Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

tennessean.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 517 posts

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#301

Post by kitteh »

unethical_ban wrote: post #195
Scoundreller wrote: post #87

Reports that most of Tennessee is without 9-1-1 service right now: https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32982150-AT-T-Suffers-outa... And AT&T mobile is down across Kentucky: https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32981927-Services-Suspicio... Also reports above that calls into Tennessee aren't working.

It is pretty nuts that a single physical location can bring down a state's worth of 911, and cellular. It is either institutional incompetence, or malice, or laziness.

Lack of redundancy due to cost probably has something to do with it.

Same issue with internet peering in quite a few cities (no viable 2nd location, costs a lot of money to double up the gear, additona optical transport).

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#302

Post by kirbysnacks »

waterhouse wrote: post #280
bigbubba wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There are certainly people who believe both or either of those were terrorism.

Bertrand Russell's conjugations. I am a freedom fighter, you are an insurgent, he is a terrorist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation

A misguided and antisocial attempt at freedom, if that was the intention...

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#303

Post by gxnxcxcx »

monoideism wrote: post #288
anonymouse008 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m convinced there are a handful of accounts designed to suppress thought and discussion — they hit you with a few downvotes... see how you respond, then downvote up to 10 votes. (Note this only from my experience... it would help immensely to know who downvoted)

I know this is true. There are a handful of bots, or possibly HN itself, that immediately downvotes comments that HN will find popular, but that aren't "politically correct". Happens to me frequently that I receive an immediate 3-4 downvotes, only to end up with 10-20 upvotes and few subsequent downvotes. The only alternative -- that there are a handful of avid HNers who are on here 24 hours a day, who really hate di…

Once an open platform becomes crowded enough, downvoting without further interaction to show disagreement is fully expected. It's unhealthy because it turns discourse into a popularity contest, but that's the world we live in.

Maybe your opinion is just a tad less popular than what you expect it to be.

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#304

Post by selimthegrim »

TylerE wrote: post #254
philwelch wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas is useful for ranges or water heaters regardless of climate.

Sure, but as someone who's lived in the Southeast my entire life, I've never seen city gas. Where there's gas there's a tank that's filled by a truck.

New Orleans has it.

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#305

Post by onetimemanytime »

rsync wrote: post #256
partiallypro wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance doesn't cover terrorism in most all cases, as it is considered a war zone.

Insurance typically does not cover terrorism but, of course, it can cover terrorism. If Tina Turner can insure her legs[1] you can insure your building for terrorism claims. [1] https://www.crfashionbook.com/celebrity/g30247446/celebrity-...

But you'd stand out just as someone killing their spouse the day after $1m life insurance kicked in.

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#306

Post by stevekemp »

gizmo686 wrote: post #266
joshuakelly wrote: post #22

This article doesn't make this so explicit, but ATT infrastructure appears to be the intentional target of the bombing. You can see the building in the helicopter shot at the top of the NYTimes article on the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/25/us/nashville-explosion.ht... Obviously a telecommunications/switch hub, with it being a large windowless building in a downtown core. The other thing that's particularly…

Sending a warning before a bombing isn't that uncommon. It's less common (although not entirely unheard of) if the bombing is a terrorist attack. But if, as you suggest, that target is infrastructure, the only real reason to not give a warning is tactical. WIthout knowing who is responsible for it, it is possible they wanted to inflict whatever damage they had in mind, without causing any loss of life or human injuri…

The IRA often used to send out warnings for their terrorist attacks. (Not always of course, but it wasn't so unusual).

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#307

Post by panarky »

jrockway wrote: post #167
panarky wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably not very productive to guess at the purpose with so little to go on. But if that's what we're doing, then my bet is on "overwhelming law enforcement and emergency response so a different crime can go undetected".

Why Nashville then? I used to work in 111 8th Ave (a big meet-me facility in New York City) and "National Security Agency" was on the building directory. Why risk killing civilians to wiretap Nashville? They can probably ask nicely ("nicely") and get whatever they want.

Maybe they're not trying to wiretap Nashville.

Nobody's taking credit so it doesn't seem like politically-motivated terrorism.

There are many military and DHS facilities within the radius of disrupted communications.

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#308

Post by rorykoehler »

gizmo686 wrote: post #266
joshuakelly wrote: post #22

This article doesn't make this so explicit, but ATT infrastructure appears to be the intentional target of the bombing. You can see the building in the helicopter shot at the top of the NYTimes article on the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/25/us/nashville-explosion.ht... Obviously a telecommunications/switch hub, with it being a large windowless building in a downtown core. The other thing that's particularly…

Sending a warning before a bombing isn't that uncommon. It's less common (although not entirely unheard of) if the bombing is a terrorist attack. But if, as you suggest, that target is infrastructure, the only real reason to not give a warning is tactical. WIthout knowing who is responsible for it, it is possible they wanted to inflict whatever damage they had in mind, without causing any loss of life or human injuri…

The IRA nearly always sent warnings in the 90s. Usually by calling a radio station with a code word.

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#309

Post by sneak »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #232
ALittleLight wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there have been several attacks of this magnitude or worse since September 11. e.g. The Boston Marathon bombing or the anthrax attacks, or Christopher Dorner (though maybe that's less terrorist and more revenge). There have been lots. I think, so long as this wasn't a test run for a coordinated attack on the telecoms, then this is not a very bad terrorist attack.

Yeah, that’s a good point. I forgot entirely about the Boston marathon bombing. And in comparison, that one was indeed much worse... my Airbnb host at the time was participating in the race, and almost got caught in the explosion. Hmm. Well, it will be interesting to see whatever motivated this bombing.

That's not even counting the hundreds of officially sanctioned terror attacks by US police in that time.

Re: ATT services down due to bombing in Nashville

#310

Post by happymellon »

cozzyd wrote: post #265
6nf wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry just to clarify, why would the Boston tea party be terrorists in some eyes? Did they attack civilians for political reasons?

Destroying property for political reasons is still terrorism (like blowing up a parking lot of SUVs).

Destroying property for political reasons is not terrorism. You have to incite terror, if civilians are not scared then it isn't terrorism it is vandalism.
Post reply on HN