Skip to main content
 
Exploring Regional Telecommunications Incident Response Coordination

Abstract

Executive Summary

Introduction

Assessing the value of a regional telecommunications response

Current environment

Investigating Alternatives

Recommendations

Appendix 1. Workshop Participants

Appendix 2. High Priority/High Do-Ability Matrix

Appendix 3. Current Practice Review
print html versionPrint Chapter (html)
print pdf versionPrint Chapter (pdf)
Current environment

Importance of data and contextual knowledge

Participants repeatedly emphasized the value of accurate, sufficient data and contextual information sharing in a time-sensitive environment; receiving detailed information quickly becomes especially important in regional, multi-state, or multi-jurisdictional responses. A telecommunications incident response can be severely hindered if the response team lacks this granularity of data along with the contextual knowledge of the region. As an example of the value of contextual knowledge, one of the participants discussed the potential for underestimation of regional implications of an event. “If, say a telecommunications call center in Dallas, Texas became aware that electric service was down in the Palisades cliff area of New Jersey, it might not appreciate the potential impact to telecommunications in that region. Regionally remote call centers would likely have limited knowledge about what that service outage means to the local service technicians in a geographic area such as the cliffs of the Palisades, a 550-foot-high precipice along the west bank of the Hudson River in Bergen County, New Jersey and Rockland County, New York. The call center attendee, without knowledge of this geographic area, might not fully appreciate the logistical challenge of this response, nor the implications for telecommunications services in NYC, Westchester, and Northern New Jersey.”

In one participant’s view, this type of regional knowledge is imperative for decisions concerning resource distribution, response time estimates, and supplying special equipment in response to an incident. Participants stressed the importance of having knowledgeable workers as near to the ‘ground’ as possible. Creating a “clearinghouse” for information was another important aspect of improving both the quality of the data and the speed with which it could be delivered. Sharing information alone would not help refine the response; knowing what information was important within the context of where the incident occurred and what items are needed for restoration of service was viewed as being equally valuable as the sharing itself. This focus on local expertise is also consistent with the National Response Plan’s view that “the lowest jurisdictional level” possible should provide incident response.2 Accomplishing this vision effectively means responders will need timely, accurate information.
2 “A basic premise of the NRP is that incidents are generally handled at the lowest jurisdictional level possible. Police, fire, public health and medical, emergency management, and other personnel are responsible for incident management at the local level. In some instances, a Federal agency in the local area may act as a first responder and may provide direction or assistance consistent with its specific statutory authorities and responsibilities. In the vast majority of incidents, State and local resources and interstate mutual aid normally provide the first line of emergency response and incident management support.” (National Response Plan, page 15.)