jsburbidge: (Default)
2022-07-09 11:17 am
Entry tags:

The Rogers Outage

 When I work from home, I work online, but I use Bell for internet, Telus for phone, and have an employer who seems not to rely on Rogers at all.[1]. So although I knew that some fellow employees were having to use public WiFi sites because their Rogers connections were down, I gave little thought to the outage until a planned release was deferred on account of the outage, and even then that was because it affected the availability of support staff.  Only when my daughter phoned me to tell me that debit in general was down did I find out that the failure of a single vendor has essentially brought whole blocks of commerce (plus services like 911) to a screeching halt.[2]

Aside from noting that both Rogers and other large services should be looking very carefully at their architectures for redundancy - the easy fix is probably for vendors like Interac which ought to be able to shift to having parallel vendors providing load-balanced access to communications; Ghu knows what Rogers' architecture is like and they are not being very clear - I see that there are calls for steps to be taken to provide more vendors and less dominance by a few vendors. (Essentially two: Bell and Telus share much of the same backbone system.)

This is not a new idea, although usually the reason has been the concern at limited commercial competition, not system reliability. The previous attempts to provide for more vendors have not been successful, at least from the point of view of stability and robustness of the economy as a whole. (The smaller vendors use the large vendors' hardware and rent access in blocks.) This is because the substantial cost of building another backbone is a sizeable barrier to entry.

If the government wants to have another active competitor in the market, it would either have to provide massive subsidies to a startup (this would not fly, politically and perhaps legally) or enter the market itself under a Crown corporation. (Note that the aim of such a corporation would not be to provide monopoly services, as Bell used to or as the LCBO and Ontario Hydro do; that would defeat the purpose. The aim would be to provide more different vendors.) For practical purposes this also means that prices would effectively be set by the government, not just regulated by the CRTC as they are now. (Whatever price was charged by such a Crown corporation would become the de facto ceiling for basic internet services.). It would also see considerable reductions in planned growth for the telcos and probable actual shrinkage of their markets.

Would the mandate of such a company cover all, or most, residents, or would it be confined to the areas more critical to general commerce? Practicality would argue for the former, but politics would probably demand the latter. Costs are higher as a result.

The new system itself would have to provide at every level for a high degree of redundancy and have significant overcapacity in order to handle unexpected eventualities. (Consider an existing vendor choosing to exit the market and its customers moving to the new Crown corporation; and unexpected eventualities are exactly the driving reason for such a system.)

So it would be an expensive, highly contentious, and lengthy initiative which would have to last through multiple governments. (Cheap alternatives like heterodyning IP over the power supply are most useful at the final delivery stage, and do not address the problem of providing for redundancy in the backbone.)

Do I expect this to happen? Not on the basis of a 24-hour incident - though it would be wisest to consider it a shot by the future across our bows.

[1]To the level that it was the only one of the major banks whose debit system was unaffected by the outage. Which didn't help them much, as Interac was affected, which meant that although they were up in principle connections from merchants were down.

[2] I realize that credit was not affected. In some ways that's worse, because the cost of the outage would have fallen disproportionately on the poor, who are less likely to have credit.
jsburbidge: (Cottage)
2014-11-19 08:50 pm
Entry tags:

Why John Tory is Half-right on Über

... but only half-right.

There are multiple disturbing allegations against Über - work conditions, safety, privacy violations. In addition, the way it is set up makes it easy to assimilate to a taxi-hailing service with unlicensed drivers. There are lots of concerns which the city legitimately has.

However, it is also true that there is technological pressure which will cause realignment in the taxi industry, and Über does represent that change. The final successful implementation may be very different from Über; just as Über, to succeed, may need to accept some form of municipal licensing regime.

The key thing to note is that the city does promote ride-sharing, and as long as both taxis and ride-sharing are allowed, an application in a final form will be able to walk right up to the boundary while staying on the legal side.

(Imagine, for example, a "club" to which one can belong which allows drivers to register trips with origins, times, and destinations, to be shared at a flat rate to compensate for gas and wear / depreciation. This doesn't look like Über, but it does look a lot like ride-sharing, and would stand a better chance of withstanding a legal challenge.)