MORE FROM TODAYS Y2K SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
<Neither Sen. Dodd nor the U.S. Government has any legal right to demand this information.> JOHN HOWELL
Well ... whether he has a "legal" right or not ...
When the implied "threat" was made last week (to make company names public) at the medical device hearing ... of 233 medical device companies (out of 2700) who had not responded to requests for info on Y2K compliance from FDA (since early last summer) ... 134 all of a sudden started responding. 99 still haven't.
You might be confused about what's being referred to here. In the case of medical devices, requests went out last summer to medical device manufacturers asking for information about Y2K compliance on specific medical devices. Are they compliant? If not, what has to be done to fix them? Do a "work around"? Provide a patch? Trash and replace with new advice?
In the case of telecoms, while many would like as much detailed information as possible ... the point being made here was that NO information whatsoever has been forthcoming from certain telecoms ... not a "confirming receipt of your request - will get back to you" response ... NOTHING.
That's the list he wanted, and those are the names that would be made public if there was continued silence.
As I recall 20 of each of the MAJOR telecoms have responded with reassurances. But, several hundred letters were sent out to various carriers, and response rate has been mixed and not encouraging.
There were all kinds of carriers which were discussed today: wires, wireless, satellites, ISP's, etc.
ONE THING THAT EVERYONE AGREED UPON: Across the board ... VERY gloomy picture globally.
<As is typical of elected officials and government beauracrats, no consideration has been given to those companies that have already dealt with their y2k issues and hold a competitive advantage against those who haven't. Forced disclosure of these business strategies removes much of the advantage.>
Actually this very issue was discussed today. Surprisingly each of the industry leaders (in individual prepared & broadcasted testimony) asked that legislation be passed to allow sharing of information. "Good Samaritan", "Anti-Trust" kinda stuff. As I recall, two of the witnesses were from AT&T and GTE. I can't remember the name of the satellite system ... but it's the largest in US (if not the world). Same thing with him.
These guys aren't worried about "competitive advantage". They're worried about "survival". None of these companies operates in isolation. Everything is integrated. Lots of dependencies. Guys further down the food chain can knock them out. Everyone's hands are tied because no one is getting adequate information. Lots of meaningless paper trails being created.
Actually there IS a bill that the administration has proposed, which will be refined and (according to Bennett) come up for vote in September. He stressed, this has to resolved by then ... or we run out of time. [While Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) heads Senate Banking Committee, he also chairs a bi-partisan committee which has been created in the past 2 months: "Y2K Computer Problem". He's the chair and Senator Dodd (D-Conn) is Vice-Chair. This is the committee which had the hearing today.] Both sides are finally working together.
I wish I could remember the guy's name in charge of the Y2K "Good Samaritan" bill and what committee he's with ... but Senator Bennett made an interesting comment. He said something to the effect that "It's good that Senator X? is heading the committee (with the bill) which is under the jurisdiction of XXXX(?) ... and they can pass legislation which becomes law, whereas we can't. Maybe Ken Salaets knows the specifics on this ... he's in DC, and is involved with this stuff.
OOOOOH - Here is one thing that I definitely remember.
Senator Bennett asked the FCC Director, how much authority the FCC has to enforce recommendations that they make. After some hemming and hawing, answer basically was "none". We can only make strong recommendations.
HOWEVER, Bennett then asked the FCC "Defense" Chairman/Director, What is a "Defense" Chairman/Director"? "What authority do you have?" Besides the regular mumbo jumbo about what he does ... He said "If the president calls a state-of-emergency, I don't need to interact with other members of the FCC. I can take action as needed without votes. VERY INTERESTING. He came on board in May '98.
Cheryl
================================================================
Witness from CIO MAGAZINE(publisher/editor - can't remember which) proposed a lot of strong recommendations. One of which was a "volunteer" force. Complimented government for recalling programming retirees, but emphasized lack of adequate labor force. I personally don't see this "volunteer" force being put together prior to January 1, 2000. I see it happening after-the-fact.
Another thing that was said today (by several), was that there would be degradation. It would be better if systems/equipment just shut down. But, many won't. Some of these problems won't be visible until days/weeks/months later.
Bennett said something to the effect "Won't it be harder to identify & fix source of problem at this point?" No one said anything verbally.
Bennett then said "I see a lot of heads nodding out there."
Cheryl
|
