1. 1 NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Readout Peter G. SpringApril 14, 1999 (Day 261)

2. 2 Outline n Focus Group 1 Key Messages n Testing Subcommittee Readout n Contingency Planning Subcommittee Readout n Assessment Subcommittee Update Gerry Roth - GTE

3. 3 Key Messages n Assessment Update –Domestic Major Carriers are on track to complete Y2K remediation programs: –90% of local and 99% of long distance switches by March 1999 –predict completion by June 1999 –Mid and Small sized carriers on track for 3Q/4Q 1999 International –Perceived risk of compliance has increased with 75% of previously reported countries having increased risk

4. 4 Key Messages n Testing –Best Practices available at nric.org –Vendor Product compliance available at nric.org –Interoperability testing survey 77 companies responses, 18 companies have testing scheduled or planned, 28 different vendors represented initial analysis –testing coverage spans the overall majority of access and inter-exchange switch and signaling vendors –no major interoperability gaps identified year to date significant testing completed

5. 5 Key Messages n Contingency Planning –Contingency Planning “what if” various scenarios completed to supplement existing Contingency Guidelines –Draft Communications plan completed –Contingency Planning workshop scheduled for April 27, 1999

6. 6 NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Subcommittee 2 Year 2000 Testing

7. 7 Testing Hierarchy International Fifth Level Interoperability International testing utilizing the ITU plans/coordination or specific testing agreements. Inter-Network Fourth Level Interoperability Inter-company testing of network to network capabilities through industry associations (e.g. ATIS/NTC) or specific testing agreements. Intra-Network Third Level Interoperability Joint testing of intra-network capabilities (e.g. Telco Forum). Individual Second Level Telco Company Individual companies may elect to conduct additional product or interoperability testing. Vendor Initial Level Individual products Y2K remediation is conducted by the supplier of that product. Interoperability of same supplier products is tested by the supplier.

8. 8 3 Network Vendor Compliance Information n Unit Testing Efforts of Common Vendors –Listing of common products of top vendors Includes compliant version/model numbers Includes URL for quick update Will be placed on web at “http://www.nric.org” –Purpose - Information sharing –Target - Small - Midsize telecom industry partners

9. 9 Testing Best Practices n Created & Distributed Practice Questionnaire n Initial review of replies completed March, 1999 n Conclusion: Industry has documented processes for testing and related functions n Next steps: –Continue to collect practices –Post on NRIC http://nric.org -Purpose - Information sharing -Target - Small-Midsize telecom industry partners

10. 10 Interoperability Testing n Survey Mailed 01/22/1999 n Data Received02/12/1999 n Raw Data Analysis03/18/1999 n Analysis & Initial Recommendations04/14/1999

11. 11 Interoperability Testing Data 77 Companies responded to the survey consisting of: 65 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

12. 12 Interoperability Testing Data n Of the responding companies 18 currently have Interoperability testing scheduled or have discussions in-progress to do so n Equipment from 28 different Network Equipment Vendors is represented in the testing outlook

13. 13 Telecom Providers Who Responded and are Participating in Interoperability Testing AerialMCI WorldCom AirtouchMcLeodUSA AmeritechRichmond Telephone Co. AT&T SBC Communications Bay Springs Telephone Co.SNET Bell Atlantic Sprint Bell South Stentor Cincinnati BellUS West Grand Telephone Co. GTE

14. 14 Interoperability Testing Coverage Areas n ATIS Phase 11 - Signaling Interoperability n ATIS Phase 12 - Data Network n Telco Forum - Intra - Network n ITU - International Circuit Switched n Canadian JIT - Circuit Switched n Service Providers Bi-Lateral Testing n Service Provider to Industry Segment Testing

15. 15 NRIC Focus Group 1, SubCommittee 2 Analysis April 9, 1999 O = Valid Combination - But No Test Plans in Place (Under Review) X = Valid Combination - Test Completed or Plans in Place “Blank” - Combination Still Under Review Dark “Shade-in” = Duplicate Matrix Light “Shade-in” = Not a Valid Combination

16. 16 O = Valid Combination - But No Test Plans in Place (Under Review) X = Valid Combination - Test Completed or Plans in Place “Blank” - Combination Still Under Review Dark “Shade-in” = Duplicate Matrix Light “Shade-in” = Not a Valid Combination NRIC Focus Group 1, SubCommittee 2 Analysis April 9, 1999

17. 17 O = Valid Combination - But No Test Plans in Place (Under Review) X = Valid Combination - Test Completed or Plans in Place “Blank” - Combination Still Under Review Dark “Shade-in” = Duplicate Matrix Light “Shade-in” = Not a Valid Combination NRIC Focus Group 1, SubCommittee 2 Analysis April 9, 1999

18. 18 Sample of Testing Results n Telco Forum – Total Test Cases 1914 – 82 Elements and/or Management Systems from 21 Suppliers – 6 Year 2000 Anomalies (all fixed and retested) n ATIS Phase 11 – 11 Wireline/Wireless Carrier Participants – 12 Different Suppliers – No Year 2000 Date Related Issues Observed n CTIA Wireless/Wireless Testing – 850 Tests – No Year 2000 Related Anomalies

19. 19 Interoperability Testing Initial Analysis n Major LECs & IXCs have completed interoperability testing or have plans in place n Testing coverage spans the overall majority of access & inter-exchange switch & signaling vendors n No major interoperability gaps identified to date

20. 20 Additional Analysis Under Way n International n Data n Private Line n Compliant Networks with Non-Compliant Networks n Enhanced Service Provider (e.g. SS7 Providers for small-midsize companies)

21. 21 NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Subcommittee 3 Year 2000 Contingency Planning

22. 22 Communications Plan Overview n Adopt & Converge on Existing Proposals: –ITU –US Telco Year 2000 Forum –US National Coordinating Center (NCC) Communications n Recommendations: –Focus on Y2K Information Sharing for Telecommunications –Use NCC/NCS as Coordination & Focal Point for Support to Industry –Enable Structure for Collection/Sharing of Available Information & for Assistance Request –Leverage Existing Infrastructures & Minimum Capability to Link Participants –Rely on NCC/NCS to Collect & Share Information on Foreign & Other Related, Interdependent Industry Sources

23. 23 Plan Components NCC/NCS Participants DoD ITU Members White House Y2K Task Force White House Y2K Task Force Other Industry Sectors Other Industry Sectors Public International Sources

24. 24 Proposed Participants Recruit Representatives from Cross-Section of the Industry: –Y2K Telco Forum Members –Major Long Distance Service Providers –Internet & Cable Service Providers –Wireless & Satellite Service Providers –Telecommunications Equipment Providers –International Telecommunications Providers and/or Agencies –Canadian Telecommunications Industry Forum Members –Government Agencies

25. 25 Roles & Responsibilities NCC/NCS Acts as Intermediary in Inter-Industry Support & Effort Coordination Seeks and Coordinates Any Federal Support Required Serves as Information Single Point of Collection and Distribution for International Agencies and Companies Shares General Information With Y2K White House Task Force* and industry participants Supports Common Telecommunications Infrastructure for Communications To/From NCC/NCS by Participants * Task Force Will Ensure Official Communication to Public Participants Provide Timely, Accurate Account of Participant’s General Health Service Providers Will Report on Status of Network Services Equipment Vendors Will Advise on Common Equipment Issues/Solutions Participating Countries (Government and/or Telecom Company) Will Report on Their Status & Issues Within Respective Time Zones Around the World Have Reliable Links to NCS/NCC and Designated Liaison Should Have Backup Communications Capabilities in the Event the PSN Experiences Any Degradation (e.g., Satellite Backup) Identify Areas of Concern That Are Common to Other Participants Seek Support From NCC/NCS For Any Required Assistance

26. 26 Operational Principles n NCC/NCS Acts as Communications Center Coordinator n Activation & Operation Period: Sept. 9, 1999; Dec. 30, 1999 to Jan. 4, 2000; Feb. 28, 2000 to March 1, 2000 n Positive Status Reports as Frequently as Needed During Critical Stages of Rollover & as Few as 1 a Day n Format: –Pre-Defined Roster of Participants to be Called –Brief Status on Standard Information Checklist by Participants –Status on Other Industries and Foreign Agencies by NCC/NCS –Discussion on Inter-Industry Cooperation/Support Request/Efforts n Information Made available by NCC/NCS via: –Participant’s Representative –Web Interface or Data Base

27. 27 Major Milestones n Proposal Detailed & Committed by US Organizations n Notification Letter to Targeted Participants n Official Participant Commitment n Process in Place n Process/Capability Testing Worldwide Implementation Dates April 1999 May 1999 June 1999 August 1999 September 1999

28. 28 Contingency Plan Scenarios n 7 Categories –Crisis Management/Communications; Network Carrier Elements; Key Suppliers; Customer Related; International Carriers; Power/Infrastructure; Element Management/Operations Systems. n 38 What If Scenarios n Potential Alternatives Indicated –Prevention/Mitigation Category –High/Medium/Low Cost

29. 29 Contingency Plan Scenarios Y2K Failure Scenario “What If” Business RiskPotential Alternatives to be Explored by Carrier P/MCost POWER/INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED Failure of Power Supply to Central Office Disruption of Telecommunications Services to Local & LD Customers in the Area  Have Backup Power Sources (Generators)  Provide Diversity Where Feasible (Network & Services) M M H H Failure of Power Supply to Operations Center No Immediate Impact to Services; Temporary Inability to Manage Operations  Have Backup Power Sources  Have Backup Operations Center Take Over Management Responsibility  Have CO Personnel Provide Coverage M M M H M/H L/M Prolonged Failure of Power Supply to CO and/or Operations Center Same as above  Have Backup Power Sources & Ample Fuel Supply for Source  Have Mobile Generator Available to Cover Geographic Area (Assumes Power Won't Go Down Everywhere at Once) M M H M Water Supply Shortage Affecting HVAC Systems & Sanitation  Disruption of HVAC, Affecting Temperature Sensitive Elements with Potential Service Impact  Sanitation Problems, Impacting Health & Safety of Personnel  Have Backup Water Sources (Tanks)  Create Plan for Alternate Means of Ventilation & Partial, Non-Essential Equipment Shut-Down  Secure Portable Sanitation Equipment M M M L/M L Fuel Supply Shortage Affecting Backup Generator Operation Service Disruption in Case of Prolonged Power Supply Outage  Secure Ample Fuel Supply and means of transporting it. ML/M Building Access Limitation (electronic system disruption) Prevent Normal Personnel Access to Build During Emergency  Plan for Backup, Manual Access to the Building and Security Personnel On Call ML Building Environmental Systems Disruption Disruption of Elevators, Alarm Systems and others  Ensure Stair Wells are Accessible & Critical Personnel can Use Them  Have Personnel on Site to Monitor Environment M M L L Alternative CategoryCost for Implementation P = PreventionH = High M = MitigationM = Medium L = Low

30. 30 Contingency Plan Scenarios Alternative CategoryCost for Implementation P = PreventionH = High M = MitigationM = Medium L = Low

31. 31 n Initial Contingency Planning Workshop – April 27, 1999 – Washington Dulles Hilton – Co-Sponsored by NRIC & USTA – Hands-on Contingency Plan Development Training n NRIC Website Additions: – Possible Scenarios Matrix – Industry Communications Proposal n Expand Communications Model to Include Small Carriers Future Activities