newsbytes@clarinet.com (01/18/90)
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1990 JAN 16 (NB) -- During a
teleconference carried nationwide over a free 900 number, AT&T
Chairman Robert Allen blamed the great phone brown-out of Jan.
15 on software designed to make the system even more redundant.
American Telephone & Telegraph Co.'s long-distance service was
disrupted Monday. Service was crippled about 2:50 p.m. EST, when
callers began receiving recorded messages saying the company's
network, the largest in the nation, was overloaded. The company
announced around 11:45 PM that a software "bandage" had returned
the network to full service.
Chairman Robert Allen took personal blame for the problem. "Even
though it was a one-time hit, this was the most far-reaching
service problem we ever experienced," he said. "We responded with
every resource at our disposal. We worked throughout the night,
nonstop and flat out. And we'll do whatever it takes to make sure
this doesn't recur."
"What we believe triggered the trouble was a software problem in
a new signaling feature we were introducing, which would add
redundancy. I wish I could tell you exactly what went wrong. I
can't. But here's the scenario.
"At about 2:25 Eastern, a software problem occurred in the
network" [apparently when AT&T engineers tried to add additional
circuits to a New York City switch.] "Preliminary indications of
problems in signaling spread rapidly" [as the switch overloaded,
passing its problems along.] "That spread to the switch network,
including toll-free 800 lines. AT&T private line service and
other special networks, including those of the government, were
not affected" because they're not part of the normal switched
network.
Normally, Allen added, AT&T handles about 110 million calls. Due
to the Martin Luther King holiday, only about 100 million calls
were attempted Jan. 15. At the problem's height, call
completions dropped 50%.
Ken Garrett, senior vice president of network services, said the
company believes there was no sabotage and no computer virus
involved. "That's always been a suspicion, but we have a growing
level of confidence that's not the case. We won't rule it out
until we're absolutely sure," he added. The switch that failed
was an AT&T 4ESS, which is programmed in the C language.
Allen declined continued requests to discuss the company's
marketing strategy in the wake of the disaster, saying: "Our first
problem is to make sure the network is working... [and] secondly,
we're going to be talking to customers today, reassuring them of
our actions." He hinted, however, that the company might take out
full-page newspaper ads as early as Jan. 17. "It's the first
time in 32 1/2 years I've been in the business we've had this
kind of failure."
Allen said the company would also try to compensate customers,
while denying that AT&T had any legal obligation to do that. "We
have an 800-number assurance policy, which we'll honor, even
though this condition doesn't fit. We're also looking at our
other options on a customer-by-customer basis. We do intend to
file an emergency petition with the FCC today, calling for a
special day of discounted calling, which will be some small
compensation to all customers."
The 800-number assurance policy says that if a customer has a
problem AT&T will switch them over within an hour to alternate
facilities. Compensation follows ifthat does not occur. Only one
customer requested that AT&T move its 800 services to another carrier,
and Allen said the company's attempts to do that were rebuffed.
Allen also discussed a "New York Times" report that, early on,
operators were unwilling to give callers information on how to
make their calls with other carriers. "That was accurate early in
the day. We asked our operators later to offer those numbers to
our customers in the event they asked for them."
Allen said the company has not calculated how much revenue was
lost directly, nor have they estimated how much market share AT&T
could lose as a result of its problems.
(Dana Blankenhorn/19900116/Press Contact: Daisy Ottman, AT&T,
201-221-6227)