability TestingConclusions

The Risk of Failure of the Domestic PSTN is Minimal, and it is Believed that Additional Testing is Not Warranted.

• Interoperability Testing by Major Local and Inter-Exchange Companies Has been Scheduled or Completed

• Testing Coverage Spans the Majority of Access and Inter-Exchange Switch and Signaling Vendors

• Enhanced Service Providers’ (e.g., SS7 Providers for Small-Midsize Companies) Test Planning Discussions Are In Progress

42


Y2K Interoperability TestingConclusions (continued)

The Risk of International Call Failure Between the North American Regionand the Other World Regions is Minimal; However, Service Completion MayBe Degraded in Non-Compliant Networks.

– The Testing Completed To Date Under the Auspices of the ITU Includes Major International Gateway Switch Vendor Equipment and North American Service Providers.

43


Focus Group One, Subcommittee 2Next Steps

• Continue to Track Testing Status with NRIC Participating Companies and Industry Groups

• Meet as a Team to Analyze the Data From Test Efforts Currently Planned or In-Progress

• Share Analysis and Findings with Other Industry Groups - Both Domestic and International - by Posting on NRIC Web Site

44


NRIC IV Focus Group 1Subcommittee 3

Year 2000 Contingency Planning(July 14, 1999)

45


Outline Communications Plan Contingency Planning Workshop Contingency Planning Matrix Next Steps

46


Plan Components

NCC/NCS(Data Base)

DoD

ITU Members

InformationCoordinating

CenterPublic

Ameritech AT&TBell Atlantic ComcastBell South CTIFGTE MCI SBC SprintSNET US West

FCC

Industry Groups

47


NCC Y2K Data Base Status Database requirements complete (22 information elements

defined) Participants agreed upon components of company specific and

national information Process for defining and delivering Y2K reports to participants

is in place (Positive Report, Exception Report, National Advisories, Resolution Report)

Database prototype is complete

Next Steps:

Testing of the Y2K Worldwide Alerting Network & NCC National Database - August 1999

Y2K Worldwide Alerting Network & NCC National Database Operational - September 1999

48


NCC Y2K National DB Information Process

Problem Reporting An outage is reported to the database via ticket entry

Problem Aggregation All tickets are aggregated into a repository and examined for

trends

Information Sharing Outage information is shared among multiple parties National Advisories and Status reports are released

Impact Analysis Trend analysis shared with NCS members

Problem Resolution Solutions are advised

ProblemReporting

ProblemAggregation

InformationSharing

ImpactAnalysis

ProblemResolution

49


Contingency Planning Workshop• Conducted: 27 April 1999 Herndon, VA• Sponsor: NRIC & USTA• Presented by the NRIC Contingency Subcommittee• Target Audience:

•USTA Membership•Approximately 50 Small & Medium Telcos Attended

• Workshop Intent: Enhance Telco Industry Awareness & Understanding of Y2K Contingency Planning• Topics Covered:

•Timelines, Mgmt Structures & Operating Principles•Business Process Driven Approach to CP Development•Risk Assessment & Problem Scenario Analysis - Hands-on Participation•Operational Aspects of CP Development

• Subcommittee Prepared to Offer Additional Workshops Based on Interest

50


Contingency Plan Scenarios 7 Categories to Support Contingency Planning

– Crisis Management/Communications– Network Carrier Elements– Key Suppliers– Customer Related– International Carriers– Power/Infrastructure– Element Management/Operations Systems

38 What If Scenarios Potential Alternatives Indicated

– Prevention/Mitigation Category– High/Medium/Low Cost

Available in NRIC Web Page

51


Next Steps Monitor Completion of NCC Database Work with NCC & FCC:

ICC Linkage and Information Sharing USTA Investigation of Medium/Small Carrier Support

NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Readout 1 P. S. Sahni Focus Group 1 Chair July 14, 1999 (Day 170)

Documents

Transcript of NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Readout 1 P. S. Sahni Focus Group 1 Chair July 14, 1999 (Day 170)