I don't know that is true. I believe voice network was overwhelmed. Wireless data and sms had no issue or interruption whatsoever.
A friend about 80 miles near the epicenter says phones are down but
Comcast Internet, by way of some miracle, is up
Based on a sampling of thousands of cable modems, dsl, and cellular sites in
the DC area:
With a 10 second keepalive/30 second holdtime, I only saw, maybe, 2-3 sites
disappear per thousand based on an endpoint in Ashburn, VA. I do see some
delay cellular side, but it looks to be solely congestion (high pings,
etc.). However, it was minimal and was a 15 minute occurrence which
gradually peaked then dropped down to normal levels. I'm guessing it's
usage based.
The DSL/cable had no drops that I can find.
Largely, it has had little to no effect for me.
I was watching the news reports on TV here in California. People were either being evacuated or elf-evacuating from building in DC, NYC, etc. As the cameras panned over the crowds, I would estimate 75% of the people had their phones out. Within fifteen minutes of the event, my wife either called or received a call from her family in VA and NY.
A 5.8 (or 5.9, I've seen conflicting numbers) really isn't likely to do all
that much damage, even on the East Coast. In California, anyone who
has lived here for more than 10 years probably doesn't even feel
anything less than a 5, and, it takes a solid 6 to really get anyone's
attention out here. Natives mostly won't change their behavior for
anything short of a 6.5.
I would presume that on the East Coast where you have a lot more
masonry construction you might see some minor building damage
and a few cracked walls here and there, but it's unlikely to sever
any underground utilities or take out any facilities.
I suspect the voice network is overwhelmed because it's probably
a newsworthy event in that area, but that will probably die down
in a few hours after everyone finally reaches their loved ones and
hears that everyone is OK, but, boy wasn't that exciting…
Owen
A 5.8 (or 5.9, I've seen conflicting numbers) really isn't likely to do all
that much damage, even on the East Coast. In California, anyone who
has lived here for more than 10 years probably doesn't even feel
anything less than a 5, and, it takes a solid 6 to really get anyone's
attention out here. Natives mostly won't change their behavior for
anything short of a 6.5.I would presume that on the East Coast where you have a lot more
masonry construction you might see some minor building damage
and a few cracked walls here and there, but it's unlikely to sever
any underground utilities or take out any facilities.I suspect the voice network is overwhelmed because it's probably
a newsworthy event in that area, but that will probably die down
in a few hours after everyone finally reaches their loved ones and
hears that everyone is OK, but, boy wasn't that exciting�
Raw magnitude is not a great indicator of shaking intensity.
Our rocks are much more fractured out here on the west coast
due to earthquakes, etc. A 5.9 back east is nothing to sniff at.
Mike, not a geologist
A 5.8 (or 5.9, I've seen conflicting numbers)
Hi Owen,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/se082311a.html#details
Originally reported as 5.8. Briefly upped to 5.9. Now back to 5.8.
really isn't likely to do all
that much damage, even on the East Coast.In California, anyone who
has lived here for more than 10 years probably doesn't even feel
anything less than a 5, and, it takes a solid 6 to really get anyone's
attention out here. Natives mostly won't change their behavior for
anything short of a 6.5.
Two points:
A. Our structures aren't built to seismic zone standards. Our
construction workers aren't familiar with *how* to build to seismic
zone standards. We don't secure equipment inside our buildings to
seismic zone standards.
B. The crust on the east coast is much more solid than on the west
coast, so the seismic waves propagate much further. Los Angeles
doesn't feel an earthquake north of San Francisco unless it's huge.
New York City felt this earthquake near Richmond VA. So yes, we're
seeing relatively minor damage... but we're seeing it over a much
wider area than someone in California would.
Regards,
Bill
We felt it, and it overloaded our seismometer, too. The link to the trace is at:
http://www.pari.edu/about_pari/pari-photos/archived-photos/miscellaneous/august-23-2011-richmond-earthquake/ch1-virginia-quake-20110823-1.jpg/view
Live data is at:
http://www.pari.edu/telescopes/geoscience/seismic-readings/readings/
Film at 11 (and 10; local TV station came by and interviewed....).
We're 300+ miles away from the epicenter.
At the time I wondered if anything near the IX's in that area might be impacted, almost posted about it, and figured that anyone who actually knew would be too busy to talk about it....
Although any Internet Exchange Facility can have bad luck (i.e. remember the Ashburn data center damaged by a hurricane/tornado in 2004), most of the major IX's in the US are built for above average hazards based on where they are located. Earthquakes are rarer on the East Coast of the US, but the buiding code still lists design earthquake requirements for essential facilities. The more difficult thing is probably convincing customers that don't want to bolt down their equipment cabinets in the data center.
Of course it never ends. There is a hurricane forecast for the east coast later this week.
I don't get to tour internet data centers as much as I used to, so I don't know how well they are doing now.
Also, the quake on the east coast was much closer to the surface than
most west coast quakes, which could account for the feeling.
Scott (not a geologist)
They should be.
You should.
Earthquakes can happen anywhere. There's no excuse to fail to build/secure to earthquake standards.
jc
Tornados can happen anywhere, there's no excuse to fail to build/secure for tornados.
[Etc.]
Things that cost money are not done unless the probability of the danger is higher than vanishingly small. This temblor - at 5.8 with no injuries or fatalities - was the largest earthquake on the entire east coast in 67 years, and the largest in VA in well over a century. Think of the _trillions_ of dollars which could have been put into healthcare, public safety, hell, better networking equipment 
we could have used instead of making all buildings on the east coast earthquake safe.
Indeed, we are not going to be building earthquake proof buildings in London for example.
Riot proof maybe..
I am not sure the original statement is completely
accurate. At least for commercial construction,
there are (now) seismic standards. It is true that
the right coast did not change the building codes
until (as I recall) the mid (to) late 1970s to account
for earthquakes. I believe there are some differences
in those codes from the left coast standards, to reflect
the type and intensity of the quakes likely to occur
(and the liquefaction issues are presumably different
when the granite bedrock is practically under your feet).
However, there are a *lot* of older buildings that
predate the newer codes, and in general no monies
are allocated for seismic retrofits (except, as in
many jurisdictions, when you do major modifications
and you then have to upgrade the building to the
current codes).
As far as securing equipment, I do remember
some safety person coming around suggesting it
at one point as a possibly improvement when I
worked in that region in the 90's, but, not surprisingly,
they were more worried about other safety
improvements (like snow and ice removal, and
repair of cracked sidewalks and stairs). Priorities
for safety improvements will always be made.
Gary
(I am also not a geologist)
There's a reason NEBS is so strict; there's a reason NEBS is so expensive.
Cheers,
-- jra
False economy. That argument was valid *before* the Internet became a
Generally Mission Critical Utility. It is now. And, alas, commerce being
what it is, it's not deployed to be *nearly* as failover redundant as it
was designed to be,[1]
Cheers,
-- jra
[1]Anyone who wants to debate either half of this, change the subject line.
It's more complex than that: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/east-coast-earthquakes/
And eastern cities can experience quakes of a magnitude noteworthy even on the West Coast -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston,South_Carolina#Postbellum_era.281865.E2.80.931945.29
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
A 5.6 quake in Newcastle, Australia in 1989 caused, according to Wikipedia,
"13 fatalities, 160 people hospitalised, 300,000 people affected. 50,000
homes damaged, 300 buildings demolished. Damage estimated at $4 billion".
I left Newcastle in 1997, and even then there were will houses that had not
been fully repaired from the damage caused.
A smaller 5.2 quake in 1994 "only" caused $35 million worth of damage.
So whilst it's not unusual for 5.x quakes to pass without causing any real
damage, there's a lot more to it than just the magnitude...
Even the 3.6 magnitude one in CA last night was enough to cause my mini-UPS
at home to jump onto battery for a few seconds.
Scott.
I'll scratch "no earthquakes" off the list of benefits for the east
coast over the west coast. 
~Seth
A very early blogger buddy of mine owned a stake, for a while, in a colo in
Knoxville TN, which was, they said, out of *all* the hazard planes: too
far inland for hurricanes, not in the tornado belt, too far south to freeze
solid, not in the flood plains, and not near any fault line.
Dunno how accurate an assertion that was.
Cheers,
-- jra