Re: [earlywarning] global CAP community

[Janet P Gunn <jgunn6 at csc.com>]

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>
wrote on 05/01/2009 06:52:05 PM:

> At 04:36 PM 5/1/2009, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> > > I was wondering the same thing, as priority seems natural
(wrt server
> > > resources, and indication of the type of message), but this
is never
> > > going to be a stream, so I don't think we'll likely have
1 message
> > > preempt another (but we may delay one message relative to
another).
> >In many cases, this will be dictated by national regulatory
> >authorities or legislative requirements. In the U.S., for
> >example, under the WARN Act, presidential messages
> >preempt all others. In addition, when the FCC or other
> >authorities specify certain NS/EP conditions, preemption
> >actually occurs.
> 
> hmmmm.... NS/EP means preemption....?
> 
> I'll let Janet comment on that - since she works for NCS (who run
GETS).

IFF the war powers act were invoked, then preemption
would be permitted.

But, in situations not triggering the war powers act-
which is the "real world" situation we actually deal with- the
Service Providers will not permit preemption of voice communication.  This
is not because there is an actual stated ban on preemption, but because
of the concern that a person whose (life or death) call was preempted could
sue under the terms of the Telecommunications Act, and they would have
no defense.

None of the deployed NS/EP programs I am aware of
(including the ones I am not supposed to talk about) use preemption.  Queueing,
alternate routing, exemption from network controls, exemption from load
shedding- they are all part of the NS/EP programs.  But not preemption.

But that is beside the point.

In "earlywarning" we are talking about "messages",
not "calls" or even "sessions". What is it that you
are going to "preempt"?  Sure, if it is a voice message
you are sending, you could interrupt the message to send some other message.
 But then you would just resend the original message later.  Delayed,
but not preempted.
 Janet
> 
> I'm curious about this line too
> 
>          "In the U.S., for example,
under the WARN Act,
>          presidential messages preempt all
others."
> 
> The WARN act isn't about real-time communications, so why is there
> any need for preemption? Why not just store-and-forward (i.e., delay)
> the messages of lower priority than the president's?
> 
> James
> 
> 
> >--tony
>