John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (02/05/90)
My residence CO is just down the street. This building has been there
since the mid-50s and is your typical windowless telco-functional
design. To the side there is a large parking lot.
This last week, they have put a fence around the whole compound with
motorized gates (not parking lot arms, but full gates) at the parking
lot entrances. The appearance of the project would lead one to suspect
that they are preparing for some seige. This is a quiet, residential
neighorhood, fairly upscale, and not a place where anyone would
suspect that there would be a phyical security problem. In twenty-two
years, I have yet to have anything, car or house, broken into.
Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid?
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !c186aj@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) (02/05/90)
In article <3536@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: >My residence CO is just down the street. This building has been there >since the mid-50s and is your typical windowless telco-functional >design. To the side there is a large parking lot. >This last week, they have put a fence around the whole compound with >motorized gates (not parking lot arms, but full gates) at the parking >lot entrances. The appearance of the project would lead one to suspect >Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid? Perhaps for liability reasons. When that CO burnt down a year or so ago (was it Oak Brook, IL?) they were without service for at least a couple of weeks. I read in Insight that several of the larger businesses served by that CO sued Illinois Bell for interruption/loss of business. Apparently, someone thought that the fire alarm was a falsy and ignored it. I'm not sure who prevailed in the court case, but I would imagine that if a CO got taken out by vandals/special- interest-group-needing-attention and that adequate measures had not been taken, that Pacific Bell could be held liable. As an aside, I remember overhearing a conversation between two Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputies on a scanner where one was complaining that he had need to talk to someone who happened to work inside a CO in relation to some case he was working on. When he knocked or rang the bell or whatever, they said that there was *no* admittance to CO's by unauthorized personnel, and that a police officer was not considered "authorized" by Pacific Bell unless (s)he had a warrant. Needless to say, the cop wasn't too happy about this. I guess Pacific Bell is paranoid about something. Perhaps they are worried about a "ratepayer riot" over their pricing policies? :-) Seriously, considering just how important a single CO is to the tens of thousands of people and businesses it serves, I don't think they can be too careful.
wdarden@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Bill Darden) (02/07/90)
In article <3536@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: >Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid?> Hinsdale! Besides, it's on your nickle, so why not. Bill
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/07/90)
Steve Forrette <c186aj@cory.berkeley.edu> writes: > In article <3536@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: > >Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid? > Perhaps for liability reasons. Well, the mystery may be solved. I have received numerous pieces of mail, including some from people at Pac*Bell, who have informed me that there is construction about to go on at that office. The twelve prefixes of crossbar are about to become 5ESS. From what I know about 5ESS, I'm not too sure that's much of an improvement, but at least it tends to answer the question concerning the fence. They need the parking lot as an unloading and staging area. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !