SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Year 2000 (Y2K) Embedded Systems and Utilities -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Mansfield who wrote (52)8/3/1998 3:16:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Respond to of 89
 
'From:
fedinfo@halifax.com
zo 22:04

Subject:
More Embedded Systems Stuff

Power utilities try to manage Year 2000 bug BY MIGUEL HELFT Mercury News
Staff Writer Mike Keller understands how daunting a task it is to ensure that
electric power will flow into millions of American homes after Dec. 31, 1999.

Pulling open a cabinet door at one of Silicon Valley Power's generating
plants, Keller pointed to a maze of wires connecting chips and computer-like
boards. Keller, who is acting assistant director at Santa Clara's municipal
utility, is trying to verify that all crucial equipment -- whether it is
software or so- called ''embedded'' chips that run vital facilities -- can
cope with what is commonly known as the Year 2000 computer problem.

Keller said a technician has to look at each of the boards, identify each chip
and figure out whether it performs a ''mission-critical'' function. If it is
critical, Keller has to ask the manufacturer of the chip whether it has date-
dependent functions, and if it does, whether it is Year 2000 compliant.

''Then we have to decide whether we trust (the response),'' Keller said.
''This is probably one of the most difficult investigations we have to go
through.''

Chips in relays, switches, sensors and other devices often use clocks for
synchronization with other equipment, schedule maintenance and calibration, or
simply to know when to turn on and off. Likewise, software programs use dates
for a variety of calculations. But many programs and chips are not ready for
the new millennium, as they were designed to represent years with two digits.
Many fear they could go haywire when the clocks advance from ''99'' to ''00.''

The meticulous process Keller described is needed to assess, and perhaps fix,
a single piece of equipment at one of the utility's 15 power substations.
Multiply that by the 7,800 or so utilities and power suppliers across the
country and you begin realizing why the task is so immense.

What's more, the power supply in North America is dependent on an intricate
chain of millions of links that have to be inventoried individually, assessed
and fixed. The distributed nature of the electric power industry also means
that overall success depends on the collaboration and pooling of efforts of
thousands of players.

In a sense, the electric power infrastructure is a microcosm of the
technology infrastructure as a whole: the ability of any given player to
function properly depends on its own systems being in working order and on
each of its suppliers and customers to be up to snuff. A problem with power
generation in Idaho could affect customers in California. Power flowing out
of a plant in Oregon may not reach its intended destination if a faulty
switch or relay trips up the transmission and distribution system. And the
efforts of a local utility to fix its own Year 2000 problem could prove
futile if its own power supplier, typically a larger utility, fails to do the
same.

Yet, although many utilities and power generators have been working on the
Year 2000 problem individually and in consultation with some of their
partners, there is no overall gauge of the industry's readiness.

''As far as an overall assessment of where the industry is, it hasn't been
done,'' said Gene Gorzelnik, communications director of the North American
Electric Reliability Council. The NERC was created in 1968 to ensure
reliability of the power supply throughout much of the United States, Canada
and parts of Mexico. In May, the Department of Energy asked NERC to conduct a
Year 200 assessment. The group has sent surveys to individual electric
industry members and is expected to report to the Energy Department in
mid-September.

The lack of a clear overall picture 17 months before the new millennium has
critics alarmed.

''It is very disconcerting that at this point in time, we are just now
starting to take a look at the whole industry,'' said Rick Cowles, director
of industry Year 2000 solutions for the consulting firm TAVA/R.W. Beck and
author of ''Electric Utilities and Y2K.'' ''We know that this is going to be
an issue, but we don't know how big.''

What's more, the electric utility industry is no longer trying to fix
everything -- there is simply not enough time and resources to do so. Instead,
the goal is to identify and upgrade enough of the systems necessary to run key
functions smoothly. Those that do not get fixed, it is hoped, will not be
essential to core operations. And contingency plans are being drawn up to work
around the systems that will not be mitigated -- and to cope with the
unexpected.

''There is no way that we can test the entire system and make sure that every
problem is fixed,'' said Dennis Eyre, executive director of the Western
Systems Coordinating Council, a regional division of the NERC that oversees
power reliability in 11 western states, including California. The WSCC is by
far the largest of nine reliability councils, connecting about 50 million
people. ''To make sure that we haven't overlooked something critical, we will
operate in a very conservative mode for a while.''

Throughout the electric power industry, officials remain cautiously optimistic
about the prognosis for their Year 2000 efforts. Yet many admit there could be
failures.

<<<<<snipola of Pollyanna Happy faced bullcrap by Power companies saying that
they are 'wroking hard' on it and that they do not 'intend' to have
blackouts>>>>

Although no one in the industry has a clear view of the scope of the
millennium bug, a few details can shed some light into its magnitude.

Consider, for instance, the cabinet that Silicon Valley Power's Keller
inspected. It is a complex sensing device that beams information back to a
master control system. That software system, known as Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition, or SCADA, is made up of millions of lines of programming
code, Keller said. Silicon Valley Power's SCADA program was analyzed by
experts who found 100,000 instances of dates being used to perform various
calculations. Keller said Silicon Valley Power's SCADA system is going
through hardware and software upgrades that has been certified as Year 2000
compliant.

In terms of embedded chips, the problem may be more significant. In a typical
coal or gas-fired power plant, there may be several thousand embedded
devices, said Jim Fortune, operations manager for the Year 2000 embedded
systems program at the Electric Power Research Institute, a non-profit
industry group based in Palo Alto. A regional distribution system could have
another thousand or so chips, he said.

''In a power plant, you get these things buried inside equipment,'' Fortune
said. ''It is a daunting task to account for everything there is. And you have
to understand what role it plays.''

The EPRI is compiling a huge database cataloging the chips used throughout the
electric utility industry to serve as a clearinghouse for utilities. But at
EPRI, as at NERC, the task was begun only a few months ago.

Cowles said there are about 7,800 electric utilities and power producers in
the United States. Only about 200 of those are large investor-owned
utilities. Many of them, including PG&E, which is one of the largest such
utilities, have Year 2000 compliance efforts well under way. The remaining
7,600 or so are municipal utilities, rural power cooperatives and independent
power producers, who represent about a quarter of the nation's power
capacity, he said.

''They are the folks that are kind of key to the whole mess,'' Cowles said.
''They input into and draw power from the same distribution system as everyone
else. If they have problems . . . everyone is potentially affected.''

And even at utilities such as PG&E, where software efforts appear to be under
control, plans for completing work on embedded systems remain sketchy. Orlov
said all of PG&E's software systems -- including things like billing, energy
management and SCADA systems -- are on schedule to be fixed and tested by the
end of this year, leaving a full year to deal with unexpected problems. But
an inventory of embedded systems has been completed only recently and has not
yet been assessed. The utility expects to have a final schedule for fixing
embedded systems in September, he said.

Critics say leaving the upgrade of embedded chips until late could be a recipe
for failure. It could mean that utilities throughout the country, if not the
world, could start ordering replacements for the same embedded chip equipment
at the same time. Manufacturers could find it difficult to meet the surge in
demand, critics fear, and some utilities may not get the parts they need.

The industry's potential problems also could stem from sources outside its own
controls. Utilities that have upgraded their own systems are concerned about
others they rely on, ranging from the banks that handle billing systems, to
transportation systems that bring them fuel, to communications companies that
provide them with critical infrastructure.

''That's the more daunting challenge for us,'' said Fishback, of the
California Independent System Operator. The non-profit organization, which
began running the power gird on March 31 when the state's power generation
industry was deregulated, is equipped mostly with new software systems that
are Year 2000 compliant, Fishback said.

Industry officials said fixing the millennium computer bug is a top priority,
adding that they are not concerned by the lack of an overseer for the whole
industry. After all, they argued, the reliability of the power supply is
secured on a daily basis through the cooperation of countless players. That
same cooperation, they said, will foster solutions for the Year 2000 computer
problem across the industry.

''I think everyone is acutely aware of the worst-case scenario, and nobody
wants to have that happen,'' Fishback said. ''It is no different from what a
utility does in day-to-day operation.''

--
Paul Milne

"If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
dejanews.com Create Your Own Free Member Forum



To: John Mansfield who wrote (52)8/3/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89
 
Email from Roleigh Martin: 'Proposed Questions for Water Utilities by Any Agency or Organization
Investigating the Year 2000 Embedded Systems Threat to Water Utility Operations
by Roleigh Martin, 8/1/1998
5511 Malibu Drive, Edina MN 55436
ourworld.compuserve.com
email: marti124@tc.umn.edu

(Note, the word "Minnesota" appears in this example; substitute your own locality name if you desire to use this in another country, state, province, county or metropolitan area.)
Instructions
This questionnaire is concerned about the Year 2000 problem as it relates to plant equipment (hardware) vital for all water utility functions (providing clean water and handling waste water). It is not concerned about computer hardware used for processing business accounting and customer billing information. "Embedded systems" is defined by the Institution of Electrical Engineers as electric-powered:
"Devices used to control, monitor or assist the operation of equipment, machinery or plant. "Embedded" reflects the fact that they are an integral part of the system. In many cases their embeddedness may be such that their presence is far from obvious to the casual observer and even the more technically skilled might need to examine the operation of a piece of equipment for some time before being able to conclude that an embedded control system was involved in its functioning. At the other extreme a general purpose computer may be used to control the operation of a large complex processing plant, and its presence will be obvious."
This questionnaire refers to this area of the Year 2000 problem as a "Year 2000 Embedded Systems" Program or Y2K E.S. for short. The Y2K E.S. problem is concerned about your devices being able to handle the following dates that sometimes cause problems: 1/1/1999 (some devices treat the year '99' as "year never entered"), 9/9/1999, 1/1/2000, 2/29/2000, and 12/31/2000 (some devices fail on this date because the device wrongly only expected 364 days in 2000 not realizing it was a leap year). In addition, testing is concerned about the dates before and after these dates as problems often occur in the rollover of dates. Last, testing is also concerned about the first weekend of the year 2000 in case there is day-of-the-week logic and it confuses the year 2000 for 1900 and incorrectly calculates the wrong weekend dates for 2000. Untreated, devices have been known to exhibit one of three behaviors upon encountering one of these dates: (a) no problem, (b) a clear halt/freeze or abort, or (c) operation continues but erroneously.
Questions
1) What is your title -- if you have multiple job titles/functions, indicate that which is most appropriate for this questionnaire:
__________________________________________________________________________
2) How many physical water utility plants located in Minnesota are you answering on behalf of? __________
a) ___ We have physical water utility plants located only in Minnesota.
b) ___ We have physical water utility plants located inside and outside of Minnesota.
i) If you made this last choice, we do not want to make this questionnaire difficult. If it is easy for you to only talk about your Minnesota operations, please indicate such; if it is only easy for you to talk about all of your operations including those that are out of state, please indicate such:
(1) ____ We are answering only about our Minnesota facilities.
(2) ____ We are answering about all of our facilities including those that are out of state.
3) Do your facilities perform all water utility functions (providing clean water and handling waste water)?
a) ________ Yes
b) ________ No, our facilities handle the following water utility functions:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
4) How many customers (approximately) are served by all of the physical water utility plants that you are answering on behalf of? _________________________________
5) What Month and Year did your water utility first document that it had established someone or a team to formally study the Year 2000 problem as it relates to plant equipment (hardware) vital for all water utility functions (providing clean water and handling waste water). Please check off the appropriate line below (include the date if choosing the first line below).
______We formally started our Y2K E.S. Program in _______________(Month/Year)
______ We have not yet formally started a Y2K E.S. Program.
6) When did your utility first developed a written, detailed Y2K E.S. Program? Please indicate the Month/Year or indicate "None so far" ___________________________
7) How many Full Time Employees (FTEs) did you have working on the Y2K E.S. program in July, 1998? (Enter zero (0) if none.) _______________
8) There are three ways to go about a Y2K E.S. Program and it is recommended to do all three if it is possible--sometimes you can not do all three. Please indicate how many calendar (not man-months) months you have done each of the three actions:
a) __________ Code Examination for Y2K E.S. problems (for some embedded systems, like SCADA or PLCs, it is sometimes possible to examine the actual code of the system for Year 2000 problems)
b) __________ Vendor Interrogation (if the vendor who sold you and/or who made the device is still in business, it is very important to contact the vendor about the devices that you have about (a) what the vendor says about the device and its ability to still work in 2000 and (b) whether and how an end-user can test/verify that the outcomes found by the vendor's own testing--if done--can be duplicated for the exact equipment you have on site. Whether you have done (a) or (b) or both, indicate the number of months engaged in doing either or both.)
(Published test results of over 10,000 embedded systems have found that 20 percent of the time one or more customers will find that equipment found Y2K compliant by a vendor is not found compliant by the customer. This is sometimes because small variations can exist between the equipment the vendor currently has in house to test and your exact copy of the equipment. Many customers will find that some identical pieces of equipment will encounter different Y2K test outcomes -- some failing, some not. This is not uncommon.)
c) __________ End User Y2K Testing (done by or for your utility by your own Y2K staff or Y2K consultants that you have hired).
Such testing will cover at a minimum the following dates: 1/1/2000 and 2/29/2000 and the rollover into these dates from the day before. It is recommended to cover all the dates mentioned in the opening instruction paragraph but if you have at least covered these dates, indicate the number of months here.
9) Have you identified all mission-critical equipment that needs to be remediated through a vendor order placed, and have you placed those orders, and have you been given firm ship dates that convince you that you will receive and install all those items in time?
a) ______ Yes, we have "identified all mission-critical equipment that needs to be remediated through a vendor order placed"
b) ______ If Yes, we have "placed those orders" and we have received ACCEPTABLE expected-receive dates that convinces us we will receive and install all mission-critical items in time.
c) ______ If Yes, we have "placed those orders" but WE HAVE NOT received ACCEPTABLE expected-receive dates that convinces us we will receive and install ALL mission-critical items in time.
d) ______ No, we have NOT "identified ALL mission-critical equipment that needs to be remediated through a vendor order placed"
e) ______ If No, when do you think you will be at the point of placing orders for ALL mission critical items that need to be remediated through a vendor order placed? ___________________ (we realize this is only an estimated month/year)
f) ______ We have completed a formal Y2K E.S. assessment and found out we DID NOT need to order anything new.
10) Are you 100 percent done with a formal Y2K E.S. Project?
a) ____ Yes AND we have had an outside formal audit verify our project.
b) ____ Yes AND we have NOT had an outside formal audit verify our project.
c) ____ No, we are not 100 percent done -- we estimate we are ________ done with a formal Y2K E.S. Project.
11) If your utility has done Y2K E.S. testing, about how many SUSPICIOUS embedded systems items were or are scheduled for testing? (For the first two lines, check the line if it is your answer, for the third line--if that is your answer, indicate an approximate number.)
a) ________ We have not done any Y2K E.S. Testing
b) ________ We have done Y2K E.S. Testing but we did not document the number of items tested
c) __________________ We have done or will do Y2K E.S. testing on this many embedded systems items.
i) If you provided a number above, please indicate about what percentage of the items were found to fail your Y2K E.S. tests?
(1) ____________ the number provided was for scheduled testing, actual testing is not completed so we can not provide failure percentages.
(2) ____________ the number provided was for completed testing and this many percent failed and the failures were mission critical failures
(3) ____________ the number provided was for completed testing and this many percent failed but the failures were nothing but insignificant failures that would not have "bothered us" or affected our operations in 2000 if we had done no formal Y2K E.S. testing
(4) How many devices were found to fail on 1-1-1999?
(a) _______ number of devices failed on 1-1-1999
(b) If a number was given, please describe the most serious findings:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
12) If your utility is finished with its Y2K E.S. assessment of the equipment it finds it needs to replace, please indicate what the impact your experts think would have been on your utility if you had not done a Y2K E.S. project. Answer one or more items if appropriate.
a) ___________ Not applicable -- we are not yet finished with our Y2K E.S. assessment.
b) ___________ If we did not or do not replace the identified non-Y2K compliant equipment and if we did not know ahead of time about the problem, human safety would have been significantly at risk in at least one serious situation.
c) ___________ If we did not or do not replace the identified non-Y2K compliant equipment and if we did not know ahead of time about the problem, we would need additional employees to adequately handle human workarounds for the problems that would be faced by the non-Y2K compliant equipment failures.
d) ___________ If we did not or do not replace the identified non-Y2K compliant equipment and if we did not know ahead of time about the problem, we think someone could get seriously sick or have died in at least one serious situation.
13) What simplifying assumptions did your engineers and programmers make to minimize physical testing of every embedded system you own and/or operate (not all embedded systems have clocks or deal with dates/times). ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
14) Please explain any contingency plans your utility have developed to address potential Y2K E.S. problems.
a) ________We have not developed a written contingency plan.
b) ________We have developed a written contingency plan and in brief, the details are as follows:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
15) How long will your water utility work if your electric utility is down or the power grid is down? That is, do you have your own backup power generators and how long will they operate for your facilities?
a) ________ We do not have our own backup power generators for ALL of our mission-critical facilities.
b) ________ We do have our own backup power generators for ALL of our mission-critical facilities.
i) If you answered this choice, your backup power generators will on average for each of your mission-critical facilities provide electricity for how long (please indicate in days or fraction of days): ____________________
16) When did you communicate about your Y2K E.S. Project to your customers?
a) _______ We have not done any Y2K E.S. communications either because we do not have a Y2K E.S. project underway yet or because we just have not communicated to them yet even though we do have a Y2K E.S. project.
b) _______ We have communicated about our Y2K E.S. project to our customers in the following ways (check off all that pertain):
i) _______ We have responded in writing to inquiries and we have received at least one.
ii) _______ We have enclosed information in our billing(s) to our customers.
iii) _______ We have responded verbally to inquiries and we have received at least one.
iv) _______ We have published information on the internet at this web site address: ______________________________________________________
v) _______ Other (please describe): __________________________________
17) When did you investigate the Y2K E.S. efforts of the electric utility provider that you depend upon? Please enter the month/year that you first inquired.
a) _________ We have not made an inquiry with our electric utility.
b) _________ was the month/year that we have inquired with our electric utility and we ARE CONVINCED they are on top of this problem.
c) _________ was the month/year that we have inquired with our electric utility and we are NOT YET convinced they are on top of this problem.
18) Do you plan to stockpile, beyond your normal inventory buildups, any of your mission-critical supplies before 1/1/2000 - such as chemicals used in your water utility operations?
a) _________ We do not plan to do any extraordinary stockpiling at this time.
b) _________ We do plan to stockpile mission-critical supplies at extraordinary inventory buildup levels for the 1/1/2000 event.
19) On average, how many days NOW can your water utility operate without ANY resupplies received for the mission-critical supplies that your water utility depends upon (excluding electricity)?
a) _________ days
20) On average for all of your facilities, how many days do you currently plan for your facilities to operate on and after 1/1/2000 if for some reason you do not get any more mission-critical supplies delivered after 1/1/2000?
a) _________ days
21) What advice do you have for the State of Minnesota regarding overseeing the year 2000 embedded systems projects of other Water utilities? Particularly those utilities who are behind your own efforts or who are in your situation if you are also behind in this effort?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
22) Is there anything statewide or national organizations, or the government, could do to make your job easier to more expeditiously Y2K remediate your utility equipment? What is the 1-3 most important things that you would like to see done that would help your efforts? Also Indicate whom you think is most appropriate to do what you want done.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
23) Can we contact you in the future? ________Yes __________No
If you answered "Yes," please provide your name and contact information:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND RESPONSES



To: John Mansfield who wrote (52)8/3/1998 3:42:00 PM
From: John Mansfield  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89
 
' Hearing on the Year 2000 Computer Problem and Telecommunication Systems'

'Statement of A. Gerard Roth, Vice President
Technology Programs, GTE

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on the Year 2000 Computer Problem and Telecommunication Systems

June 16, 1998

Chairwoman Johnson and members of the Subcommittee. Good afternoon, my name is A. Gerard Roth. I am Vice
President, Technology Programs, GTE, responsible for GTE's Corporate Year 2000 Program Management Office
(PMO). I am here to discuss Year 2000 (Y2K) as it relates to telecommunications interdependencies and
interoperability. I commend the Subcommittee on Oversight for conducting hearings focused on the telecommunications
industry interdependency and ask that a copy of my written remarks be entered into the record.

Introduction

The focus of this testimony is to bring perspective from GTE's considerable Y2K experience and apply it to this
important discussion of telecommunications interdependency. GTE, and other telecommunications providers, are
continually being asked, "Why can't you simply certify your network and tell us when it will be compliant?" The
following discussion will describe the complexity and interdependencies that make that question so difficult to answer.
Three principal issues come into play in addressing this question:

1. Ownership - There is no one owner of the whole network.

2. Mathematics - The permutations and combinations of calling events, service requests and routing possibilities
exceed the industry's ability to do 100% testing of Y2K.

3. Testing cannot be done on the live network - Out of cycle - clock roll-ahead testing would disrupt current
operations, create unacceptable outages.

Nevertheless, the work being done to remediate and test the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) is well
thought through, is being accomplished at an acceptable rate, and represents the best known solution to Y2K we are
able to accomplish. I believe you will be reassured today that the telecommunications industry understands the
importance of the Y2K challenge and is working aggressively to meet it.

Y2K Background

Year 2000 is unique in the history of this the telecommunications and information technology industries. Left unattended,
it could simultaneously undermine the operation and reliability of the computer and network infrastructure at a specific,
known, future point in time. However, it is also true that the precise impact on our information-based economy and
society cannot be predicted in part due to the complexity and interdependency of systems. Nor can we accurately
predict the full extent of successful remediation of Y2K due to the interoperable, multi-path nature of the PSTN.

We can, however, significantly reduce the likelihood of the apocalyptic scenarios sometimes predicted for January 1,
2000. You will hear from me and my collegues at this hearing some of the measures underway to address your Year
2000 concerns.

Let me quickly summarize some of the major lessons of Y2K that contribute to the complexity:

Schedule is not just important; it is the only thing.
Y2K is truly a "weakest link" problem -- the single system or date conversion we miss may be the undoing of the
99% we did find.
Normally, development and maintenance activities introduce incremental change into an otherwise stable
environment; however, in Y2K, modified systems are reintroduced into an environment which has been
universally and simultaneously de-stabilized.
Since it is impossible to recreate an "off-line" PSTN for testing, complex Year 2000 interoperability must be
tested in pieces by various companies separately and can be actually proven compliant only once those pieces
are in operation together on January 1, 2000.
There is an increasing recognition of the need to devote more time and effort to enterprise and interoperability
testing than was previously planned.
Testing of all types constitutes greater consumes more than 50% of required cost and effort; actual conversion of
applications or products is relatively minor.
Completion of conversion prior to the end of 1998 should be a priority. This allows for validation of year-end
close transactions in the operational environment, and provides up to 12 months of Y2K verification testing.
Test everything you can.

Complexity and Interdependency

In discussing the complexity and interdependency of the PSTN, I intend to gradually "build the onion" from the center
using four models. To demonstrate an increasing complexity and interdependency, each model builds upon the one
before like the currently popular "nesting dolls". The end result points to the conclusion that the PSTN is not readily
certifiable due not only to ownership issues but also to mathematical complexity and test scenario limitations.

1. The Basic System

Telecommunications complexity begins with the essential, computer-based systems used in telecommunications. Chart 1
depicts a representative, physical system, best described as a combination of hardware, firmware, software products
and applications. A typical company will have hundreds of these. Each component in Chart 1 must be assessed for
Y2K impact; remediated, if required, and tested and verified compliant at the system level.



2. The Functional Thread

To perform a "function" (such as customer contact, service provisioning, call routing), these physical systems must work
with others. Chart 2 depicts a real customer service provisioning cluster as an example of system interdependencies.
This example portrays the relationships of among 17 separate systems or users, 26 formal communications channels,
and more than 10 separate data bases needed to provide a basic service. This also includes the actual linkage of
support functions to the physical PSTN and to other companies.

Each of the elements depicted here can also be represented in some version of Chart 1. As such, assuring that each of
the core components is Y2K compliant precedes the verification of this functional thread. A medium-sized company will
have hundreds of these threads.

3. The Core Interoperability of the PSTN - Logical Topology

Chart 3 expands the interdependency model to include network elements of the PSTN.

Logically, each component on this chart can be described functionally as a thread or cluster. This schematic simply
integrates the elements of the legacy software systems. The systems manage the Network, the signaling, data and voice
components of the switched network. This complex hierarchy of systems and interaction of function provides an
example of a single company's network interdependency. The actual LEC portion of the Public Switched Telephone
Network provides for random, multi-path, real-time interaction of these elements, simultaneously processing thousands
of calls each minute of each day.

By way of example, a typical local exchange carrier may have several million digitally switched access lines in the U.S.
Depending upon the LEC, it may have also hundreds of unique systems worldwide, representing millions lines of
computer code (LOC), all of which must be Y2K tested in thousands of functional test clusters. In addition, to verify
Y2K readiness, the typical LEC must assess and test perhaps a couple of thousand of central office (e.g., end office)
and, possibly, international gateway switches and associated support systems in not only domestically but, depending
upon the company, in overseas locations as well.

4. The Expanded PSTN

The final illustration, (the outside of the "onion") depicted in Chart 4, captures the logic of the Public Switched
Telephone Network overall by incorporating the essential logic of Chart 3 for each of several Local Exchange Carriers
(LECs), Inter-exchange Carriers (IXCs), International PTT Interfaces, Customer Premise Equipment (CPE), and
Private Network installations. Within the U.S. alone there are hundreds of local exchange carriers, several
inter-exchange carriers; and perhaps millions of private networks or customer premise emplacements. The obvious
interconnectivity potential of these network relationships points to the mathematical limitations on 100% test. It should
not go unnoticed that the largest external risk to the operational integrity of the PSTN is the continued availability of
electric power across the national power grid on January 1, 2000.

The Call/Virtual Network Circuits

The Nationwide PSTN processes millions of calls per minute. In order to complete a telecommunications transaction
beyond a local exchange, "calls" are spontaneously routed in advance to take advantage of the most efficient
call-processing path. Furthermore, in addition to routine voice/data traffic and wireless access, the PSTN provides a
myriad of additional services including call waiting, directory assistance, 800-number look-up, and 911 emergency
support. Because of this complexity, a "virtual" network circuit is dynamically defined for each transaction such that
advance prediction of specific circuit connectivity is impossible to determine. The process creates a continuously
changing pattern within and between LECs and IXCs. Consequently, it is impossible for any one company to verify the
whole network Y2K compliant.

Nonetheless, the worldwide telecommunications Year 2000 remediation effort is proceeding, with LEC's, IXC's and
others actively and cooperatively working to implement Y2K readiness at all levels of this model. You will hear more
today from my colleagues on this panel on what the industry is doing to respond to Y2K.

Cost

It is useful in closing to give this technical issue a context or grounding with respect to cost. GTE currently expects to
spend about $350 million on Y2K compliance; - more than 50% of which is focused on the testing of these products,
applications, or and the interoperability test of the functions they provide.

As of March 1998, a sample of SEC filings indicates seven (7) telecommunications companies (LECs and IXCs) have
estimated a combined expenditure in excess of $2 billion for Year 2000 remediation. This is a gigantic task; one that I
fear is often trivialized by the casual media and unfairly criticized by otherwise well-intentioned Y2K experts. Nothing is
to be gained by public chanting of doomsday scenarios formed out of ignorance.

It should be noted that this massive Year 2000 remediation activity is occurring at the same time as we continue
operating the live PSTN and maintaining it with the quality of service and variety of features we have all come to take
for granted.

Chairwoman Johnson, I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.

house.gov



To: John Mansfield who wrote (52)8/6/1998 12:39:00 PM
From: John Mansfield  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89
 
'Power grid in grip of testing paralysis

WHETHER the electricity remains on after January 1, 2000, is the big unknown of the millennium
computer glitch, says power industry consultant John Catterall.

The West Australian manager for Infrastructure Control Systems, Mr Catterall says if the computers
controlling the electricity grid fail, the consequences could be nothing short of catastrophic.

Yet, to date, the electricity industry has been reluctant to test for the problem.

"It's the most important aspect of year 2000 compliance. If the electricity doesn't make it, and we
have significant problems in the electricity industry, all the work being done elsewhere will have been
a waste of time," he says.
...
But Mr Catterall warns that time is running out. With summer and winter as peak load times, the only
period of the year with adequate excess capacity to allow power stations to shut down, and back-up
grid control systems to operate, are spring and autumn.

"Time is running out and there still is no co-ordinated plan to get the generation aspects of year 2000
certified," he says.

....

Power stations are "chock-a-block" full of embedded systems, that is, silicon chips that control
electricity production that could be affected by the millennium bug.

He says he knows of only one power station that has been tested for millennium bug compliance by
winding the date forward to year 2000. That was in Britain and the power station failed.

theaustralian.com.au