Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CSGI ...READY FOR TAKE-OFF! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech who wrote (2143)	1/14/1998 4:08:00 PM
From: tech	Respond to of 3391

__ Airline Industry in Jeopardy: FAA May Not Make the Deadline ___ Link: sjmercury.com This report on the antiquated equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) casts a dark shadow on the airline industry's future -- and every industry dependent on the airlines. The existing FAA system will not operate properly in 2000 and beyond. All the rhetoric of ill-informed reporters who quote the urban myth about y2k doomsayers who predict that "planes will fall from the sky" -- no one has ever predicted this in print -- will not avoid the reality of 2000: there will be no more airline industry if y2k destroys the existing flight monitoring equipment. There will be no just-in-time shipments of computer parts from Taiwan. There will be no business trips hither and yon. There will be empty runways. The report focuses on one IBM computer model, but late in the report, this fact appears: "The FAA has 250 separate computer systems, most of which will require fixes. . . ." This is a terrifying report. It should be front-page news. It isn't. This is from the SAN JOSE MERCURY (Jan. 12). * * * * * * * WASHINGTON -- A set of crucial computers in the nation's air traffic control system should not be used beyond December 1999, because they may not operate reliably when the date rolls over to Jan. 1, 2000, and there is no way to predict the effect on air traffic, according to IBM, which built the computers. But the official in charge of that system at the Federal Aviation Administration said on Monday that ''it would be an extraordinary feat'' to replace about 40 mainframe computers by then. Instead, his agency, with the help of a retired IBM programmer and a team of software experts, is racing to determine whether the problems can be anticipated and eliminated before the turn of the century. . . . The extent of problems with the air traffic computers is not certain, but experts say that the 3083 mainframe model referred to in a letter from IBM to an FAA contractor, might, for example, refuse to accept flight plans for planes that take off on December 31, 1999, and land on Jan. 1. That landing would be 99 years in the past, from the computer's point of view. ''Who knows, it could do anything,'' said Michael Fanfalone, the president of the the Professional Airways System Specialists the union that represents FAA technicians. There might be no problem, he said, but ''no one knows until it's up and running and there's no way you can take that kind of risk.'' Already, FAA teams have found, deep in the computer code, a monthly command that enables a computer to switch from one cooling pump to another; if it is not fixed, experts say, that routine could stop running, allowing the computers to overheat and fail if the pump breaks down. In fact, experts say, there could be many such land mines -- buried in millions of lines of computer code -- that could cause failures for days, weeks or months after the new year. ''We're kind of worried about it,'' said Jack Ryan, a former FAA manager who is now the air traffic control expert at the Air Transport Association, the trade association of the major airlines. ''I think the FAA has the right sense of urgency, although it's a little bit late.'' . . . The computers in question are at the 20 Air Route Traffic Control Centers, which handle all the high-altitude, long-distance traffic in the country. The 3083 models were once common in business and industry but few remain in service, experts say. IBM stopped shipping them about 10 years ago, but some of the software on the FAA models is even older, dating from the early 1970s. The FAA has 250 separate computer systems, most of which will require fixes but the 3083 is the only one that IBM says can't be debugged before 2000. . . . In the October letter from IBM to the FAA contractor Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management, it said, ''I.B.M. remains convinced that the appropriate skills and tools do not exist to conduct a complete Year 2000 test assessment'' of the 3083 computers. ''I.B.M. believes it is imperative that the F.A.A. replace the equipment'' before 2000.

To: tech who wrote (2143)	1/14/1998 4:14:00 PM
From: tech	Respond to of 3391

/./././ Union Pacific: Dependent on Its 16,000 Software Vendors \.\.\. Link: computerworld.com Union Pacific Railroad, whose systems have been tied up for months as a result of its merger with Southern Pacific, predicts "No problem!" for 2000. It can fix its systems if its 16,000 vendors send the company compliant software. If they don't, well, Union Pacific will just go out and get 16,000 new vendors. And these 16,000 new vendors will install new software that is 100% compliant with the existing software. And then all the other railroads in North America will do the same. And these new systems will be fully integreated with each other, so that all trains will be coordinated. And it will all be done by December 31, 1998 -- leaving a year for testing. Calling all vendors! All aboard! Read the extracts. Click through and read the entire story. No one ever asks, "What are the odds that 16,000 local suppliers will get their software fixed, and that all 16,000 repairs will be completely integreated with reach other?" The odds are so close to zero that betting on a lottery is high finance compared to it. But the survival of a civilization is at stake. Think: grain shipments, coal shipments, chemical shipments. How many software programs must be 2000-compliant and also integraed with each other for the railway system to survive? That's what every reporter should ask. This is from COMPUTERWORLD (Jan. 10). * * * * * * * "January 1, 2000 - just like any other day." Red and yellow stickers bearing that slogan appear on bulletin boards, cubicle walls and even in the restrooms at Union Pacific Corp., which entered 1998 in an enviable position. The $9 billion railroad, based here, is ahead of schedule and $3 million under budget on its $46 million year 2000 project. More than half of the company's mainframe-based programs are fixed. . . . The big crap shoot involves software and systems furnished to Union Pacific by 16,000 suppliers, software that "is still not known to us," said Don Swanson a 28-year Union Pacific veteran who heads this effort. Those systems include electronic gates at railroad crossings and computerized event recorders, or "black boxes," on locomotives. Union Pacific has asked suppliers to certify that their equipment is year 2000-compliant. The same requests will go to cities where the railroad has major terminals, financial institutions and utilities, Swanson said. Union Pacific's strategy couldn't be more plain. "If our vendors don't comply, we're going to find different vendors," he said.

To: tech who wrote (2143)	1/14/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: tech	Respond to of 3391

~~~~~~~ Regulators Warn Banks: Get Contingency Plans Ready! ~~~~~~ Link: ffiec.gov The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council has published a report to U.S. banks (Dec. 17), "Safety And Soundness Guidelines Concerning The Year 2000 Business Risk." Anyone who thinks this problem is trivial should read the entire report. Pay close attention to the use of the phrase, "contingency plans." This is especially important as it applies to software vendors, over whom the banks and the government have no control. Throughout every indistry, software vendors are the source of continuing operations. Yet they are not under anyone's authority. They may not meet the 2000 deadline. Any discussion of y2k remediation that ignores this fact is terminally naive. This document does not ignore it, but it offers no suggestions except contingency plans. It is not said what these might be if rival vendors cannot siupply compliant products. For banking as a whole, there is no contingency plan. * * * * * * * * To: The Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officers of all federally supervised financial institutions,providers of data services, senior management of each FFIEC agency, and all examining personnel. . . . The Year 2000 problem presents corporate-wide challenges for financial institutions, their vendors, business partners, counter parties, and customers. However, the regulatory agencies are concerned that many financial institutions view the Year 2000 issue solely as an information system (IS) problem rather than a broader, enterprise-wide challenge. Many institutions may not have adequately funded their Year 2000 programs and may lack the necessary resources to properly address the issue. The board of directors should ensure that senior management is taking an enterprise-wide approach to address Year 2000 problems and must provide sufficient resources to resolve Year 2000 problems. For example: As the Year 2000 will affect most, if not all, of an institution's accounting and risk control systems, there should be close coordination between business units and the institution's operational and risk management functions as conversion programs are executed. Financial institutions relying on vendors for information processing services or products should determine their vendors' progress in resolving Year 2000 issues and the readiness of their own systems and data for appropriate testing. Parties throughout the institution should be involved to coordinate readiness efforts and to develop contingency plans. The interdependencies of a financial institution's information systems will require comprehensive testing of applications with all internal and external systems that share information. Senior management should monitor the testing of all mission critical systems. The approach of the Year 2000 creates potentially adverse effects on the creditworthiness of borrowers. Corporate customers who have not considered Year 2000 issues may experience a disruption in business, resulting in potential financial difficulties affecting their creditworthiness. Financial institutions should develop processes to identify, assess, and control the potential Year 2000 credit risk in their lending and investment portfolios. The regulatory agencies are preparing additional guidance with respect to their expectations of senior management concerning these indirect risks and other important topics. . . . The Interagency Statement suggested that financial institutions obtain certification from their vendors when products and services are Year 2000 compliant. However, the regulatory agencies recognize that certification alone is not sufficient to provide adequate assurance that a product will operate properly in the unique environments of the many user financial institutions. Only a comprehensive test of all internal and external systems and system interdependencies by each user financial institution will ensure that they will function properly together. Therefore, formal certification is not required. Instead, financial institutions should (a) communicate with their vendors and conduct due diligence inquiries concerning Year 2000 readiness and also (b) implement their own appropriate internal testing or verification processes pertaining to these vendor products and services to ensure that their systems and data function properly together. They should monitor closely their vendor's progress in meeting target deadlines. The vendor's plan should allow adequate time for user testing in a Year 2000 environment. . . . Financial institutions should develop contingency plans for all vendors that service mission critical applications and establish a trigger date for implementing alternative solutions should the vendor not complete its conversion efforts on time. These plans should consider the institution's own level of preparedness as well as that of their service providers. Contingency plans should be reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted, if necessary, to reflect current circumstances. In establishing relevant trigger dates, management should have a thorough understanding of the complex interrelationships between its systems and those of its vendors. An institution also should consider the time necessary to convert the existing system to one that is ready for the Year 2000, the staff training time needed to implement an alternative system, and the availability of alternative systems. If, after a thorough analysis, it appears that the institution's Year 2000 conversions, or those of its vendors, will not be completed on time, management should be ready to implement its contingency plans. If success is in doubt for complex applications, it may be necessary to begin implementation of the contingency plan while continuing to work on the desired solution. Additionally, it may be necessary to begin renovation on an existing system, if timely implementation of a replacement system is not assured. For in-house developed applications, the contingency plan should identify how the institution will transition to an alternate system or to an external vendor. For institutions that rely on vendors, the contingency plan should identify alternative suppliers and outline migration plans. In addition, time frames for Year 2000 contingency plans should be consistent with the time frames set forth in the Interagency Statement. The statement establishes December 31, 1998, as the date that institutions will have completed programming changes and have testing well underway for mission-critical systems. . . . The regulatory agencies are concerned that many financial institutions and service providers will underestimate the costs of Year 2000 projects, especially those costs associated with the testing phase. As the Year 2000 approaches, the demand for technical resources will likely rise and the supply of these resources is expected to diminish, thereby increasing costs. Financial institutions must exercise appropriate due diligence in their budget planning to ensure that they have sufficient financial and human resources to complete their Year 2000 plans in a timely manner.

To: tech who wrote (2143)	1/14/1998 4:27:00 PM
From: angel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3391

"Oh, BTW, I wonder where our little angel has gone ?" Thank you Tech for thinking of me. I was busy in the last few days and thinking it better to just read and not post because of other things I need to do around here but now that you mention me I think I will start asking some more questions that I have been thinking about. But for now I only have one to ask. What do you think their revenues will be for the fourth quarter of 1997 and are they making any predictions for 1998?