Katrina and communications: Waters of mass destruction

Emergency and other telecom services were significantly curtailed or disrupted by Hurricane Katrina. How much of this was the fault of government remains to be seen. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is another example of the arrogance and inertia of some federal agencies that have fundamentally done nothing to address the resiliency of our communications infrastructure in the four years since 9/11.

On Sept. 15, the FCC took some fine proactive steps to address disaster response. One key element of this initiative is the formation of a blue-ribbon panel from the public safety and communications industry to perform an independent review of Katrina and make recommendations to the FCC for improving preparedness, network robustness and reliability, and operations. This shows, along with the Army's rapid deployment of satellite-based communications, that the federal government is not totally stuck in neutral.

Let's examine the issues:

To continue reading, register here and become an Insider. You'll get free access to premium content from CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World. See more Insider content or sign in.

Emergency and other telecom services were significantly curtailed or disrupted by Hurricane Katrina. How much of this was the fault of government remains to be seen. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is another example of the arrogance and inertia of some federal agencies that have fundamentally done nothing to address the resiliency of our communications infrastructure in the four years since 9/11.

On Sept. 15, the FCC took some fine proactive steps to address disaster response. One key element of this initiative is the formation of a blue-ribbon panel from the public safety and communications industry to perform an independent review of Katrina and make recommendations to the FCC for improving preparedness, network robustness and reliability, and operations. This shows, along with the Army's rapid deployment of satellite-based communications, that the federal government is not totally stuck in neutral.

Let's examine the issues:

Government entities need to focus more on the importance of a resilient communications infrastructure - wireline, wireless, Internet - in times of crisis. Immediately after Sept. 11, there was creative, rapid deployment of VoIP as a work-around, and renewed interest in distributed workforces and "continuity of operations" in the public and private sectors. What's happened since? It's hard to say, since crisis and emergency management apparently get attention (and budget) only when related to terrorism.

There will be changes in roles and responsibilities because of Katrina. Industry must work in partnership with government, if not take the lead and drive the effort to affect progress. Some federal entities want to be in charge, but there's no place for arrogance here. The scope and complexity of modern communications require the melding of multiple viewpoints, especially lessons learned and practicality from industry.

Funding and goal setting are key. The Fed should take some money earmarked for IPv6 migration and divert it to the real and more immediate needs of developing resilient and emergency infrastructures for critical communications. Minimally, this could result in initial independent studies of the work ahead and establish the objectives and time frame of that effort.

Communications technologies have advanced significantly since Sept. 11. Consider presence - it would have been invaluable if available to first responders in the World Trade Center disaster. Adequate representation of emerging technologies in the development of alternative solutions for critical communications is a challenge, as is the role of standards. It may be an issue of riches: We have too many possibilities and too little time to address them all.

Now is the time for those involved in networking to come to the aid of the people and infrastructure of the Gulf Coast. A strong government-industry partnership is a great step toward this objective, and the FCC is to be congratulated for its part in the initiative. One would hope that inside-the-Beltway power politics will not prevent the partnership from doing its job.