Slashdot Mirror


VoIP And Cell Phones Eroding Traditional Telecoms

Lullabye_Muse writes "Yahoo! reports that telecoms in Europe and U.S. are losing in response to people switching their home phones for cellphones and dial up to cable modems. More info on specific VoIP discussed in latter part of article. The trend seems to becoming widespread, I guess 10 years and all the old wires are gonna start to be taken down."

390 comments

  1. A land-line...? by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "We saw what would happen with Voice over Internet Protocol. Rather than allow it to happen to us, we decided to embrace the technology," a BT spokesman said.
    Smart move. The discount carriers are going to ramp-up competition, and this can only be good for us, the good ol' consumer. One of these days, VoIP will come to mobile, and that will be another milestone; we'll see how the big carriers respond to that.

    I still keep my land-line operational, though... I'm beginning to wonder why.
    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:A land-line...? by fishbert42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, embrace our new, technology overl... eh, fuck it.

    2. Re:A land-line...? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still keep my land-line operational, though... I'm beginning to wonder why. Well, it's not really a bad idea considering that your landline is the most reliable. It'll work during bad weather, and it'll work during a power outage, or when your ISP is being neglegent and your connection is down.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:A land-line...? by z3021017 · · Score: 0

      I still keep my land-line operational, though... I'm beginning to wonder why.

      Just in case there is a blackout which knocks out your computer, you can (usually) still communicate with your phoneline - it's always good to have a backup!

      --
      Bored? Visit my exciting counter page!
    4. Re:A land-line...? by SIGALRM · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It'll work during bad weather
      Dammit, I shouldn't have purchased that fancy 2.4GHz cordless piece of crap. Besides, it interferes w/my 802.11g and--you make a good point--doesn't provide me any extra reliability.
      --
      Sigs cause cancer.
    5. Re:A land-line...? by BoldAC · · Score: 4, Informative

      I still have a land line... it's just through the cable instead of POTS.

      We've been using roadrunner's digital phone service since day 1. $30ish for anywhere, anytime, no LD. Call waiting, etc.

      We've had no problems with service until the last week. The cable/VoIP modem start cycling and trying to readjust over and over.

      The guy came out and changed the modems. He said that it is very, very common.

      So if you start losing VoIP service and your modem starts cycling... be quick to report it so they can change out your device.

      I can blast huge torrents over suprnova and talk on the phone at the same time without any problems. I've been very impressed with the bandwidth... In fact, my impression is that my bandwidth greatly improved when they switched me over to VoIP. I imagine they uncap the bandwidth when you get digital phone service so insure both services work well together.

      AC

    6. Re:A land-line...? by racermd · · Score: 1

      I keep my land-line going, too. I even use their Voicemail service instead of a physical answering maching at my home, though long-distance has been declined due to the less expensive service I get via my mobile phone. But I use the land-line mainly as a point of reference and emergency.

      Most creditors like to have a land-line number attached to our contact information as it's *generally* less frequently changed (only changes when you move, usually).

      Also, if my cell battery dies, or the mobile phone itself dies, I still have a way to make a phone call if I needed to.

      As for additional services, I use my cable-provider's internet services and I won't look back. I looked at DSL, but the price/bandwidth ratio favors the cable company for my "consumer" needs.

      If the local phone company were to offer something more compelling than just POTS and DSL, I'd be a bit more interested in sending them my money instead of the local cable company and my mobile carrier. I dunno - Something like FTTH would be nice... Too bad I don't live in Verizon's service area.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    7. Re:A land-line...? by tdemark · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not really a bad idea considering that your landline is the most reliable.

      The absolute minimum I can pay Verizon for a line is $12.87 + tax + fees per month (which means it's actually over $15 / mo).

      Frankly, it doesn't seem right have to pay $180 / yr for a residential line that I would only use in an emergency. And, no, there is no such thing as a "911-only" line - at least that's what the Verizon salesperson told me.

      On the other hand, in an emergency, $180 probably wouldn't seem like much...

      - Tony

    8. Re:A land-line...? by roche · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I still keep my land-line operational, though... I'm beginning to wonder why"

      I will never get rid of mine until they develop a system where 911 can determine my location instantly in a emergency.

      Also, what are you going to do when the power goes out? My landline still works with no power.

      --

      roche
      Bah Humbug!
    9. Re:A land-line...? by tarogue · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's because you're using wireless. The key idea behind "land-line" is the "line". I have cordless phones for the mobility, but I will always keep a wired phone as insurance.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    10. Re:A land-line...? by halowolf · · Score: 1
      An XBOX and XBOX Live can be used to chat to people. Its hardly the be all and end all of VOIP communication, and you are kind of stuck with needing some big cumbersome equipment, but still its cheaper than telephoning those people on the otherside of the country (when you heartily ignore the infrastructure costs into setting up an XBOX on XBOX Live) :) I look at it as a perk to something I wanted anyway for entertainment purposes. Besides my ADSL is used for far more than XBOX Live :)

      I hardly ever use my landline for anything now except ADSL and the odd local phone call, and its free message bank facility.

    11. Re:A land-line...? by danheskett · · Score: 1

      ? My landline still works with no power.
      As long as your teleco still has power. In my area (Maine), when I lose power so does my teleco (after a while).

      However, now that I have VoIP, a cheap UPS means I have several hours worth of backup. In the future I can see various VoIP devices having built in battery backups.. that's hardly cost anythng.

    12. Re:A land-line...? by thenightisdark · · Score: 1

      "Also, what are you going to do when the power goes out? My landline still works with no power."
      Uh, not make phone calls? :-)

      --
      Piracy is Adam Smiths invisble hand fisting you in the ass, Mr. Gates. - MightyMartian (840721)
    13. Re:A land-line...? by imperialstormtrooper · · Score: 1

      local carriers have backup generators in case of power failure...call away as long as your phone does not require batteries (like a cordless phone)

    14. Re:A land-line...? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is it just me or do virtually ALL newer cordless phones suck? The best one I've ever had was a 900 MHz phone I bought about 7 years ago for $30. Except for needing a new battery a couple of times, it has never had any problems and still sounds great. I couldn't say the same for any newer models that cost a lot more.

    15. Re:A land-line...? by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      my cordless phone ( a sony, it hink) keeps a spare battery charging, so you can quickly swap to a fully charged battery. in event of a power outtage, the cordless still works, since its powered by the spare phone battery (for a while, anyway)

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    16. Re:A land-line...? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't be so sure. A lot of telcos have moved to using Remote Terminals (RT's) in neighborhoods. Basically, everyone's voice pairs terminate in the RT, and then there's a few pairs of fiber from the RT to the central office.

      The idea is to save money; you have to run MUCH LESS copper, since EACH SUBSCRIBER PAIR doesn't have to go to the CO; it also enables DSL services for individuals who would otherwise be too far from the CO.

      The problem: Unlike the CO, RT's don't have a backup generator. They only have batteries. So if there's a long-lasting power failure at the RT, you only get a few hours of battery backup before the RT runs out of juice, and all the local voice pairs coming out of it go dead. Sure, there's still light on the fiber coming from the CO, but what good does that do you?

      Now, in a crisis, telcos actually have portable generators on trailers that they can haul out to RT's serving critical facilities, like hospitals. But unless your residence shares an RT with a hospital, don't count on getting more than few hours of continued service after the lights go out.

      There's generally thousands of these RT's in areas where they're used; they don't have enough generators for all of them.

      -Z

    17. Re:A land-line...? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      yeah I can do the same thing with iChat.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    18. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, it's not really a bad idea considering that your landline is the most reliable. It'll work during bad weather, and it'll work during a power outage, or when your ISP is being neglegent and your connection is down.
      It WON'T work when you're not at home. BTW, my cell worked fine during the last power outage. Its been my only phone line for almost 2 years, and the only problem I've had is that sometimes I can't remember where I put the darn thing, it's so small. But it's a lot more convenient than a land line. I would never go back.

      When I wanted to get my home net connection, I had a choice between 5mb/1mb cable dsl or 3mb/0.5mb adsl - except that I would have had to also pay for a land line with adsl, so the faster cable connection is actually cheaper. It's a no-brainer (and my IP never changes with cable - an extra bonus for my home server).

    19. Re:A land-line...? by name773 · · Score: 1

      "So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me; for all is vanity and a c
      could you please finish it? i'm interested

    20. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ditched my regular phone line for VoIP and ported my number over to my VoIP line.

      My net connection is quite flawless. I've only had a couple outages in the last year and both were very short - so I'm not worried about the VoIP I installed last month being unavailable. The quality is great. The price ($20 for US & Canada, 2 to 4 cents a minute most every other country, plus all the *69, 3-way, voicemail and other services thrown in) is excellent. It beats the $75/mo I was paying with Qwest and that only gave me US long distance.

      The only downside is that Emergency 911 service costs an extra $4/mo. That's 20% extra! But if you memorize the real local police number and/or program it into your phone, then who cares.

      Anyway, I'm glad to finally be rid of Qwest. No more phone company for me! The only utilities I pay now are Comcast and Portland General Electric.

    21. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I will cock eggs over the landline. You, on the other hand, will have to learn how to use matches.

    22. Re:A land-line...? by wrf3 · · Score: 1

      It's from the Bible.

      "So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind." -- Ecclesiastes 2:17 (NIV).

    23. Re:A land-line...? by uberdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have two problems with the whole cable/dsl issue. The first is that (hereabouts) the only ISP I can use on the cable is the Rogers. Rogers does not permit me to run my own servers. If I had a DSL line, I would have a choice of providers which allow servers.

      The other (more important) issue is that CableInternet+Cell costs a fair penny more than DSL+Landline.

    24. Re:A land-line...? by name773 · · Score: 1

      sounded like it, thanks
      i guess Solomon was a nerd too :)
      (work done under the sun...)

    25. Re:A land-line...? by jriskin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      900mhz is a pretty good spot for cordless. The higher frequencies tend to bounce around and get absorbed by walls and structures. People forget that bigger numbers aren't always better.

      Personally I miss the days of 3-5watt analog cell phones. Range was about 10x what the little 800mW ones we carry around today. The networks are also about 10x more crowded. The reason they went to digital in the first place was just to get more people in the same amount of spectrum...

    26. Re:A land-line...? by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      We've had no problems with service until the last week. The cable/VoIP modem start cycling and trying to readjust over and over. The guy came out and changed the modems. He said that it is very, very common. So if you start losing VoIP service and your modem starts cycling... be quick to report it so they can change out your device.

      But you kind of make an interesting point for a wired line, in that should the hardware fail (in this case a telephone), you can always go out and get a new one cheaply. When you rely on a cable modem for you voice connection, you're relying on a lot more than just the wire.

      And I'm not so sure all cable companies are quick to respond to outages, whether they're voice or internet related. The old phone companies certainly don't.

    27. Re:A land-line...? by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Really? Then the base station is powered by a battery, too? That's traditionally the weakness in a cordless system when a power outage occurs since most base stations require AC to work, making it irrelevant that the handset still has juice.

    28. Re:A land-line...? by jdreed1024 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      So if you start losing VoIP service and your modem starts cycling... be quick to report it so they can change out your device.

      Hrm, my digital phone went out. Internet too. Weird. Oh well, I'll just pick up the phone and call the cable company so ..... oh, crap.

      Enh, no big deal, I'll just dial in to the modem pool at work.
      AT&F1
      ATDT6175551234
      NO DIALTONE

      Oh, right. Crap.

      Honestly, that's the single biggest reason for me to keep my landline. Redundancy. I want the ability to dial out if cable fails. Heck, with my laptop, I can even have connectivity in a power outage (yes, I've done this before). That and one of my friends got screwed by this when his digital phone service crapped out. He was complaining about it to me over IM and the fact that he couldn't even call to report it. Yes, yes, cell phones, but cell phone reception can be pretty crappy in large apartment buildings, and that doesn't help for connectivity, since cell modems are expensive.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    29. Re:A land-line...? by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      yeah. the spare handset battery (charged in the base) powers the base in case of a power outtage.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    30. Re:A land-line...? by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I keep it because its the only line that I know for sure will communicate my address to the 911 operator if I call then pass out from the Kool-Aid before I can tell them my address.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    31. Re:A land-line...? by tomreagan · · Score: 5, Informative

      well, they are right, there is no such thing as a 911-only phone. if you want a phone number, you need to pay for service.

      however, any phone in the united states is required to permit 911 dialing at all times under all circumstances. if you truly only want the phone to work to dial 911, disconnect servce and leave the phones plugged in. in an emergency, pick it up and dial 911 - the call must go through or the phone company is in a lot of trouble.

      you won't have a number, but you'll have what you want.

    32. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Rogers does not permit me to run my own servers
      Neither does mine, so
      1. I set apache to listen to port 8080 instead of port 80
      2. I use dyndns.org to give me between 1 and 5 free site names
      3. I set up apache to do named vhosting for each free site name
      4. I append the port# to any url, like this:
        http://myfakeservername.dyndns.org:8080
      Benefits:
      1. Faster downloading and uploading (2x the speed of Bell's fastest business adsl line) - I know, because I've got 2 Bell "extreme hispeed" business adsl lines at the office, and together they give me about the same speed I get at home with 1 cable line, at half the price.
      2. My IP never changes - whereas with the Bell adsl service, it changes (ir)regularly - some days it changes half a dozen times. I used to have the servers text my cell when the IP changes, but it was getting rediculous. So instead, I just dump important stuff on my home server.
      3. Freedom. I'm taking my dogs for a walk in a few minutes, and I'm bringing my phone. Can't do that with a land line.
      4. Staying in touch. I call my friends, family, and daughters when I'm waiting in line at the store, out, or whatever. And they can reach me any time also.
      My cell works out to about $10 more a month than a land line with the same features (and I use it a LOT more than I would ever use a land line - I've done up to 3000 minutes some months)

      My cable connection is the same price as Bell's fastest service, but the cable connection is 25% faster, and it's always 5mbs/1mbs or better - when I overshoot it, I see them throttling me back to 5mb/1mb - they have LOTS of spare capacity, whereas some days the two business ultra-hi Bell connections just crawl...

      Last month I had 160 gig of transfer on my home server, and it wasn't used THAT much. I was still able to surf, etc.

      Also, the latency is a lot less with cable - makes everything seem quicker. If we could get cable at the office, we'd dump the 2 bell lines in a minute.

    33. Re:A land-line...? by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Nice. I might have to scare up something like that for me own home. I'm a cord-hater. :)

    34. Re:A land-line...? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Faster and less crappy variants of DSL are coming, which will continue to use one pair of copper. Hell, your average T1 line is now carried on HSDSL, if I recall my acronym correctly. There's also frame relay which you can put on a pair of copper, but I don't know what the run length of that is like, and you generally have to may mileage for non-centrex frame relay service. Frame relay gets quite fast, however, and is [can be] symmetrical. I ditched my land [phone] line in favor of a combination of cellular for voice and a cable modem for internet but that copper isn't worthless yet. Or, more to the point, it's pretty worthless now if you can get cable, but it's going to be useful again soon. Except, perhaps, for the US, which is so spread out as to make deployment of these technologies prohibitively expensive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:A land-line...? by rs79 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not just you. I've lost count of how many we've tried and I swear the less you pay the better they work. Sony seems to be the worst; I did a 9 month gig at Sony and everybody there told me to avoid sony phones like the plague.

      $30 Unidens seem to work real well.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    36. Re:A land-line...? by arminw · · Score: 1

      The old fashioned land line phones are much less complicated than wireless. My daughter has only a cell phone, and much of the time, even though she IS home, it fails to ring and we have to leave a message on its voice mail. Very often, if fact in almost every conversation more than a few minutes, the connection is broken and either she or I have to redial the call. In any large city, as well as in the countryside there are many dead spots or areas with marginal service on wireless. Where we live, there is NO cell reception whatsoever, so I can use my cell phone only when I am travelling, for which it is most useful. Until cell service gets to be at least half as reliable as POTS, the wires will likely remain in most places.

      --
      All theory is gray
    37. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing is, if you call your local police station's regular phone number in an emergency, you're not going to get 911-style service. Our local police station had one of those automated phone systems and the first thing it said was, "If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911."

      It's still not like you can't do this, but those extra minutes you spend screwing with the phone could mean your life (at least, I haven't ever called 911 unless the situation was life-threatening). Plus, of course, you'd have to program in several different numbers to get the full breadth of services that 911 multiplexes.

      Another comment gave the advice to just disconnect your phone service and keep a corded phone plugged into a wall jack. This is probably the best solution, as it will work in a power outage and the phone company will still connect you to 911 (they have to) even if you aren't giving them any money.

    38. Re:A land-line...? by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you disconnect a land-line service, you will have no dial tone... just a faint ground hum.

    39. Re:A land-line...? by arminw · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I have a relatively old 900 Mhz UNIDEN phone that has two batteries, one in the handset and another in the base charger. When we have a power failure, that phone still operates. The two batteries are identical, so when the handset battery gets low, the batteries can be interchanged and we can yak for a few hours more unless there is a power failure at that time. Also, the 900Mhz phone does not affect my wireless network.

      --
      All theory is gray
    40. Re:A land-line...? by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Depends where you live. In your average NYC apartment, the line stays active.

    41. Re:A land-line...? by Garak · · Score: 1

      The orginal dsl standards were fast enough, too fast infact, they quickly capped them down to conserve bandwidth. The newer dsl stanards are to increase loop reach and remove the need for an installed splitter at the user end. They also plan on offering cable tv services over copper using high speed ADSL. T1 lines are only being kept around for banks and stuff, the new versions running over dsl are to increase loop reach without repeaters.

      Getting full speed out of copper is going to be limited by the cost of backbone bandwidth for a few years to come. No matter if its being delivered over copper, coax or fiber your going to have to pay for the bandwidth. (Its upto the ISP to determine the price, here DSL is faster and cheaper than cable)

      --
      God, root, what is the difference?
    42. Re:A land-line...? by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're lucky to be paying that little. When I had a landline from Verizon it was $17.25 + $10 in taxes and fees. So try $336 a year. This was for unmetered local calls since I had dialup at the time.

      There's always alternatives for emergencies. Any unactivated cellphone can still dial 911. And there's always payphones if it's close enough.

    43. Re:A land-line...? by Baricom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's much more than a wire between your phone and the one you're calling. Your voice gets digitized at a switch fairly near your home, after which it's split into chunks so you can send multiple "lines" down the same fiber optic cable. Along the way, these packets of data go through other switching equipment that sends your voice to wherever it's going, possibly over many different links for load balancing and redundancy in case a backhoe operator digs somewhere s/he shouldn't.

      Now, it seems to me the only differences between the phone network and VOIP is a) the A/D conversion happens much closer to your phone, and b) the network is the Internet.

      I don't mean to say that VOIP is reliable; I'm just pointing out that the phone company has the same points of failure as VOIP. The cable/DSL company might need access to your premises more often to swap out the modem, but reliability beyond that is up to the company.

      Of course, there's probably fewer DDoS attacks on the phone company networks, but that's another story...

    44. Re:A land-line...? by Zaak · · Score: 1

      Personally I miss the days of 3-5watt analog cell phones.

      But weren't those the bag phones where you carried around a big backpack full of battery to use them?

      I'll take a handset that fits in my pocket, thanks. Though the option to plug in the phone and boost the signal strength would be nice for driving out in the sticks...

      TTFN

    45. Re:A land-line...? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      "Very often, if fact in almost every conversation more than a few minutes, the connection is broken and either she or I have to redial the call"

      If someone's going to replace a home phone with a cellphone you have to use a carrier that has good signal *at home*. My Verizon wireless phone has good signal at home. It has never dropped a call at home and the sound quality is practically as good as a landline. I've also tried AT&T wireless at home. It has almost no signal and it's pretty much impossible to have a conversation on it. Every carrier has dead spots in different parts of town. If your home happens to be in a dead spot I suggest making use of the 30 day return policy.

    46. Re:A land-line...? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ADSL is not only asymmetrical but also asynchronous and has too little upstream for that kind of design, when you send an email it chokes. SDSL has poor range and expensive equipment. Clearly something must be done. DOCSIS cable is also asynchronous but as the real-world upstream limit is about 1Mbps on your average connection, and the real-world downstream is about 5Mbps, this isn't really any kind of restriction when you're capped to 4Mbps down and 384kbps up like I am with comcast.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    47. Re:A land-line...? by fatman22 · · Score: 1

      I've been using a 900MHz VTech 920ADL for years. It's on its second battery and the handset case is worn smooth, other than that it works fine. Good range, very little noise, and it didn't cost a bundle. I still keep an old no-frills wired phone at the house distribution frame just in case.

    48. Re:A land-line...? by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      >i guess Solomon was a nerd too :)
      >(work done under the sun...)

      maybe he was just a Sun employee

    49. Re:A land-line...? by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      The cable/DSL company might need access to your premises more often to swap out the modem, but reliability beyond that is up to the company.

      You're right, but my point was really that cable/VOIP failures tend to be at the household level, whereas traditional phone company problems usually are at the neightborhood/area level. Big difference in response time. Once a neighborhood goes out, the local news media get ahold of it and the phone company is on it. You almost never see that with a cable neighborhood outage.

      Last time I had cable, it was constantly out due to either cable line cuts or upstream atmospheric disturbances (I have sat for TV now, and only have to worry about atmospheric conditions, which have gotten me twice).

    50. Re:A land-line...? by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      When I first moved here to SLC, UT about 8 months ago, all I could get was Qwest DSL. They mandated (at that time) that I also get a land-line for the first six months. I (for other reasons) have two cell phones; the land line I hooked up an answering machine to and gave that phone number out to telemarketers willy-nilly.

      Two months ago I moved, and I now have Comcast. I was gouged so thouroughly by Qwest, that it will be many years before I get a land line (as soon as I can move away from SLC, perhaps.) Comcast is approximately 6 times faster than Qwest's DSL. My dynamic IP (I also use dyndns.org) hasn't changed yet - on Qwest is changed several times a month.

      The last time I dialed 911 it was from my car. Can't do that from a land-line.

      The worst aspect of Qwest however, was that they had no e-mail service...they only offered a "@msn.com" address. Oh joy. MSN of course has only http access - no IMAP or pop3, no SMTP.

      I'm paying less for Comcast now than I was for DSL (not even including the extra $19/month for the stupid unused phone line!)

      YMMV.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    51. Re:A land-line...? by uberdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cable is giving me 1.5mb/s for $55/month, but I can't run servers. DSL would give me 3mb/s for $30/month (plus $50 one time fee for a static ip address) and I can run servers. It would be a no brainer. However, despite being in the middle of one of the largest cities in the country, I can't get DSL where I live.

    52. Re:A land-line...? by mufasio · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you disconnect a land-line service, you will have no dial tone... just a faint ground hum.

      My girlfriend just got her land-line disconnected and I picked up the phone to make a call, forgetting that it was disconnected, and a recording immediately played saying that you could only dial 911 from this line. So you most definitely can call 911 from a disconnected line, at least in my area, but I don't think that it had a dial tone (I'd have to try it again to make sure but I'm pretty sure it didn't).

    53. Re:A land-line...? by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1
      Qwest offers 1.5Mbps/1Mbps DSL for $34.99, so unless you're getting 9Mbps/6Mbps(which I really doubt), then Comcast isn't 6x faster than Qwest.

      They also offer naked DSL(DSL without phone), as has been reported on Slashdot several times before, so that thing about the 911 call, good for you. You could do the same thing if you had Qwest.

      You can get your own hosting from many hosting companies for And most DSL providers(like Qwest) don't have monthly download limits. Comcast does.

    54. Re:A land-line...? by cmallinson · · Score: 1
      there is no such thing as a "911-only" line

      I cannot speak for all areas, but when a phone line is disconnected, it is usually only a software thing, since they assume that most of the time the line will eventually be connected again. When this is the case, the line should work for 911, just like an inactivated mobile phone. All other attempted calls are usually routed to the phone companies customer service department.

    55. Re:A land-line...? by cmallinson · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sorry, but if you disconnect a land-line service, you will have no dial tone... just a faint ground hum.

      It depends how many lines the phone company has available in the central office. If there are many to spare, they will just do a "soft-disconnect" and leave the line live. Most of the time, somebody hooks it up again anyways, and they only have to do a software change to activate it again. Saves a lot of money.

    56. Re:A land-line...? by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      Then you should call the board governing telecommunications in your state, because they most likely just broke a law (statuatory or administrative).

    57. Re:A land-line...? by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1
      Another advantage of a home land-line phone is that when you call 911, in most areas your street address is automatically displayed to the dispatcher. This can save valuable seconds in an emergency. If you call 911 on a cell phone, many dispatchers won't know where you are unless you tell them. Seems trivial enough, but emergencies have a way of making even smart people really stupid. And what if you're placing the call from a friend's house, and you can't quite remember the address?

      In California, cellular 911 calls are routed to the California Highway Patrol, and it may take some time to reroute the call to your local police or fire department if you're calling from home.

      Yes, the FCC has mandated position reporting on cellular 911 calls and the enabling technology is now common on newer phones, but many E911 call centers can't yet handle the information.

    58. Re:A land-line...? by stu72 · · Score: 1

      VOIP to mobile??? Are you freakin' nuts?

      VOIP is a win on landlines because it's a more economical way to use bandwidth, and it's not highly regulated.

      The major cost in a mobile phone situation is installing and maintaining a massive network of towers, and buying up licenses to use enough frequency bands to handle all their customers. Your bandwidth usage on your mobile has already been engineered down the the bare minimum. VOIP ain't going to help you there.

      Oh wait, I forgot, the free net access fairies are going to install free public hot spots on every freakin' floor of every freakin' building in the world and our mobile phones will be wifi voip phones. The fairies will also manage to get themselves common-carrier status so they can't be sued for the illegal shit that will go over their airwaves. Then they manage the entire infrastructure for free so long as we build a shrine in their honour. Oh finally the glorious future has arrived and I can download warez & pr0n all day without ever getting a letter from my ISP.

      Right.

    59. Re:A land-line...? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      You have proof of this?? SHOW ME FACTS. As far as I know, e911 services have been available at least for the last 2 years and closer to 4 years. I have not heard of the 911 call centers not being able to handle things but I have heard of carriers not coming through on thier end of the deal. 911 location may be faster with a landline, but cellphones do have the ability through both cell tower traingulation and GPS's being built into the phone. My 2 year old phone has gps built in just for e911.

      --

      Gorkman

    60. Re:A land-line...? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it would've been smarter to just outlaw VoIP and cellphones :)

    61. Re:A land-line...? by cardpuncher · · Score: 1
      "We saw what would happen with Voice over Internet Protocol. Rather than allow it to happen to us, we decided to embrace the technology," a BT spokesman said.

      This would be the same BT that provides the infrastructure for the vast majority of broadband connections in the UK. I think you could translate this statement as:

      Rather than get diminishing revenue from our legacy copper as call prices continue to fall, let's get more money out of people by charging them for broadband AS WELL AS FOR PHONE CALLS.

      If you factor in the line rental (which you pay to have the copper in your house so you can get broadband), the cost of the broadband service itself and then the cost of BT's VoIP service, most BT subscribers would be better off using their phone to make phone calls...

      Which, if you think about the economics of it all, makes perfect sense.

    62. Re:A land-line...? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Seimens cordless work great for me...
      http://www.siemens-mobile.com/cds/frontdoor /0,2241 ,hq_en_0_15735_rArNrNrNrN,00.html

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    63. Re:A land-line...? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ** payphones if it's close enough.**

      when the mobiles get more popular expect the payphones to gradually disappear from the scene only to remain in places like airports.

      that's what happened over here anyways..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    64. Re:A land-line...? by Trinition · · Score: 1

      It's not just you. If I could get my wife to quit leaving the cordless phones on the roof of her car when she drives away, or out in teh rain overnight, etc., I'd still have my older phones that I've had to replace with newer ones that pale in comparison.

    65. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Remember the days of the Wester Electric wired phone? They were made until the mid to late '80s.

      They'd last 30 or 40 years. At least. And they were mostly mechanical!

      What happened? How did phone manufacturing fail to improve?

    66. Re:A land-line...? by sploxx · · Score: 1

      in an emergency, pick it up and dial 911 - the call must go through or the phone company is in a lot of trouble.
      Heh... but before, you're probably in a lot of trouble!

    67. Re:A land-line...? by hey · · Score: 1

      That's quite a drag to learn. The main reason I like my land line is that a pair of copper goes directly to the CO.

    68. Re:A land-line...? by ModMeFlamebait · · Score: 1

      > My landline still works with no power.

      As long as your teleco still has power. In my area (Maine), when I lose power so does my teleco (after a while).

      However, now that I have VoIP, a cheap UPS means I have several hours worth of backup. In the future I can see various VoIP devices having built in battery backups.. that's hardly cost anythng.


      Assuming your VoIP upstream has power...

      --
      Pavlov. Does this name ring a bell?
    69. Re:A land-line...? by elgaard · · Score: 1

      Here (Denmark) cell-phones are probably as reliable as land-lines.

      I use VoIP, http://www.musimi.dk (in Danish but works like sipphone.com). I set it up so that if there is a problem with my IP phone, the network etc, the call is forwarded to my cell-phone. If the phone company (Musimi) is down the caller would have to manually try my cell-phone number. So for incoming calls there are two almost independent ways of routing the call to me. For outgoing calls I have two options.

      I consider this setup more reliable than just a land-line. E.g. it will survive what happened to a neighbour; a gartner was trimming some plants growing on the outside wall and unknowingly cut her phone line.

      This month lightning took out 2000 land-line phones for a week.

    70. Re:A land-line...? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not really a bad idea considering that your landline is the most reliable. It'll work during bad weather, and it'll work during a power outage, or when your ISP is being neglegent and your connection is down.

      Yeah, try that when a hurricane comes through and the phone lines are run on the same poles as the power lines...

      The last hurricane that really did any damage in this area (Isabelle) left us with congested (but usable) cell service, but no power, cable, or land-line phones. Thankfully we filled the gas tanks before-hand, so we could charge our GBAs and cell phones off the car cigarette lighters.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    71. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you have an open fireplace with coal burning fire so you can still do toast when the electricity goes out as well. What the hell did you do when your wonderful old fashioned Telephone line went down? Send out homing pigeons?

    72. Re:A land-line...? by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, cell phones, . . . that doesn't help for connectivity, since cell modems are expensive.

      Sanyo SCP-4900 CDMA1900 phone... $50

      USB cable for SCP-4900 ordered over the net... $30

      2000 Minutes two-phone shared plan with all the toys... $85/month

      Unlimited wireless Internet access anywhere my phone works.... Priceless

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    73. Re:A land-line...? by tallman68 · · Score: 1

      If the poster thinks that in ten years the line will be taken down, he hasn't a clue. Why would the telcos waste the money to do that (especially those no longer in business)?Alternately, Have you ever looked in the plenum of a building that has been rewired a gazillion times? How many of those get cleaned out. I have seen wires under data center floors that have been there since forever for systems that died with the dinos. Besides, I feel this bears repeating, these are telcos, most of which can't even bill their customers correctly, let alone clean up after themselves. Unless the poster is suggesting that there will be an open source clean up project. "and then RMS said we should remove the the cables in the following order..." Sorry, It's been a rough week.

    74. Re:A land-line...? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      During the Northeast Blackout last year, my cell phone was out for about 24 hours. I lived in a area with munipical power generation (that is 40% cheaper than the rest of the state) and had uninterrupted phone and electrical service.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    75. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Cable is giving me 1.5mb/s for $55/month, but I can't run servers
      Have you tried running on alternate ports? If you can run p2p programs, there's no reason you can't run a web server.

      Also, I noticed that, while mine block port 80 (which is why I run my web server on port 8080), ftp is wide open at the usual port.

      Another interesting this is that port 80 is o nly blocked at the edge of their network - users with the same cable supplier can access my server at port 80.

    76. Re:A land-line...? by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      When I graduated from college back in May of 2003, my roommate and I had to make a decision when we moved to an off-campus apartment. That's when we realized that, even though we had a land line in the apartment, the only thing it was used for was so our friends could call us from the front gate and ask us to let them in. Even then, since we lived right above one of the back gates, our friends just called from their cell phones most of the time. Everybody knew our cell numbers and called us almost exclusively on those. And if one of our cell phones ever breaks, we can always just borrow the other's. We were also able to get the front gate at this apartment keyed to my cell, so there's no need for a land line.

      Honestly, at this point I don't really see a reason for a regular land line. I've become so used to my cell phone, so accomidated to it that even when I go home to my parent's place I still just whip out my cell to call people. I don't think I'll ever go back to a land line.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    77. Re:A land-line...? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Check your state laws. A lot of states require any land line connected to the phone network to have 911 access. I use vonage, and my land line has been turned off for months, but I can still pick it up and call 911. If I try to dial any other number, I get a voice message saying my phone is disconnected. I live in Northwest indiana.

    78. Re:A land-line...? by Mateito · · Score: 1

      I work for a company who develops mobile-phone applications, so I carry a lot of different phones for testing:

      The whole Nokia range is solid (from a quality point of view. The N-Gage blows goats for what its designed to do). The newer batteries don't seem to last as long as the older ones, either in terms of holding charge or number of charge cycles.

      The middle-upper Motorola range is good. Their bottom end phones are just too bottom end, and tend to cram in features at the expense of quality.

      Sony-Ericsson phones are shit. If you want a tri-band phone, nobody has topped the Ericsson T-68A, but its a bit long in the tooth now.

      Siemens are a bit hit or miss. Their more expensive ones are pretty good, but I wouldn't recommend them over Nokia or Motorola in this price bracket.

      Samsung. Nah. Not yet.

      Anything else. Don't touch it.

    79. Re:A land-line...? by Mateito · · Score: 1

      Blah. Above is obviously for "Celular" not "Cordless" phones. Its way too early.

      But for anything "radio", including in-home cordless phones, I've also had great experiences with Uniden.

    80. Re:A land-line...? by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      Well, it's not really a bad idea considering that your landline is the most reliable

      I agree with this. The traditional land line drawn to your home is supplemented by 7 hours of battery backup at the exchange and diesel powered generators from thereof IF power fails.
      Yesterday's USA Today's advt. for broadband telephone line from AT&T says this: "Will not work during a power outage." So which do you want?

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    81. Re:A land-line...? by ianpm · · Score: 1

      "Any unactivated cellphone can still dial 911."

      Be careful of this, I am assured it is service provider dependent, and certainly in the UK the 999/112 emergency services cannot always be used without a valid mobile account.

    82. Re:A land-line...? by thentil · · Score: 1

      I would have had to also pay for a land line with adsl

      Not sure if you can get it where you are, but some dsl providers like Speakeasy can now provide a DSL connection without (you paying for) a landline. Speakeasy isn't the cheapest option out there, but they will give you at least 2 static IP addresses with most packages, and I think some come with 5 (I also think you can pay for more if needed). They also allow you to run servers.

    83. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Now the interesting thing that's going to h appen this fall is the cell providers coming out with $50/month (that's $Canadian) all-you-can-talk 24/7/365 plans. I already know one person who has this (from Bell) and it will be available to the general public in a few months

      A Rogers rep says they'll be implementing it in October.

      There's already a similar program from Fido in BC, and a reseller is offering it here in Montreal for $40/month (again all-you-can-talk, 24/7/365).

      2 years ago, I told everyone that this was going to happen in 2 years. Guess I was off by a couple of months.

      This will be the death of land-line service, as only shut-ins and "bougons" (look it up) will still want only a land line.

    84. Re:A land-line...? by mrwilson · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't anyone make a good 900mhz DSS cordless anymore? I won't do 2.4ghz becaue of all my wifi. I do have a Panny 5.8ghz that is pretty good but the range sucks. The handsets are damn durable though. Wife left it on the bumper of her truck and it fell off and got ran over by a car. Still works fine.

    85. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you still haver to pay, but say 5-10 dollors a month for each line vs 40 a month. they are called emergency land lines, carriers HAVE to have them by LAW. I know because I have 4 of them. I use * and a calling card. I have my * dialplan auto dial the calling card numbers for local toll, and LD.

    86. Re:A land-line...? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The other issue is that analog wireless phones are trivial to easedrop on. Now I have never done this myself, but some amateur radio buddies I know have some great stories from the wireless phones at the University of Maryland...

    87. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all states require that the phone's provide 911 service after being disconected. Personally, I don't think they should be required to. This is one way that the Bells are often required to do what other companies arn't.

    88. Re:A land-line...? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      When I say "can't run servers" I'm not talking about any sort of technical blockade. I'm referring to the End User Agreement, or Acceptable Use Policy, or whatever they call it. If I were to run a web server, even on port 8080, they could pull the plug on my connection at a whim.

    89. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This service is not required in all areas. Don't count on having 911 when your line is disconected. And even if it worked the PSAP (cops) may not associate an address and name with your phone #. Don't put your faith into that. If you want 911 service then pay for a phone.

    90. Re:A land-line...? by werfele · · Score: 1

      I know you're kidding, but when Solomon (or the preacher, in any case) says "under the sun," he doesn't mean outside, he means anywhere. That doesn't make him a nerd, it makes him Jean-Paul Sartre.

    91. Re:A land-line...? by malloci · · Score: 1

      Actually the best phone I had was a Sony. Of course, it was a much older model (bought it in 94 I believe). Anyway, the only reason I ended up retiring it was that it had been dropped one to many times. But that sucker lasted me like 9-10 years.

      If the rumors are true, then this is another perfect example of a company that is willing to sacrifice quality in order to save a buck. Maybe they realized that their revenue was going down b/c they made them too good?

    92. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u told us u were hardcore

    93. Re:A land-line...? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      " Rogers does not permit me to run my own servers Neither does mine, so..."

      Guys, go take a look to see if your cable company offers a 'business' account. I did this with Cox cable...I have no limits on my download/uploads stipulated in my service agreement...I can run any kind of servers I want...NO blocked ports...and a low level SLA...I call in with a problem anytime 24/7..I get a call back from their network tech in a pretty quick fashion. Static IP address...

      This is only about $7 a month more than what DSL with static IP and blocked ports, etc would have cost me. I only pay about $67/mo.

      Take a look at your local cable provider and see if they offer this...it usually isn't that much more expensive than their normal customer service level with static IP address.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    94. Re:A land-line...? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I've thought about dropping my land line too....but, am worried about only having one phone...what to do when batter runs out? I've not seen anything out there like a spare battery charger you can use to keep one powered up at all times.

      Can you get 2 or more cell phones on the same number? Need to look into that...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    95. Re:A land-line...? by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      I was wondering when something like that would happen, although I have my doubts that it will happen that quickly here in the US. At least not until a larger portion of the population upgrades to 3G phones so that the providers can make up the extra costs via software dowloads, ringtones, etc.

      Of course, a few years back I also predicted that telcom providers would start offering free dial-up as an incentive for various service changes, but that hasn't happened yet, either... So maybe I will be wrong here as well.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    96. Re:A land-line...? by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      When the batter runs out, you just plug the phone in to the charger. Every phone I've ever used will allow you to talk while it's charging on the wall. I also briefly looked into having multiple phones on the same number, but couldn't find anybody who had ever heard of it being done, including a few friends who have worked for cell providers in the past. Although I would think that it would be theoretically possible. (As proof one only need look at cell phone spoofing. The spoofers essentially did the same thing.)

      What I want to know is if it would be possible for me to get two numbers to ring on my one cell phone? I've been considering starting a side business, but would prefer to have a seperate phone number/voice mailbox for the business so that I didn't have to give out my personal number.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    97. Re:A land-line...? by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      Lack of reliability is precisely why I got rid of my Verizon land line. It went down on a beautiful sunny Wednesday afternoon. They told me the soonest it could be fixed would be Sunday. I told them to take a hike. I was running a Vonage line in parallel. I used it to place the disconnect order.

      Maybe you live someplace were the land line service is better. Lucky you.

    98. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Look at their advertising - I'm sure they mention online multi-player gaming. If its in their advertising, they can shove their AUP up their asses in most areas with decent consumer protection laws.

      Mine has a similar AUP and TOS, but they advertise how you can host multi-player games with their highest-speed connection - so, since that's what I've got, they can't then bitch about me running other types of servers, since, to "host a multiplayer game", I would be running a server.

      It's a stupid restriction that's going to fall as competition continues and they realize there's no way to enforce it legally.

    99. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      My supplier's business account doesn't let you run servers either. For that, you have to also pay $100 more a month to "lease" 5 IPs. I told them I don't want 5 IPs, but I would be happy to pay $20 more for 1 - they then said they can't do that, they can only "lease" them in blocks of 5. AND they all have to home to the same machine.

      No wonder there's a shortage of IPs.

      So why would I want to pay $200/month, when I'm paying 1/3 that for an even faster connection?

    100. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Of course, a few years back I also predicted that telcom providers would start offering free dial-up as an incentive for various service changes, but that hasn't happened yet, either... So maybe I will be wrong here as well.
      Ask yourself - would you want a dial-up connection - even a free one? You'd have to get a second phone line or cell to be able to talk while you "surf" - though at 33k or 52k, it's more like wading through mud than surfing.

      Dial-up is obsolete, that's all.

    101. Re:A land-line...? by jriskin · · Score: 1

      Lol, yeah they were much bigger, although there are plenty of models that still do dual mode analog/digital (just at lower power levels). Its more of a power issue than a size issue.

      3-5x the power means 3-5x less battery life. But it would be nice if that much power was at least AVAILABLE. With digital cell phones they scale the power needed as you get closer and farther from cell sites.

      It baffles me why they don't have exactly what you said. Car phones (or an in car adapter) should be able to use much more power and have a better antenna. Both of those would boost range a lot.

      But again, with a few people at high power it may mean less callers in the same spectrum, which they don't want.

    102. Re:A land-line...? by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Dial-up is obsolete, that's all.

      That's why I figured they'd start giving it away. You know, a freebie that wouldn't cost them much (becuase it wouldn't be used) that they could use to intice their customers to sign up for the latest and greatest long distance plan or something.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    103. Re:A land-line...? by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      Military radios can pick up that frequency range, too. Listened to plenty when I was in the Army. Too bad normal peoples' lives are so boring.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    104. Re:A land-line...? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      That's why I figured they'd start giving it away. You know, a freebie that wouldn't cost them much (becuase it wouldn't be used) that they could use to intice their customers to sign up for the latest and greatest long distance plan or something.
      Quick - run out and patent it. Doesn't matter if it's been done to death before - point to Microsoft patenting sudo as prior art allowing patenting of stuff that has prior art.

      ... and get a patent on recursion while you're at it - that last sentence could be your proof of concept. :-)

    105. Re:A land-line...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, both my 900MHz and 2.4GHz phone (which are all I have now) didn't work in the last power outage but my cell phone did.

    106. Re:A land-line...? by POTSandPANS · · Score: 1
      I call BS on this one, There is no way the telco is expected to keep every single line ever installed live. Think of all the old BBS lines that were installed years ago, do you really expect all those lines to remain active?

      If your really sure about this, maybe you should start a class-action against every telco in north america.

    107. Re:A land-line...? by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      Qwest changed their policy regarding naked DSL only AFTER I got my subscription. It was never even close to only $34.99! They mandated six months before they would allow me to drop the phone (at which point I was already moving.)

      My estimate of 6x faster is based on how fast I can download the latest build from work - admittedly prone to other network factors, such as horrendous Qwest throttling of SSH sessions. But my Comcast connection really is demonstrably about 6x faster than my Qwest connection was.

      My extended family tends to be the only ones hitting my photo collection. If I ever get to 1/10th the download limit, I'll be very surprised. I'm not worried (well, perhaps on a theoretical basis) about their monthly cap.

      What Qwest advertises vs. what they delivered has disgusted me. I do not think I'll be able to bring myself to do business with them again.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    108. Re:A land-line...? by PKPerson · · Score: 1

      Where I live, Cell phone reception is way too reliable to trust it as a pribary form of communication. Its randomness! Anyways, most people here ave basements, ant there no way I (verizon) would be able to get reception. I've heard cingular is good though.

  2. Oh well... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can't say I am sorry for the companies that were once monopolies to finaly die.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    1. Re:Oh well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't ALL die. Sure, some will, and some wont. Those that die are those that fail to embrace new technology, and those that do survive, will be those that realize the new potential and will eventually charge us up the ass for it once all the smaller companies have been bought out.

      Corporate Darwinism.

    2. Re:Oh well... by kfg · · Score: 1

      Who controls the backbone?

      KFG

    3. Re:Oh well... by slash-tard · · Score: 1

      They arent going to die. Some sell cellular service (verizon, cingular), others are trying to move into new markets. Qwest is selling calble over some form of DSL.

      Dont forget how much value the lines have, they get local loop charges for almost every business that orders a frame relay or internet circuit.

    4. Re:Oh well... by Night+Goat · · Score: 1

      Who controls the backbone?

      Good point. If they start losing money with subscribers, all they need to do to stay profitable is raise the rates that they charge the cellular providers to use the infrastructure. Maybe the cellular companies can even subsidize the phone company's promises to get me DSL in this decade! Or modem service that is better than 28.8 kbps!

  3. DSL by hlopez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wire will never bbe taken down, since they are the major source of broadband. Here in Mexico Telmex the only real tephone company has invested heavely on DSL and cable modems are virtually a thing of the past.

  4. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let the telcoms die. I haven't had a land-line phome for 6 months, and I don't miss it.

    Of course, cell-phone coverage could be bett--

    CALL ENDED
    Time: 2:10

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took you 2 minutes 10 seconds to say that?

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, he had to keep repeating himself ...

      *WHAT!*
      *ARE YOU STILL THERE?*

    3. Re:Good by wobblie · · Score: 1

      newsflash: the cable comapanies are now telcoms, in case you didn't notice.

    4. Re:Good by Aexia · · Score: 4, Funny

      I took you 2 minutes 10 seconds to say that?

      He kept running into the lameness filter.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm galad you tella me, I dida not knowa that.

    6. Re:Good by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and I haven't had a land line since the beginning of '03. Haven't missed it much. never seem to get telemarketers on the cell that I would've had no matter what.
      And looking at the rates for net access here... DSL: 256K: 26.00/mo. + landline: $30.00/mo. total price, 56.00/mo.
      Cable?
      3000k: 45.00/mo plus I get free basic cable...
      Hmmmm....

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
  5. Never by gotpaint32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never will copper be phased out by wireless, the old telcos may lose dominance, but until the reliability is there (powerouts, national emergencies, etc), most simply won't switch over to a fully landline free solution.

    --
    Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
    1. Re:Never by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think wireless can successfully replace copper, but coax and fiber most certainly can. I don't think the landline will go away completely, but there's not much reason to use unshielded twisted pairs that have been installed outdoors decades ago when we now have better technologies available.

    2. Re:Never by flithm · · Score: 4, Informative
      I just canceled my local service and signed up for Primus' TalkBroadband Service. It's considerably cheaper than the regular land line, and the quality is pretty close.

      I too was initially worried about emergency services and so forth, however all this stuff functions as normal with a regular land line. I can call 911, or 411 or whatever just like anybody else can. In the event of a power-outage you can have your service forward to a cell-phone, voice-mail, or even another regular land phone. So I'm really not that worried about it. In the event that the power goes out and the cell phone is dead, and I accidentally cut off my leg, thus disabling me from crawling to my neighbors house to use their land phone to call 911, I suppose I'll just have to suffer :o).

      Seriously though, here's my experience so far:

      The Good

      Cheap.

      Works with regular phones, and it actually works pretty good.

      Says #$&@ you to the local @*&!@ telco monopoly.

      The Bad

      Can't use your regular house phone jacks (although if you need a phone in every room you can get one of those multi-set cordless base phones).

      The service isn't perfect. (A couple of times someone has called, and before I could pick it up, the system hung up on them). But let's be realistic, this is pretty new technology.

      All in all, I'm happy I decided to try out the VoIP phone. It saves me $10-15 / month, and lets me call way more long distance to boot. And I'm a no frills user. No calling features, no call display, I don't really call long distance. For someone who has a big calling feature pack and calls long distance, I could see a VoIP phone saving them a TON of cash.

    3. Re:Never by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      I just canceled my local service and signed up for Primus' TalkBroadband Service.


      Wow. Les Claypool and his buddies sure are branching out...
      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re:Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh... that deserves a mod up.

    5. Re:Never by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      having just been through Hurricane Charley, I can tell you first hand:

      1) cell phones didn't work
      2) land lines didn't work

      The only think I could count on was being without A/C in 100 degree weather!

      The only thing that would have worked would be satellite cell service. *6 second pause*.... and we all k-k-k-k-k-k-k-know how grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat that issssssssss!

    6. Re:Never by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      I didn't get the teaser at first either.

      Tear down those lines? Who would want to do a fool thing like that?

      The only result would be very sudden, very extreme telephone price increases if someone were to do that...

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    7. Re:Never by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Tear down those lines? Who would want to do a fool thing like that?

      The only result would be very sudden, very extreme telephone price increases if someone were to do that...


      Only for the morons that still happily pay through the nose for landline service. My cellphone bills wouldn't be affected, and all those ugly phone lines would be gone.

    8. Re:Never by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      And all those ugly cancer rates will continue to increase...

      I'm sorry, I know there isn't a proven link between high-power high-frequency wireless signals and cancer growth, but isn't it a bit reckless to be relying on new technology when this hasn't been researched conclusively?

    9. Re:Never by Trinition · · Score: 1

      Where I'm at, the local phone company offers DSL over "copper". I could theoretically switch to VOIP. I wonde rif I could then disconnect the
      "phone service" and keep the DSL. If so, then it would be possible to phase out the POTS without phasing out the copper.

    10. Re:Never by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      When they switch over to fibre optic backed by last mile wireless there will be 10x the reliability of phone lines. You will have 4-5 devices capable of making a phone call or police connection and the central infrastructure will be more secure than ever.

    11. Re:Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think wireless can successfully replace copper, but coax and fiber most certainly can. I don't think the landline will go away completely, but there's not much reason to use unshielded twisted pairs that have been installed outdoors decades ago when we now have better technologies available.

      I don't thing the horseless carriage can ever replace the horse and buggy. The reliability isn't there. Oxes or donkeys maybe, but not those unreliable contraptions.

    12. Re:Never by Splunge · · Score: 1

      Actually, although there are dire warnings about "Don't use your house phone jacks", I shut off my phone service, connected vonage's phone port to the wall and am able to use the phones. I imagine there would be a problem if the phone company was also using the jacks but since the service is disconnected, I've not had any problems in the past 9 months of using it in this way.

      --
      "Brown University? We have one of those in Providence!" -- Outside Providence
    13. Re:Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can use your regular house jacks!
      1) Disconnect the telco wire coming into your house.
      2) Connect your DTA right to the nearest convenient phone jack, rather than to a phone.
      3) Use all the phones in the house the way you used to.

    14. Re:Never by flithm · · Score: 1

      How did you do that? Just plug a cord from the VoIP gateway directly into the wall plug? Or did you have to run a line to your phone box?

    15. Re:Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How may people still have a non-powered phone? Most people have wireless landlines that require power anyways. Last years blackout illustrated this quite well. People w/ cellphones were able to call.So, power outages are a moot point. 911 issues on the other hand is a more credible point.

    16. Re:Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This looks too expensive. You sign up for the unlimited LOCAL bundle for $20 and then Unlimited Canada/US long distance calling for only $20 per month... that $40! Use packet8 from packet8.net for unlimited local + unlimited US/Canada for a total of $20 a month.

    17. Re:Never by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      People have been using cellphones at a large scale for about a decade now, and I don't see brain cancer rates skyrocketing. Cellphones don't have "high-power high-frequency" signals, unless you consider 500mW high-power.

      My advice? Get a headset. Every cellphone has a jack for one.

      Better yet, get a "Cellsocket" too. It lets you connect your cellphone to your in-house phone wiring, so you can use standard landline phones, but access the network through the cellphone.

    18. Re:Never by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      Um, if the option of going back to land-lines disapears, cell phone monthly prices will go up, probably exponentially. No?

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    19. Re:Never by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What, you think all the cell providers are suddenly going to stop their current cutthroat competition and agree to raise prices? No.

  6. But... by Demanche · · Score: 1

    There will always be a need for traditional teleco Until cell phone companies lower their prices to land line levels.. and the majrity of cell phone companies also operate land lines.. so they arn't losing money in all areas.

    --
    Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
    1. Re:But... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      There will always be a need for traditional teleco Until cell phone companies lower their prices to land line levels...
      I use Vonage, and one of the reasons is that it's much cheaper than telco service.

    2. Re:But... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. Everybody I know has a cell phone now, and a cell phone is cheaper than a cell phone and a land line.

    3. Re:But... by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      In 10 years I hope that Verizon will have rolled out its fiber optic network to all it's customers. I think by that time they also should be offering telephone, internet and television on that cable all for about $90 a month. I may be wrong but I do not think any wireless service will be able to come close to the speed and reliability of a fiber optic cable. I also hope that we will have fuel cell generators so that we can totally eliminate all chance of lightning destroying our electronic equipment.

    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see.

      Land line. Advertised at $12. Cheapest possible plan. Several hours of allowed usage I never use. No long distance. Crappy service. Despise dealing with monopoly that's screwed me over in the past.

      Actual cost: $35. And rising.

      Cell phone. Advertised at $30. Cheapest possible plan. Several hours of allowed usage I never use. Long distance free. Apartment in the middle of the city gets barely any signal (unless I step outside. What'd they do, line the drywall with lead?), but works fine otherwise. Haven't been screwed over yet, but there's alternatives if I am. Free internet access by cellular is neat, even it's at 14.4k

      Actual cost: $39.

      So it's less sucky (but still sucky) and costs about the same. That was a pretty easy decision.

    5. Re:But... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Land line service would be a lot more reasonable if they would just use a more sensible billing system. Gouging people for making calls in the middle of the day or for calling to the "local toll" area (more expensive than long distance) is just retarded and will accelerate the demise of the old monopolies. Luckily, most phone companies are developing pricing structures that are a lot more reasonable. Unlimited long distance for a flat fee is becoming more common now. Too bad AT&T never could figure this out before they were forced to exit the residential market after suffering massive losses.

  7. the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear they have it on computers now.

  8. Pie by SillyRabbit999 · · Score: 0

    I think it's great that some of the smaller or less popular companies are getting in the game and getting a slice of the pie, instead of the huge corporate companies whoring it all. -rabbit

    --
    .-..-.-..-.-..-.-..-.-..-.-..-.-..-.-..- Linux is like a wigwam, no windows, no gates and an Apache inside.
  9. No need for a phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just head over to www.sprintrelayonline.com/
    Free, fun, and semi anonymous.

    on the other hand it makes you feel bad, similar to when you park in a handicap space, play demo derby with the free hospital wheelchairs, or ride the handicap elevator for fun over and over and...

  10. College freshmen by MDFedderly · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm about to move into college, and I for one don't plan on using the landline telephone. I know my cellphone gets good coverage all over the campus. Perhaps many other people are doing the same? As far as I know, the pricing is comparable, but the cell phone is much more portable. Maybe people moving into college are starting to realize this, and the same with first time house (and apartment) buyers.

    1. Re:College freshmen by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      I was thinkin the same thing, because our rooms dont come with phones, and i didn't wanna buy one, but talking to people, some profs'll look you up in the student directory to call you if they need to, so its a good idea to have a phone and answering machine on you're dorm line. Picked up a 900MHz (wont mess w/ my wi-fi) cordless with built in digital answering machine for like $30.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  11. Wires taken down? Dont think so. by uncl_bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rewiring all buildings to optical fibers or ethernet is just too damn costly, especially since ADSL (or its future cousins) is cheap and works.

  12. Cost by nuggz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well I can get a cell phone for as much as my monthly landline service. Why would I bother with a fixed line?

    Add in the fee to get connected, if you move a lot you can save hundreds by having a cell phone.

    Currently the long distance plan I have, it doesn't yet make sense to switch to a cell phone.

    1. Re:Cost by Tet · · Score: 1
      Well I can get a cell phone for as much as my monthly landline service. Why would I bother with a fixed line?

      Well for a start, I can be reasonably confident that I can pick up my phone and get a dial tone, whatever the atmospheric conditions. With my mobile, reception is patchy at best throughout the house, and is significantly affected by the weather. Plus I can't run ADSL over my mobile, unlike my fixed phone line.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    2. Re:Cost by pauljlucas · · Score: 1
      Why would I bother with a fixed line?
      1. Calling company customer service numbers and being on hold for a while won't burn through your minutes.
      2. Anonymous call rejection. (AFAIK, no US cell carrier offers this.)
      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    3. Re:Cost by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Because you can't take your fixed line with you.

      It's rather nice not to be reachable at all hours.

    4. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called the "Off" button. It is included on all cell phones, free of charge.

    5. Re:Cost by TheDormouse · · Score: 1
      2. Anonymous call rejection.
      When the phone says "Withheld," hit the button that rejects the call and send it to voicemail. Yes, it would be nice if it were automatic, but it's not near the importance of your listed #1.
    6. Re:Cost by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, there is no such button on my phone and I've never seen mention of it in my carrier's documentation.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    7. Re:Cost by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      RE: Anonymous call rejection. You're right that US cell carriers (at least to the best of my knowledge) don't offer anon. call rejection, but some (many?) phones offer it. My first cell phone (Nokia 6150, back in '98) offered this. My newer phone (Sanyo 8100) does not. So this is probably something you would want to look at on the specific phones you are interested in. My guess is that any Nokia phone will have this feature, while others may or may not. LG phones also have a fairly nice/featureful UI (I had an LG 5350 for a while), but in my experience they aren't as well-made (I went through about 5 of them before Sprint finally gave me the Sanyo 8100 for free).

    8. Re:Cost by Jardine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well I can get a cell phone for as much as my monthly landline service. Why would I bother with a fixed line?

      Some people live in areas where the reception is either poor or non-existant. When I did tech support, I talked to every one of them.

    9. Re:Cost by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      It's the "hang-up" button: on some phones that's the button with the picture of the red handset (as opposed to the green handset you use to start a call).

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    10. Re:Cost by ModMeFlamebait · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, there is no such button on my phone and I've never seen mention of it in my carrier's documentation.

      Don't know what phones you've seen but *every single one* I have seen and used has a button to reject a call. Whenever you get a call you don't want to answer, just press the red handset button and off you go.

      --
      Pavlov. Does this name ring a bell?
    11. Re:Cost by pauljlucas · · Score: 1
      Not on my phone it isn't. The button either ends the call or turns the phone on/off. If it has the feature you describe, the user manual never mentions it.

      Regardless, it's irrelevant. I want anonymous-call-rejection. Nothing less.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  13. Cringley by somethinghollow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the mean time Robert X Cringley thinks that they should turn the old lines into video streaming conduits for on-demand programming.

    Seems like a good idea, but there is no way the telcos could sit down and think of doing that. They just aren't that innovative. Otherwise, they'd have been on VoIP awhile ago.

    1. Re:Cringley by doconnor · · Score: 1

      Until recently Manitoba Telecom Services was government owned, but even now that it has been privatized it has remained relatively innovative.

    2. Re:Cringley by 241comp · · Score: 1

      Um, he's not exactly a genius with the video idea... it's already being done!

      As far as VOIP:
      Info from 2002.
      Info from today.

  14. An Anchor is not a good thing by grunt107 · · Score: 1

    The wired connection does not really have a future for audio-only phone. With cell/VoIP lowering their costs, they become a viable complete replacement, with the added benefit of mobility.

    The traditional phone companies will have to add more hi-speed connections, maybe integrated with other services to survive.

  15. I plan to switch to a VoIP provider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been meaning to do it for a long time but I have been putting it off. I was going to do it today but I spend the evening jerking off my dog instead, heh. Maybe tomorrow.

  16. Surprise surprise. by cbiffle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because, if there's any industry that's bent over backwards to inspire customer loyalty, it's the telecoms. ...

    Yet another example of innovation sweeping the market out from under an industry that's too busy screwing its consumers to notice.

    1. Re:Surprise surprise. by hackstraw · · Score: 2

      Huh? I havn't had a land line in almost a year, but I remember when I did that every long distance company under the sun was calling me to "switch and save" on my long distance. I would ask them if their long distance was less than my calling card at 3 or so cents a minute with no monthly charge and they would say "no", but they were always willing to take my money anyway.

      Phones are a scam. It kills me that people are willing to pay $50 to more dollars a month for the things. To me its only worth about $10 or so. I don't pay anything for a phone, and I have no ambition to do so (my work pays for my only phone, a cell).

      Being that the now "old" phone companies (and cable companies) are into the internet thing now by providing the fiber for the internet, I just wonder when they are just going to start overcharging for a "data" line to your house? I guess they will put that off as long as they can because now they can overcharge people for 3 services now -- cell, land line, and internet.

      I hate phones.

    2. Re:Surprise surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did WTC 7 collapse?

      Take a domino and place it so it is standing "upright" on any horizontal surface (table, ground). Now, take your hand and hit the surface about 1-2 feet away from the domino. Notice that your domino is no longer "upright".

      Domino = WTC 7
      Your Hand = Two 110 story buildings collapsing on themselves

    3. Re:Surprise surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only company that consistently scores lower on customer satisfaction than the phone companies is Comcast. They are in my experience the worst. I would not use their service if they paid me $50 per month.

  17. Makes sense to me by Cylix · · Score: 3, Informative

    Currently, I don't have a traditional wired phone at the house. There isn't much of a need since everyone at the house has a cell pone.

    For me, my job requires a mobile phone and they pay the bill. I'm not even home often enough to worry about having a land line.

    I would have gotten one anyway, just for the security, but the phone company wants $80~ (US) to simply turn the bastard on.

    Now, if the telecom industry was to try to lure me back, it would simply be with affordability.

    I'm not even going to start on all the things I hate about the telecom service, but whats with charging not to have long distance? Someone tell me the logic in this one.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Makes sense to me by Cylix · · Score: 1

      I should have mentioned, I initially decided on a personal cell phone (before work paid for it) because of the convenience.

      Because my cellular phone essentially already includes my long distance charges I started using it even more then the home phone.

      When I moved, I just couldn't justify the service being turned on.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    2. Re:Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't supposed to charge you the interconnect fee for not having long distance if you are residential. If its a business line they can charge it

    3. Re:Makes sense to me by hagbard5235 · · Score: 1

      Actually, in some places it's worse. My brother at one point wanted no outgoing LD from his phone. The phone company charged him a fee for access to the LD network, and then a fee to block LD. When queried they maintained that everyone who had a phone line had to pay the LD access fee, but blocking LD was then a service. So you paid to both have and not have long distance.

  18. Watching it happen... by codesurfer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work for Canada's largest telecom, and this is something that we've been watching for the last few years. VOIP is being launched for business customers all over the country, and even consumer trials are being held at the moment. I'm not sure that landlines will completely disappear, but the impact to the old style telco is pretty evident. Ah, move with the times, I always say!

    1. Re:Watching it happen... by deputydink · · Score: 2, Informative
      True. Shaw and Rogers, the two incumbent Cable providers are already in trials to provide a 90 dollar Cable, Voip, Internet and ondemand video service that you can control from your computer, allowing you a Tivo-like PVR ability.


      Canadians can expect to have this convergance within 3 months, here's the
      press release and heres an overview


      The technology was provided by Siemens with its SURPASS line of switches, and is really amazing. You'll be able to provision multiple lines, virutual PBX's and high bandwidths with their business offerings as well.

    2. Re:Watching it happen... by retinaburn · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The best way for a Telco to survive is to offer voIP as a service. Which is what Bell is going to do shortly. In fact their service is even going to be offered no matter what Internet (at least Cable) provide you use in Canada. Like Rogers internet but want Bell voIP, no problem. Sounds like they got some techie guys working in decision making positions at Bell.

  19. They should take advantage of this opportunity ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most copper installed since the 50's is still being used. In NYC, some of the original lead-jacketed, paper-insulated copper phone cabling is still in service. LEC's (Local Exchange Carriers) should take this opportunity to replace their ancient, widespread infrastructure. Imagine how telco's could dominate the boadband market if they could bring fiber to all their customers.

    Contrary to most people think, the major Internet backbones are not anywhere near capacity. Telcos have NO shortage of bandwidth. Their problem is their inability to push the bandwidth people demand over analog copper lines. Fiber solves bandwidth problems and distance problems.

    -DJ

  20. This is bad people! by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    No, wait. It's not.

    I'm not sorry for them - i don't know how it was in the rest of the world, but here (Argentina), telephone companies would take each chance they could to screw their customers for an extra penny.

    Adapt and improve service, or die. Tough luck.

    1. Re:This is bad people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I bet you don't live just across the almost always arbitrary long distance calls boundary, like me.

      Almost 600 pesos every two months.

    2. Re:This is bad people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sorry for them - i don't know how it was in the rest of the world, but here (Argentina), telephone companies would take each chance they could to screw their customers for an extra penny.

      I believe working for a telecom requires you to be a member of a global guild of heartless greedy scum-sucking weasels.

  21. A related question.. by guacamole · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know if one needs to pay for the phone service in order to keep DSL? I have DSL but feel like switching to cell phone for phone needs and I'd rather keep my DSL provider (worldcom)

    1. Re:A related question.. by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Well, with your friendly-neighborhood-screw-you-in-the-pants-telco -monopoly, SBC, the answer is "of course"!

      Although I've noticed Cox Cable has recently made having cable service optional for internet users.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:A related question.. by Tezkah · · Score: 1

      An easy solution is to switch to cable, as I'm not sure you're able to have DSL without having a dial tone. They also usually give you bundles for having both DSL and phone service from the same company.

    3. Re:A related question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it depends on the provider. FWIW, in my area Qwest charges a $5/month fee if you get DSL from them but don't have a landline.

      You could always call Worldcom and ask. Or spend a few minutes on their website (assuming it's not some unusable, 100% Flash, IE-required crapfest).

    4. Re:A related question.. by huchida · · Score: 1

      The answer is no. DSL is wholly the domain of your phone company and can't be separated from the line. You need a phone number to activate it.

      There are third party DSL providers, but they're basically renting the DSL portion of your line from the phone comany and and selling it back to you.

      Worldcom is an MCI company, right? If you really feel a loyalty to them, or just don't want to change your e-mail address, it's possible they offer other options (cable?) in your area.

      Or, just keep the land line and bare-bones it. You'd be surprised how cheap it can be if you examine all the options-- you may be paying for "features" like access to 3-way calling that you never use. A $10 answering machine is much cheaper than the phone company's voice mail plan. If you're a student or don't have much income, many companies have a "lifeline" plan that will cut the basic rate down to as little as a few dollars. You may be able to pay by-the-call instead of a flat rate, which is cheaper if you never use the line but adds up quickly if you do. If all else fails, tell the phone company you're considering dropping them for cellular and see what they have to offer.

      In the end, I think it's still a good idea to have a land line. Cell phones can be lost, stolen or defective. If you forget to charge your battery you could be without a phone for a day. If you have to spend a few hours waiting on hold for some customer service or DMV-type nightmare you won't waste all your precious cell minutes. Land lines usually work during a power outage or major storm, when cell towers may be knocked out. And 911 service from a land line is much, much more reliable...

    5. Re:A related question.. by div_2n · · Score: 1

      I do not know about all telcos, but Bellsouth requires it. They tie a phone number to a piece of copper and without it will not provide any service. It isn't technically impossible to provide DSL service only as all you need is a piece of copper to be terminated and spliced into a DSLAM.

      Notice that with a T1 service, the telcos assign the line a circuit ID that isn't a telephone number at all. There is no reason they couldn't do it with DSL service except that they don't make the extra money.

      Yes, it is a scam.

    6. Re:A related question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qwest offers nakid DSl. You do not need to pay for the phone line in order to get the DSl service. They were the first to offer this service, about 6 months ago. Other telo's were not too happy since they would prefer not to offer the service without the POTS line.

  22. Screw 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good... The telcos had an opportunity to switch to a packet based network in the 80s, they didn't. Now they're paying for their shortsightedness. Piss on 'em.

    Now if we could just find the guy who decided to create GSM as a primarily voice system instead of just having voice be another application on a packet based system and THROTLE HIS ASS, we be that much better off. ;)

  23. I hope you're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to post a comment about how it's bad if the land-lines die. If they do, the traditional telecoms will set their sight fully on VOIP and turn that into an expensive over-taxed product. Right now I get along fine with a cheap VoIP and cellphone plan combo, and I don't have to pay extra for my name NOT being listed or for moving to a new home.

    So I hope you're right. I hope a lot of people are pessimistic enough that they will keep their land-lines and keep feeding the old telecom bosses so I can have my "non-traditional" services for a reasonable price with reasonable customer service.

  24. Ohh no!! by mbrewthx · · Score: 0

    Does this mean I have to give up my telegraph??

    --
    __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
  25. Also in the news tonight... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
    telecoms in Europe and U.S. are losing in response to people switching their home phones for cellphones and dial up to cable modems

    Also in the news tonight, rain is still wet, leaves often grow on trees, and Guy Fawkes is still the only person to go into politics with honest intentions...

    Sorry, just had to get that one out of the way... :)

  26. Great, but... by toxic666 · · Score: 1

    The reliability of wireless is not sufficient for critical services like 911. You are not going to see copper disappear, but some of its utility will (in part) be replaced by wireless.

    Kind of like saying that the internal combustion engine offers so much mobility and personal choice that in ten years we'll be pulling up all the railroad tracks. Sure, it replaced a lot of rail traffic but we still need rail for mass transit and really heavy hauling (e.g. coal).

    1. Re:Great, but... by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      The reliability of wireless is not sufficient for critical services like 911.
      A couple of possible problems with your reasoning:
      • It's not just telco versus cell, it's also telco versus internet telephony. Yes, you can make a 911 call on a Vonage line.
      • Traditional telco 911 is not all that reliable, e.g., the automatic address detection often doesn't work.
      • Monoculture doesn't lead to reliability. A system tends to be more robust when There's More Than One Way To Do It.
    2. Re:Great, but... by SunPin · · Score: 1

      We should be piling up the railroad tracks for recycling. Have you been trapped at an old school railroad crossing lately? There's nothing on the f'n boxes. Just empty box after empty box for a couple miles. Railroad must die.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    3. Re:Great, but... by toxic666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can call 911 on Vonage. But calling is not my point. Receiving that call is.

      Do you really want the 911 receiver on wireless? The 911 stations are going to require the high-availability mandated by regulation. And wireless is very far from providing that.

    4. Re:Great, but... by toxic666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, over the road transport of large volumes of hazardous materials is sooo much safer and cheaper than rail. Yeah, I'd feel much safer with all those cars full of acids, caustics, oxidizers, explosives, etc. behind the cab of an overworked teamster (not).

      Rail still hauls a lot of volume. If you think the 5 minute wait on a secondary road is bad, think about the delay the last time you got stuck behind an interstate truck accident when it's loaded with hazardous materials.

    5. Re:Great, but... by SunPin · · Score: 1

      That's fine. I don't want to see hazardous materials on the road any longer than they have to be. However, I think we can drastically reduce the rail network without compromising the ability to do super hauling. Not every town needs an industrial railroad stop. I'm seeing _empty_ trains and when I see _empty_ trains, I suspect some legislator is bringing home some high cholesterol pork.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    6. Re:Great, but... by anothy · · Score: 1

      depends where you are and what kind of service you have. CDMA in > 90% of the US is fine for 911 service. same for GSM in much of western europe (except it's not 911 there). i've called 911 exactly twice. first was when i was about 7 and wanted to see what would happen. second was a few years ago, from my mobile in the middle of a field in a town park. i've also been stranded in the middle of I-80 in... Montana?... and had to call the truck rental. the GSM phone my mate had was worthless, my CDMA had full digital service.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    7. Re:Great, but... by Surreal_Streaker · · Score: 1
      (except it's not 911 there).

      Actually, in most of Europe you can make emergency calls via 911. While the standard European emergency number is 112, 911 compatibility exists to ensure that those from 911 countries get through. In the US 112 gets you emergency services so Europeans feel at home too.

    8. Re:Great, but... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      What about us 999, 111 and 000 people?

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  27. Same wires! by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I guess 10 years and all the old wires are gonna start to be taken down."

    What the poster doesn't realize is that if these wires come down, so does the Net. The Net runs on the exact same lines as does telephone. A "T1" has been around a looooong time. A T1 carries 24 telephone lines.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Same wires! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify:

      A T1 utilizes a single copper pair, but the signal is channelized into 24 segments. One or more of these channels may be used as a "voice" line, up to 24 in fact. Multiple conversations, one line.

    2. Re:Same wires! by freebase · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually a real T1 uses 2 pair, one for transmit, and one for receive. A T1 delivered by HDSL uses a single pair up to the smart jack, but it's still two pair (1,2,4,5 on the RJ45/RJ48).

      And if you're actually in a CO, trying to trace a circuit between DSX panels, there's a fifth wire, the locator wire, wired in as part of the cross connect. It provides a neat function - when you insert a looping plug in the dsx, lights on both DSX panels come on to tell you where the circuit is.

      --
      Sig??? I don't need no stinkin Sig!
    3. Re:Same wires! by tzanger · · Score: 1

      Atually, T1 describes both the electrical spec and the logical (bitwise) spec. For many, many years now T1s are actually DS1s running on HDSL (2 pair) circuits and more recently on HDSL2 (same data rate, 1 pair).

      I didn't know about the locator wire -- that is a neat trick. :-)

  28. Meanwhile, at the TelCos.... by LostCluster · · Score: 0, Troll

    Even the old line Baby Bells admit that twisted pair POTS is on the way out, that's exactly why they have heavy investments in cellular companies, and they're also working on Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) projects of their own.

    What's very interesting is that nearly all recently constructed cable TV systems bring fiber to nodes at roughly the "neighborhood" level and only convert to coax for a "last mile" link. They're not to far from finishing off to being a pure fiber solution either.

    The twisted pair phone line may be on the way out, but the landline is far from giving up the fight. :)

  29. Also in India by leonara · · Score: 2, Informative

    With the introduction of the relatively inexpensive CDMA service in India by Reliance, the number of households that have only cellphones is on the rise. This is true especially for young people setting up new homes. What makes this service even more attractive is that it makes nationwide calling very affordable when compared to the regular landline service.

    --
    -- Off to build a bridge between the twin peaks of Mt. Kilimanjaro.
  30. I dunno by Judg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've had Vonage now for about 3 weeks and have mixed feelings on it. I've already had a few outages, and while all the features are nice (Such as the network availability forwarding, where it forwards calls to my cell phone if the voice terminal isn't online), my cable inet service seemed a whole lot more reliable before I got it.
    Then again, it may be just the way my network is setup - seems like once or twice the problem has been with my firewall (Smoothwall) just 'locking up' during a 10+ minute long call.

    All in all, if I can iron out these minor problems, I think it will be a lot nicer then a traditional landline, and the price is right. I'm just not at the phase where I trust it whole-heartedly, so I'm glad I have my cell as backup

    --
    Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
    1. Re:I dunno by commonchaos · · Score: 1

      I would check your setup. I've been using a Vonage box in Africa over a satellite link. It has been over two months now. I have never had a problem with Vonage.

      The power company and upstream provider, well those are stories for another time.

    2. Re:I dunno by Judg3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, from looking around the web some, it seems that it may be the SmoothWall box getting confused - my next attempt is to hook the voice terminal directly to the modem and use its DHCP server to assign an address to the router, then the switch, yadda yadda.

      --
      Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
    3. Re:I dunno by the_argent · · Score: 1

      I had that same problem till I ignored how Vonage told me to set up the phone/router and put it behind my smoothwall firewall. Haven't had a bit of trouble since.

    4. Re:I dunno by Judg3 · · Score: 1

      That's how I have mine now, it goes Modem > Router > Switch > Devices, one of which is the voice terminal.
      What are you running your smoothie on? Mine's setup on a Pentium 200, 384mb ram, 5Gb hard drive. Perhaps my (old, slow, makes an occasional clunk but otherwise fine) hard drive could be the culprit? It's the only thing I can think of given the specs of the rest of the machine - it seems like VoIP only uses about 10kb/sec of my bandwidth, but perhaps with a suspect hard drive something could be going on.

      --
      Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
    5. Re:I dunno by taniwha · · Score: 1
      err wasn't that what the instructions that came with the box said to do in the first place?

      seriously though it does make a difference - my big complaint is that it wouldn' play nicely with my static IP (NATing out the backend was not a lot of help to my web server)

    6. Re:I dunno by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 1

      Vonage has its problems, but your firewall shouldn't be locking up from it. I'd suspect that you might be logging all the traffic and filling up your disk space?

      --
      "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
    7. Re:I dunno by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Whups looks like you already answered my question...

      mine is on a PPro 200, 64 MB ram, and I think a 20 gig HD.

      I'd have to say the HD would be your problem. You're certainly not running out of main memory (you have about 5 times what I've got in my smoothie).

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    8. Re:I dunno by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I'm using smoothwall as well for my firewall, and I've not yet had that problem. (also a Vonage customer). Only time I've lost service so far is when Hurricane Charley was rolling through town, and my cable headend lost power for about 5 minutes (same time I did, but the phone, router and vonage box are on battery).

      (was going to ask what you're smoothie is running on, but saw below you listed specs already)

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    9. Re:I dunno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should give Packet8 a try. Its cheaper than Vonage at $20 for unlimited calling between US and Canada and the sign up fee is about $35 if you use the promotion code "bestdeal" Also they change numbers for you for free at your request.

  31. This is news? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I know, redundant, redundant, but Christ. How in the hell is an article about "more cellphones, fewer land lines" news? Even a non-techie, Wal-Mart shopping, Nascar watching people would know that. Shit, I've seen migrant workers with cell phones.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:This is news? by zaxios · · Score: 1

      It's not a news event. It's just 'the way things are now' and an excuse to discuss it. Personally, I think looking at the news beyond just definite events is useful for seeing gradual change. Not everything happens suddenly, or with obvious milestones. This is one such case.

  32. Monopolies are not all bad by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ... so long as they are benevolent. For widespread rollout of utilities, a monopoly works very well if they are not so profit oriented. It takes a lot of money and long-term thinking to roll out copper, especially to out-lying areas etc. A hard-assed quarter-by-quarter driven company would continue to look for the best profit which does not necessarily mean taking the technology to the people.

    Of course there comes a time when the monopoly no longer makes and it will fade out. Most customers will benefit but soome (eg. less profitable customers in outlying areas) will lose out.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Monopolies are not all bad by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I remember reading something about the head of Standard Oil (IIRC). One of his business advisors asked why they didn't raise the price of oil in the winter when demand spiked to make more money and he replied that he had to keep it affordable otherwise people would freeze to death.

      Monopolies aren't always bad, as you said. The problem with the way we see monopolies is that most of them take advantage of it to shaft the customer (on price, service, or anything else). It's when you mix monopolies with proffit motivations above all else that you get in real trouble. A benevolent monopoly can be good, as you said. Unfortunatly, I doubt we'll ever see benevolent monopolies (or even corporations) ever again. They just seem to get greedier and greedier.

      Of course, in most situations, a nice open market if best.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:Monopolies are not all bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in such cases (where cost of duplicate infrastructure overwhelms benefit of competition), they were to be regulated or state monopolies to serve the people rather than max the profit. that was the standard economics lines back in my school days. but that won't work these days (at least not in the u.s.) - corporate lobbying has been making mockery of democracy.

    3. Re:Monopolies are not all bad by Tozzi · · Score: 1
      I totally disagree! Widespread rollout by monopolies will only allow them to gain control over the entire infrastructure. And this has happened just here in South Africa!

      One telephone operator: Telkom and happyly charging the consumers exorbadent fees for connectivity. Monthly phone line rental: $10 per month, local phonecall: $0.10 per minute!!, mobile calls at $0.30 per minute!, ADSL: $100 per month with a 3 GIG cap.

      They are making the cash and do not provide for the requirements of this developing company. One example is that because of this monopoly, bandwidth is expensive (+-$0.15 per MB), VoIP is illegal (by law) and service is poor!

      We hate the monopoly, and believe that free market economoies are much more able to deliver what the consumer requires.

      *vent*

    4. Re:Monopolies are not all bad by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From the BSD fortune files:

      There were in this country two very large monopolies. The larger of the two had the following record: the Vietnam War, Watergate, double- digit inflation, fuel and energy shortages, bankrupt airlines, and the 8-cent postcard. The second was responsible for such things as the transistor, the solar cell, lasers, synthetic crystals, high fidelity stereo recording, sound motion pictures, radio astronomy, negative feedback, magnetic tape, magnetic "bubbles", electronic switching systems, microwave radio and TV relay systems, information theory, the first electrical digital computer, and the first communications satellite. Guess which one got to tell the other how to run the telephone business?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Monopolies are not all bad by iantri · · Score: 1
      Unfortunatly, I doubt we'll ever see benevolent monopolies (or even corporations) ever again.
      Well, government-regulated monopolies tended to work OK, here, at least, in Ontario.

      Things were pretty good with Ontario Hydro before the Conversative Government deregulated electricity. Then the prices went through the roof.

      As I understand it Califorina had it even worse.

      However, without government regulation I'm sure monopolies would go completely out of control every time (i.e. American telcos, Microsoft..). I know government regulation doesn't really jive with the American ideal of no gonverment interference, but it works..

    6. Re:Monopolies are not all bad by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      I remember reading something about the head of Standard Oil (IIRC). One of his business advisors asked why they didn't raise the price of oil in the winter when demand spiked to make more money and he replied that he had to keep it affordable otherwise people would freeze to death.

      He wasn't being benevolent, he just had the kind of common business sense todays managers are mostly missing. If you kill your customers, they can't pay your outrageous prices. If you kill your market, you are dead. If you outsource jobs to back-of-the-woddistan's ultra-cheap workers, neither they nor the people you fired can afford your product.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  33. Landlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet was designed to use landlines in case of a major nuclear exchange, and wireless technologies will NOT be able to replace them in the event of nuclear stupidity. Why? Well the radio spectrum can be JAMMED and disrupted. To eliminate the landlines would render wireless communications useless anyway. Why, well because to destroy all the landlines would not leave enough of humanity to chat with anyway. Plus the power generation facillities would also have been targeted. Duh!

  34. besides, cell phones are $$ to use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cn't tell me that a cell phone is cheaper than a land line phone, how many people have a flat rate use plan for their cell phone, most of the time I am waiting for my friends cells be be availible, what, after 7 or 8 PM at night?? funny thing, is that my land line tellco phone, I can use any time day/night without worrying about if my free-time is now, or else I'm paying mucho $$/min to send a call...I can't see cell phones getting any cheaper, after all, didn't california bring in the cell-phone contract truth bill because cell phone companies were ripping people off so much!

    1. Re:besides, cell phones are $$ to use by Scuff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can complain all you want about a cellphone being more expensive, The way I see it is, when I want to make a call to an out of state on my cellphone it's just a normal call, but on a landline i have to worry about per minute costs that are very high, and start being high immediately, rather than after a certain number of minutes. It's fairly easy to make a cellphone you'r only phone, just make sure your plan has enough minutes for how much you plan on using it. And if that's not enough for you, keep in mind that most companies dont use up minutes for calls to other people using the same service, not just free calls at off hours. I shut off my landline almost 2 years ago after i noticed that for the same price, my cellphone provided a lot more features, and a lot more convenience.

    2. Re:besides, cell phones are $$ to use by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, same here. A cellphone is actually cheaper, since most of my talking time is spent talking to people out-of-state.

      Also, since I'm at work all day, I never use many of my 400 daytime minutes, so after a few months of worrying about daytime/evening rates, I noticed that I never came close to using up my allotment, and stopped worrying about it. I don't know what the previous poster was complaining about; I guess all his friends don't have jobs to keep them occupied during the daytime.

  35. Linksys and Vonage teaming up by isd_glory · · Score: 1

    Speaking of VOIP, did anyone else catch the press release on Linksys' website yesterday?

    Linksys and Vonage have apparently got together to better take a stab at getting VOIP in homes. They just relased two new products, the PAP2 and the RT31P2, both of which are to retail below $100 (before the inevitable rebates).

  36. Aaah the colours! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. What about DSL? by chiph · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The trend seems to becoming widespread, I guess 10 years and all the old wires are gonna start to be taken down

    What about DSL?
    Not everyone will have FITL (fiber-to-the-curb), so the existing copper lines will still have a use.

    Chip H.

    1. Re:What about DSL? by SunPin · · Score: 1

      Get the phone. It's Darwin.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    2. Re:What about DSL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FITL is Fiber In The Loop , although the service is frequently referred to as fiber to the curb

    3. Re:What about DSL? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of cable modems? Who would want to pay the same monthly fee for service which is 10 times slower?

    4. Re:What about DSL? by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

      Esp if you see that 250Mbps symmetrical DSL is on the way. Just two years more and you will have 5Kft range for 250Mbps.

      --
      My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
      FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    5. Re:What about DSL? by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

      " Ever heard of cable modems? Who would want to pay the same monthly fee for service which is 10 times slower?"

      Let's see. Cable goes out on a regular basis. Phone hasn't gone out since I moved into the house 18 years ago. Oh, and DSL costs 2/3 as much as cable internet around here. Plus there's the bandwidth-sharing issue with cable...

      Maybe these are some reasons why some of us chose not to go with the cable modem.

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    6. Re:What about DSL? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I've been using a cable modem with Cox for about 1.5 years now. Before that, I had DSL with Qwest/MSN. The cable modem service, while it does go out briefly on rare occassions, is much more reliable than MSN, who refused to believe me when their DNS servers were down for hours at a time, and did so regularly. I'll take Cox over Qwest/MSN any day. If you want an ISP better than MSN, you have to pay through the nose, making the DSL service far more expensive than cable.

      As for bandwidth, I've never seen it go slower than the 640k DSL I had before. Usually it's blazing fast. The bandwidth-sharing issue is just something that DSL apologists who've never used cable point to, but has little basis in reality.

  38. Sounds like a great idea... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    but what about the overall quality of the video? If I understand what he's saying, then a lot of the image quality is degraded on elements that don't make up the visual priorty. Just knowing that, many people are going to be watching the video just looking to see how badly degraded the non-priority items are. And secondly, I'd have to wonder how distracting it is because your eyes might still perceive that you aren't seeing a complete image.

    I like reading Cringely, but doesn't it seem like most of the cool tech he talks up never sees the light of day?

    1. Re:Sounds like a great idea... by somethinghollow · · Score: 1

      It's the same idea he was pushing when he wanted live video on his website. He apparently had someone write a java video viewer, and some sort of codec developed / under development. Basically, the eye will focus on certain parts of an image, so that part needs to be clearest. That was the way that was supposed to work. Compress the nonessential parts more than the essential. The NEW thing he is saying is that the eye can only has 9 kbs of bandwidth or whatever it was (I haven't read the article since it debuted), so we should compress it to that level. I reckon the problem is that the eye sees a different way digital compression.

      So, I agree. It sounds like a great idea, but it'd have to be tested alot to get it just right, if that is possible.

    2. Re:Sounds like a great idea... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Cool? Yeah I suppose so if cool is the new hip and trendy term that all the kids are using for moronically fucking stupid.

      Think about it. You're watching a film and you change the spot you're concentrating on. Now that information has to get back to the sender who has to dynamically change which bit of the movie is being sent with the highest quality and stream the modified version.

      By which time you've decided this a complete pile of crap and gone back to watching a DVD.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  39. Why wouldn't people switch? by Soldevi · · Score: 1

    With the dozens of taxes and fees on an average phone bill, why wouldn't someone switch to a cell phone? They end up comparable in price at the end and the cell phone is far more versatile.

    Cell phones are also generally nation-wide. For the cost of your plan, your have long distance, local, whatever. Doesn't quite work that way with land lines.

    1. Re:Why wouldn't people switch? by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      Well it depends on where they live. When I'm at my apartment at college, I rely on my cell phone that gets great coverage.

      When I'm home, however, I get shoddy coverage at best. In order to check my voicemail I have to go outside and walk around until I get a signal. What makes it worse is that I'm in the most densely populated state, but there's a huge friggen mountain between me and the tower.

      When cell coverage gets better, people will consider dropping their lines. But until it's 99% reliable, people won't.

  40. Two disagreements by Octagon+Most · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, the U.S. telecoms are not "losing." I work for one and it is making more money than ever. Sure land line usage has decreased for the first time ever, but revenue is up as more homes embrace broadband. And don't forget who owns the wireless companies.

    Second, the "old wires" are not "gonna start to be taken down." There is a billion dollar infrastructure buried under the U.S. that's going nowhere. And a century of tweaking has made it rock solid. A new generation growing up on wireless phones won't appreciate the five nines of reliability that the PSTN provides, but most of the population is nowhere near ready to give up the phone line that stays up during power failures.

    That said, the future is certainly IP based. The phone company knows that and will be well positioned to be the dominant provider. The RBOCs and the cable companies are the only players likely to survive in the broadband and IP-based future.

    1. Re:Two disagreements by danheskett · · Score: 1

      I work for one and it is making more money than ever.
      Which one? I track various telecom stock performance and key performance indicators aren't good across the industry.

      Also, some of the most profitable wireless companies are only wireless companies - without dead-weight strapped to the back.

    2. Re:Two disagreements by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I have a land line phone with DSL tied in and it's cheaper than Time Warner's Road Runner. TW would only do RR with digital cable, and the price of that is $15.00 more than Direct TV(with local channels and 2 receivers). Plus the fact that there are alot of people hooked up to RR in my neighborhood and I have seen their systems running slower than dial-up when the kids get out of school. I do not have a cell phone and don't want one. I like being out of contact, it's quiet and peaceful driving somewhere. When I'm not at work or home, I don't want anyone getting in touch with me.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    3. Re:Two disagreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "most of the population is nowhere near ready to give up the phone line that stays up during power failures."

      Hah. Most of the population doesn't have a *phone* that stays up during power failures. Besides, cells are at least as reliable on this point.

    4. Re:Two disagreements by base3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cells are useless in large metropolitan emergencies (which, oddly enough, often accompany severe weather), because the network doesn't have the reserve capacity the PSTN does. While the cell networks oversubscribe to the max, the PSTN is provisioned to handle Mother's Day.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    5. Re:Two disagreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the parent. Copper is rock-solid (no pun intended) and the existing infrastructure has been around for ages and has been ruggedized through decades of hard use and exposure. I love my cell phone, but cell towers are not always around, the battery isn't always charged, and "gremlins" sneak in at the most inopportune time. VOIP concerns me a bit regarding the recent discussion about granting the federal government, eavesdropping rights. If the feds can do it, who else can do it? I may just be a bit naive about POTS, but I'd prefer some of my conversations to be more "private". I think landlines are safe for awhile.

    6. Re:Two disagreements by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I kind of figured that the "old lines" would probably still be carrying many of the "new signals". Has anyone heard of DSL?

      The networks themselves had been switching over to digital long ago for practicality's sake, just that the "last mile" had remained largely analog.

    7. Re:Two disagreements by nstrupp · · Score: 1

      With the price of UPS systems falling there no longer needs to be a connection between VOIP and power failures. Sure, right now you can't power your entire house, but for $20 you could get a UPS big enough to power enough devices to make VOIP work for an emergency call when the lights go out. Chances are that if your cable modem doesn't work then your land-line wouldn't either. What about homes that have only cordless phones? I know it's always suggested that you have at least one non-cordless phone but I'm sure many people don't or if they have a non-cordless it's buried in the basement somewhere and not where it's needed in an emergency. I suspect more people will be scrambling for a flashlight or candle in the dark than concerning themselves with the phone.

      Personally, I've got a fairly large UPS that once powered my stereo system, 32" TV, 100W lamp, cable modem, router, 21" monitor, and full size desktop computer for 45 minutes during a power outage. It may have lasted longer but at that point I left the house.

    8. Re:Two disagreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually most people do not realize that the whole 'wireless' part is only about 8 miles max, after that it is all still wire carrying the signals. So the infrastructure is never going away, at most it just will not go directly to peoples homes anymore.

    9. Re:Two disagreements by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Landline exchanges are REQUIRED BY LAW to have backup power supplies in case of mains failure. You think your cable op has those? Doubt it.

  41. finally the internet delays a trend by nbert · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm quite sure that internet access is the main reason we still have so many home phones after all.

    Cable isn't that widespread in Europe, satelite links are quite expensive and they require a telephone line for upload. Access via power lines never really took off. There is nothing which beats 2 copper wires running to your house in terms of speed, reliability and price.

    Wireless LANs bringing internet access to entire blocks reduces the amount of home phones, since only one POTS is needed to get it online, but (at least over here) we won't see telcos going down the drain before ISPs are offering (cheaper than telco) area-wide wireless access for their services.

    I don't need a home phone at all, but my favorite monopolistic telco offers me DSL for a reasonable price. They also charge me for a mandatory phone connection using the same line, but it's still much cheaper than their closest competitor.
    1. Re:finally the internet delays a trend by j3110 · · Score: 1

      The price of a telephone and internet connection is about as much as my SprintPCS, but I get free long distance, all calls after 7 or on the weekend, and unlimited internet at rates at least a little better than a 56K modem. Oh yeah, and I could hook it up to a laptop just about anywhere in town (and along every interstate) and post to slashdot. :) /. responsibly... don't /. and drive.

      --
      Karma Clown
  42. Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when do the telcos start filing lawsuits against the cable companies and the VoIP providers, to protect their dying business model?

  43. wires are for loosers by another+misanthrope · · Score: 1

    I have wireless ISP access (~3 mbs, nothing great) and have been using Vonage for over a year. I now forget I have it which to me is the litmus test for a replacement technology.

    What's not to like? No more evil phone company, added features and a BIG savings.

    I just don't see how the old school bells are going to survive, and frankly I don't care.

  44. Boo Hoo... by evilviper · · Score: 1

    They could compete if they wanted to, but they'd rather charge insane prices.

    Now, this may be a painful period for telcos, but I don't think they'll die off entirely. Even if you are using VoIP, you're getting internet access from somewhere, and it's almost certainly not from your cell towers.

    So, what's the alternative to telcos for internet access? Cable companies are an option, but they tend to be quite terrible in many (most?) areas, so it's most likely that telcos will remain as the company with the pair of wires you get everything from.

    I look forward to a new utility comming along that acts as just an ISP, and provides better internet access than is currently available, but it's not going to happen for quite a while, so telcos are safe in the short-medium term.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  45. I *don't* have a landline phone anymore. by soft_guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just moved. When I was living in an area that was kind of far out of town, I did not have cell coverage at my house. Now, we just moved and we do. So, no landline phone! My wife and I just use our cell phones. Of course, we still have our old numbers which are in a different area code. That freaks people our when we order pizza.

    We used to have cable modem and used 802.11b for the past few years. Now, we have a neighbor who has a wireless network called "Linksys" with no WEP key set. So, we don't pay for internet anymore either. I suppose the day they put a wep key on it or shut it down, I will order either cable or DSL (we actually can get either where we live.)

    We still have to pay for our cell phones and for electricity, but we're saving like $200 a month without phone or broadband. (Math check: Our old cable company wouldn't sell us broadband without digitial cable and the total price was like $100 a month. Plus, phone bill including long distance since the cell phones wouldn't work from the house and all our relatives live in other states.)

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    1. Re:I *don't* have a landline phone anymore. by adsl · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hope your'e not my new neighbor who keeps ordering Pizza deliveries and uses my WiFi! But then I've just ordered one of those cell phone blockers;)

    2. Re:I *don't* have a landline phone anymore. by Tryfen · · Score: 1
      our old numbers which are in a different area code


      I've got to ask a really dumb question... Why are your cell phones tied to a local area code?
      Here in the UK (and most of Europe), mobile phones have their own area code - that way you always know that you're calling a non-landline number.
      Isn't the point of a mobile phone that you can take it anywhere? If someone in Boston calls your Boston number while you're in Las Vegas - how does he (or you) know what you're going to get charged?

      T
      --
      If a square is really a rhombus, why aren't all triangles purple?
    3. Re:I *don't* have a landline phone anymore. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      My wife and I just use our cell phones. Of course, we still have our old numbers which are in a different area code. That freaks people our when we order pizza.

      Your cellphone numbers are area-dependent based on where you bought the cellphone? Really? Ha. Hahahhahahaa!

    4. Re:I *don't* have a landline phone anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US the recipient pays airtime charges, and the caller pays LD charges. With a mobile phone, the long-distance charges don't vary based on where the phone actually is. If you have a boston number, and move to los angeles, then you're a long-distance call for all of your new los angeles friends. As for what you're called to receive a phone call, that depends on your cellular carrier and what plan you're on. The worst plans charge enormous "romaing" fees, while with the best of them, you can just pick up your phone at any time, without any fear that you're spending extra money.

    5. Re:I *don't* have a landline phone anymore. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you mean by area dependent. They work fine anywhere - its just the area code isn't the one the pizza place is expecting.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  46. WIRES WIRES WIRES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you people even THOUGHT about what will happen if/when the telcos die? Who do you think all those broadband connections and OC-12 links run over? That's right..the PHONE COMPANY! Let me explain this...very slow so you 802.11 groupies can understand it: no traditional voice customers = no universal services fees = nobody to pull the wires needed to run all this stuff. Any questions?

  47. TimeWarner owns me now. by methano · · Score: 5, Informative

    We just switched over to VOIP with Time Warner, who also sends us cable TV and Road Runner. They get a big check from us every month. It seems to work about the same except that all those features on the phone (Caller ID etc.) now work. Oddly enough, my old local company sent me a letter yesterday offering about the same deal. Why didn't they send me the offer while I was still a customer?
    It reminded me of something that happened a few years ago at work.
    We used to subscribe to a Derwent patent publication that listed new patents in the pharmaceutical industry. It costs about $30K a year. I called and asked if they could give us a little break on the price. "No Way," they said. So we cancelled the subscription. A few weeks later, they call up and said that there was a mistake and they could give it to us for only $800/yr. I said "No Way." Pricing in this information busness is funny stuff.

  48. Imagine that by RabidChicken · · Score: 4, Funny

    *gasp* businesses adapting to new technology!

    1. Re:Imagine that by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

      Time to make a law to ban new technology so that old outdated business models can prospeR

      --
      When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
  49. Nah. by dj245 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I guess 10 years and all the old wires are gonna start to be taken down."

    I still need da phone line for my DSL. Cable is way too unreliable in my area. The folks that run it use dodgy amplifiers apparently. Phone line infrastructure was terribly expensive to put up and maintain, and it has lots of other uses (DSL etc). They will never tear it down voluntarily.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  50. I just bought 3 Polycom IP600 SIP phones yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How timely...I just bought 3 Polycom IP 600 SIP phones *yesterday* for my house to hook up to Asterisk. Only $300 each and cheaper still if you search around (I was in a hurry). I already have a Concero Talkswitch and a Cisco ATA-186 handling VoIP duties with six 4-line Casio SI-460 phones but I figure my family can save a bundle using Nufone or VoicePulse using Asterisk's IAX2 directly. The Polycom IP600 slices and dices with 6 lines and even has a microbrowser in it to display animation or XHTML(!) from your favorite URL when idle. Not to mention it has garnered various awards too.

    For a sampling of various SIP phones check out www.thevoipconnection.com. Lots to browse through.

  51. I'm not too confident by strook · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The usual progress seems to be new technical innovations start off getting sneakily shafted by the companies that are afraid of change, and then when other companies realize they could profit, they back the innovation. Like TiVo - early on DVR technology looked like it might be squashed by content owners' legal threats, but now that DirecTV and the cable companies have realized DVRs help them make money, there's some big legal guns on the side of the good guys. (As I like to think of it, at least.)

    The problem here is that right now I get my internet access from... SBC, same as my phone company. In a better world the ISPs would have a financial incentive to back VoIP against the phone companies' objections, and there could be a huge corporate battle ending up in consumer benefit. Doesn't really work when the ISP and the phone company are one and the same.

    I guess Comcast (or your local internet-via-cable company) could start bundling VoIP with their broadband access, competing with the DSL people who already offer those bundles. Makes sense to me, although I still wish the providers of the services were different groups....

    can't think any more... brain hurts... color scheme too ugly...

    --

    "TV is great! Every New Year's I make a resolution to watch more TV." - Ann Coulter

    1. Re:I'm not too confident by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Cox Cable actually does this in New Orleans. They call it the Cox digital suite or something like that - digital cable, cable internet, and VOIP all for some ridiculous price. I guess it does make sense for some people who have a need for all of that, but for somebody like myself who lives and dies by his cell phone and who rarely watches TV, it just seems overpriced.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  52. In the US, for the most part... by Blaede · · Score: 1

    ...yes you must have a landline active to get DSL. At current, this is the rule, not the exception. In addition to having to pay for a landline, most DSL carriers require you to 1) sign a contract, and 2) buy the modem (either from them or bring your own). Msot even charge you to install it as well. And DSL prices are high as well.

    For the most the cable guys will 1) install it free, 2) not require you to sign a contract, 3) not require you to get TV cable, and 4) provide the modem free for use (you give it back when you cancel). The is the RULE, not the exception (there are some areas that operate DSL-like, but they are rare).

    1. Re:In the US, for the most part... by whovian · · Score: 1

      most DSL carriers require you to 1) sign a contract, and 2) buy the modem (either from them or bring your own). Msot even charge you to install it as well.

      My provider is SBC.
      1) True, 1 year.
      2) False. A DSL modem comes with your contract and must be returned when you stop the service. This means that the modem is "free" if you install the modem yourself, whereas SBC will allow you to open your wallet to have them come do the installation of the modem and/or do a home-run wiring to the NID.

      Another point: Is it still the case that one isn't allowed to run servers over cable internet? I am not aware of such a restriction for DSL.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    2. Re:In the US, for the most part... by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Every broadband agreement I have read, whether DSL or cable, has always said no servers. I haven't read a DSL contract in about a year, however. Even if they allow servers the contract usually has a clause where they can ban you from having servers for almost any reason. But this is just what I have gleaned from looking over the various agreements in different areas.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    3. Re:In the US, for the most part... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      My Sprint DSL service allows me to run servers. Unfortunately, they only offer Download-heavy bandwidth options. I currently have 1.5Mbit/256kbit. In order to get my upload to 384kbit, I have to pay $20/month more for 3.0Mbit upload (overkill). Its slower than cable, and I pay more, but Comscat won't let me run my server, so they lose my business.

  53. I miss ma bell by xtermin8 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Wouldn't it have been great if we kept the telephone monopoly and they just planned to convert everything to VOIP. I just haven't seen the advantages consumers were supposed to get with the breakup. Of course Ma Bell might have fouled things up as well, but I remember being able to understand clear phones bills and passable customer service.

    1. Re:I miss ma bell by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Insightful
      but I remember being able to understand clear phones bills and passable customer service.
      Do you remember having to pay $0.40 a minute for a long distance call? I do.

      The main advantage you now see from the breakup is competition, however feeble, and lower pricing.

      Oh, and customer service has always sucked. It's not a new phenomenon.

    2. Re:I miss ma bell by darksaber · · Score: 1

      Maybe not (my calling card was always $0.09/minute at night) but Sprint is charging $0.40/minute if you go over your cell phone minutes now, unless you get that silly pay as you go plan. When I first signed up, it was only $0.12/minute, but of course I had to cancel my service for six months when they were being especially retarded. Sigh.

  54. Vonage by (eternal_software) · · Score: 1

    After moving 3 weeks ago, I decided I was sick of paying $40+ a month for nothing but local service with Verizon, so I decided to sign up with Vonage.

    I've had absolutely no problems with this service, voice quality is as good (if not better) than a landline, and the price is right ($14.95 for 500 minutes ANYWHERE in the US or Canada!).

    They also offer so many additional features (toll free # for $5 a month??), how can the telcos compete?

    I just signed my business up. I'm not going back.

  55. I know it's kind of pointless, but by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    has anyone here tried to establish a dialup connection over VOIP?

    Like those people who run emulators within emulators within emulators, something like this would have a pretty high geek-chic factor.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:I know it's kind of pointless, but by tzanger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yup, and it works so-so.

      You must use a codec that does not do any kind of compression or acoustic fanagling or it just won't work. I have been sending faxes in and out of our office (up to two at a time in either direction) for the last 3 months now without issue, so long as it only goes one hop to our PRI downtown. Faxes through our VOIP provider are spotty at best but we also have a Canon IR3300 fax machine as our primary fax device... they're the pickiest bitches known to the faxing industry.

    2. Re:I know it's kind of pointless, but by j3110 · · Score: 1

      You would think for compatibility sake the telcos would have devices to detect digital and just use modems (in the real definition, not the device) to forward the digital signals through, or even better, someone create Fax over IP.

      --
      Karma Clown
    3. Re:I know it's kind of pointless, but by tzanger · · Score: 1

      You would think for compatibility sake the telcos would have devices to detect digital and just use modems (in the real definition, not the device) to forward the digital signals through, or even better, someone create Fax over IP.

      That is much harder than you think. With all the different coding and encapsulation algorithms used and then all the "almost right" implementations it'd be hell on wheels to try and make work.

      Fax over IP already exists. Google it up sometime. :-)

    4. Re:I know it's kind of pointless, but by j3110 · · Score: 1

      I know that every fax machine is compatible with every other one for a reason, because the spec is good enough. It's just data over a 9600 or 19200 baud stream that's been converted in the standard way to an audible sound. There are data and fax tones, and it's not unreasonable to require them in order for your fax machine to work properly.

      --
      Karma Clown
  56. Never-Money pipes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "I don't think the landline will go away completely, but there's not much reason to use unshielded twisted pairs that have been installed outdoors decades ago when we now have better technologies available."

    They're already paid for.

    1. Re:Never-Money pipes. by interiot · · Score: 1
      'Course, so is caller-ID, but that doesn't stop phone companies from charging you $3.50 a month for something that costs them nothing.

      As long as phone companies keep acting like they're... well.... The Phone Company, it won't be hard to find cheaper solutions, even if more copper needs to be installed first.

  57. I hope they all go away by avida · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hate traditional phone companies and I hope they all go away in the most painful way possible.

  58. I can't help but think... by deadsquid · · Score: 1
    ...of how the railway lines had great infrastructure, and then tore it up when things got shitty for a while. Demand came back a few years later, and the company had liquidated the steel in the lines through tearing it all out.

    I'm in Canada, so other countries still have their infrastructure.

    I'm sorry - wireless sucks, because as the subscriber numbers go up, so does the sharing quotient. I can see four other APs from my back yard, and downtown is even worse. You only have so much spectrum, which erodes as you add users. Once it's gone, it's gone. Reminds me of a flat ethernet (10bt) segment I saw once that had _2,000_ nodes on it, and the admins couldn't figure out why avg thruput was less than a 14.4kbs modem (at the time).

    Don't go ripping the infrasturcture out quite yet. Wireless is ok for casual use, but I'll keep my physical connection any day. It works, it's fast, it's multi-purpose, and it's mine. I like the dedicated line, I hate cel voice quality, and I don't really like my bits going over the air competing with everyone elses.

    Ok, rambling, I'm done. DOn't count it out. Infrastructure is just that for a reason.

    NB: Drunk. I don't pretend this will make sense, but in my own litle world, I know what I mean.

    --
    Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
  59. Cellphones by DirePickle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You can have my landline when you pry it from my cold dead hands. Cells are useful on occasion, but they just are not clear enough. And they're too unreliable on the insides of many buildings. Mine doesn't work at all if I go into my basement. I really hate talking to people on cell-phones. No one can understand anyone else, some of the time (less frequently, nowadays) you get that echoey-reverb thing going... Anyway. Go copper.

  60. Cancer anyone? by joshbassett · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So, tell me what happens if some research gets released which undeniably links cell/mobile phones with cancer? (This isn't necessarily my opinion BTW)

    Will people go flocking back to the beloved land-line?

  61. Those lines are not leaving by brendanoconnor · · Score: 2, Funny

    The only reason I believe that the old pots system is here to stay is that it just works. While I have never tried digital telephone through a cable company, I think it requires you have power. I could be wrong so if so, please correct me. With that being said, the pots system worked during an outage. That is incredibly important.

    Another reason the land lines will not be going anywhere is that there are some places that wireless phones just do not work. An example of this is in Spring Valley, Ca, which is part of the San Diego County. I had a wireless phone that just would not work in that area. I had verizon at the time, so who knows, it might work now.

    Also, remember during 9/11 how the cellphone networks were not prepared for the load? Well, I am fairly sure this would not be a problem for the old pots system. Like before, not positive but pretty sure.

    I still have a land line because I use speakeasy DSL. Great ISP by the way.

    Brendan

  62. Ditto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I ditched the landline when I moved to college. I suspect that as more and more high school students acquire cell phones, a great many wil hang onto the mobiles and not find any need for landlines once they move out. The wireless ascendancy is but a generation away.

  63. Voice modems by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm actually surprised that voice modems haven't become popular and that answering machine capabilities haven't become standardised on computers the way faxing has. I've had modems that worked as answering machines before over the past decade, but the software was always a third-party application that wasn't integrated with the OS like faxing, and it never became one surprisingly. I presume the main reason for this is because people would tend to have a dedicated data line for the modem and have their voice lines separate. But I also think another reason is that people tend to use the voicemail of their mobile phones now more than answering machines.

    With the popularity of broadband, dial-up modems on computers are simply becoming an option used more for faxes or for using a dial-up connection when the broadband connection is down. Macs used to support audio line-in from the modem port, but they dropped that feature for some reason, and it seems to have gone unnoticed. Having an audio line-in function for a dial-up modem would be a precursor to using it as an answering machine. One of the problems of having a fax is that people usually use a dedicated line for one rather than having the same number for both voice and fax. That's two phone bills, and there's no reason for it to be that way. I always thought that computers would merge voice, fax, and data into one phone line. But if you use a mobile phone for voicemail, then you won't be able to link it to your computer.

  64. let em die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dinosaurs will slowly die and I do belive no one will cry.

  65. But there's plenty of spectrum by hagbard5235 · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of spectrum. The problem is that we squander it in stupid ways. Take for instance broadcast television. 80%+ of households in the US have cable, but we still dedicate vast swaths of really good spectrum to the exclusive use of television broadcasters who didn't even pay for it originally in most cases. Then we compound it by giving them more spectrum for digital broadcast. Let's do the math: a 6Mhz channel can carry 38Mb per second, broadcast quality TV can be transmitted in about 3 Mb per second. So even if broadcasting video over the air were a good idea (which I maintain it isn't), we are using 10+ times as much spectrum as necessary to do it. I'll start taking people seriously who claim we are running out of spectrum when you can't get TV with rabbit ears anymore...

  66. Wires by JohnyDog · · Score: 1

    I guess 10 years and all the old wires are gonna start to be taken down.

    As long as there are xDSLs, the wires remains where they are.

    --
    People who like this sort of sig will find this the sort of sig they like.
  67. Callvantage by doormat · · Score: 1

    I've been thinking about switching to callvantage soon, I'm interested to see how it pans out... $35/mo, but you get a lot of extra stuff (like locate-me and do-not-disturb). I like the idea that I can tell my phone not to ring from 10pm to 6am unless its really urgent. I figure between callvantage and a cell phone I'm set.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  68. Boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telecoms should sue Voip for loss of potential revenue.

  69. good! by 56ksucks · · Score: 1

    The phone company needs to realize it's no longer a monopoly and use good old fashioned customer service to keep their customers happy.

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  70. RIAA/MPAA by sicking · · Score: 0

    It's a good thing the Telecoms aren't run by RIAA or MPAA. If they were cellphones would probably be outlawed by now since it's clearly destroying the business model of other companies.

    --
    Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
  71. Re:They should take advantage of this opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they won't do it.

    Building that infrastructure cost money, lot's of money. But they can't recoupe it, their forced to sell the service to their competers at just above (or even below) cost. There's just not enough ROI to be worth it in most cases.

  72. RE: Why land lines? by basotl · · Score: 1

    -I started using a cell phone and cable connection a year ago and havn't looked back. All my friends thought I was wierd but I all ways told them it was the way of the future.

    --
    HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
  73. Re:They should take advantage of this opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Check out the cost of a laser diode
    2. Discover the number of customers in NYC
    3. Determine the number of terminations in NYC
    4. Bankrupt!

  74. Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they saw it coming, gambled on government regulation killing it in its cradle, and they lost. Sniffle, sniffle, so sad.

  75. oldskool by celeritas_2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I happen to like my landline service. When I'm gone or sleeping, absolutely no one can annoy me with their problems, requests, or irritating want to keep in touch, just not on a same-room basis. Also, I find there's something irresistably sexy about being completely lost, I might actually have to [gasp] talk to a real person and not a vibrating piece of cancer plastic making friends with and sterilizing my balls. Slashdot probably isn't the correct place to talk about wanting to be disconnected sometimes, but what are YOU going to do about it eh?

    --
    -- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
    1. Re:oldskool by strider_starslayer · · Score: 1

      you seem to have been moderated funny; I'm not sure why- your sentiment is rather serious, however...

      Why dose the fact that you have a cellphone mean that you have to allwase be avalible? If your landline cannot disturb you while you are sleeping then you either put in earplugs, keep it in another room, are a very deep sleeper, or turn the volume off on it when you go to bed: You can do every one of those things with a cellphone too.

      And who says that because you are lost and have a cellphone you HAVE to use your cellphone instead of stopping and asking for directions? You can do both- so it's not a matter of the cellphone chaining you down, but the cellphone adding more abilities to your phoneing abilities.

      The cellphone radition might be a valid concern; however, ten years of testing now and still no conclusive results, and even the gravest of reports simply sugests you use a headset or try not to talk on the cellphone too long in a single sitting.

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
    2. Re:oldskool by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      walk away from the wifi spot... unfortunatly.

      Wifi has high battery usage people won't expect you to be connected very often. Whole thing will probably use voice mail mostly.

  76. Wires taken down? by Anderlan · · Score: 1

    What do you mean? Phone signals aren't carried by wires in the air, but in the ground. And wireless phones don't work by connecting to directly from cell phone to cell phone, but, as the name implies, from phone to cell tower, over wires (in the ground) and from cell tower to phone. Wires are here to stay, I'm afraid. Actually, fiber is here to stay. ;P There's a HUGE amount of it, thank goodness, making all our telecom goodness cheap. Long live wires!! or, um fiber!!!!

    --
    KLAATU, BORADA, NIh*ahem*
  77. Poor Poor Big Huge Companies... by ryanw · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Telephone and power companies are forced by the government to provide service to even the most remote areas without charging more money for service in the remote areas. So these companies predict growth and invest in building up areas mostly because they 'have to' but they are able to charge enough to everyone to ofset this problem.

    Now you think 'poor poor big company' because they're forced to service those remote areas and now they aren't getting the growth they have anticipated? WRONG...

    These companies are not forced to stick to old technologies. They have decided to stick to technologies for as long as they can, but the telco company could be offering much better solutions to everyone but they were 'comfortable' with the situation. They wanted to milk the old technology for all it had. Instead of spending all the resources trying to install new technologies in everyone's homes, they were trying to squish the new technology. Remember all those attempts at lobbying for internet taxes and things? Those were attempts to make internet more expensive than typical communications so they wouldn't have to change their ways. Their thoughts were, "Why install new technology when we haven't made our projected return on your current technology?". The answer is obviously, "To save your company from being obsoleted by the companies installing the new technologies."

    1. Re:Poor Poor Big Huge Companies... by Thu25245 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was really stupid of Verizon and Sprint to fail to invest in wireless. And AT&T should have created their own VoIP service. And maybe BellSouth or SBC should look into offering some sort of high-speed residential internet service....

  78. Telecomm is dead, long live the Telecomm by hellfire · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a paradigm shift, this is not the death of an industry. I've been seeing small peerings of VoIP on websites, Vonage has been leading the charge, and now I'm seeing Comcast, AT+T, MCI, and Verizon all blasting their VoIP offerings all of a sudden. The companies aren't dying, they are just switching their technology. Verizon has the DSL network and is parsing it out to all these DSL providers. Comcast has it's network. Now the othr telecomms are getting in on the act and catching up to Vonage. They know they have to join this wave or die, but of course they will join up and flourish.

    What's great about this VoIP revolution is that this frees the phone number and service from the physical network. You buy the IP first, then connect your VoIP to it. And you can switch VoIPs and keep your number. Creating layers of technology each with different tasks opens up possibilities not seen before and will be a huge boob to the customer.

    The telecomms won't be at the front, they aren't leaders, but they are never far behind. They'll charge a little more, try to buy up Vonage and the other companies, then consolidate into powerhouses again. Vonage might grow big enough to be a new telecomm, like T-Mobile and Cingular almost are.

    My prediction is that it won't be until the NEXT revolution that small companies and mom and pop telecomms pop up and provide kickass service and competition. That revolution will be long range wireless networking.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  79. In Australia we *have* to for ADSL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia, because of hell$tra (telstra) we HAVE to have a bloody land line for voice otherwise they disconnect our ADSL. Even though there is NO technical reason for requiring us to sign up to voice (with some company, not necessarily telstra), they MAKE us. SO, I have to pay $33AUD a month for bloody line rental even though I don't want it.

    I could get cable net access. But there are only two providers of cable, Telstra and Optus. And both suck gigantic goats balls. I'd rather have dialup over two cans with string than go with those ass wads.

    It's about time the government gave Telstra a big kick up the arse.

  80. Monopolies ARE bad. by xtal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most customers will benefit but soome (eg. less profitable customers in outlying areas) will lose out.

    Hahahaha! I take it you don't live in an outlying area.

    My exchange was one of the last in NORTH AMERICA to be moved off an old switch that used in band signalling. While some might understand this provided much amusement in my youth, we didn't get private lines until about 1992 if I remember right. The line quality is BAD here.

    Dispite millions? being promised and provided for broadband development in Rural areas by the Canadian government, my estimated date for DSL arrival is on a geological timeframe. Luckily, the terrain here is such I might be able to get a 802.11 link to a benevolant soul in the next year or so.

    Where do I live? About 30 minutes outside a major center. Not the middle of nowhere. Basic service is what the law says I get, and basic service is what I get.

    Here'e to hoping for the ability to get an affordable cell-based broadband connection. Two way satellite is still out of the question.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Monopolies ARE bad. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You think you had it bad? Our local exchange where I lived as a kid was still a Strowger exchange in the early 1990s (i.e. filled with racks of rotary mechanical switches). Some days even a 1200 baud modem through that was painful. When it did go digital, there was so little copper going out to where we lived we had to have a DACS (a line splitter that meant on one of the lines a modem was all but useless) to get the extra line.

      I must admit I do find the old Strowger exchanges cool - they make great noises - but I'd rather not actually use one for my phone service, and they were obsolete in the 1960s let alone early 1990s.

    2. Re:Monopolies ARE bad. by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      I spent a bit of time living with reletives 20 minutes outside of London Ontario. Up until 2000, their neighbouring farms were on party-lines (anything but a fun party, I assure you ;).

      Apparently there was a "lack of lines" in the area. They pointed at the new cell tower down the road and Bell provided them with a private line if they didn't mention it to anyone else..

  81. i still have my phone line by sewagemaster · · Score: 1

    i still have my phone line because:

    the local cable company videotron has download quota limit, but primus canada does not have any download limit. so I use primus DSL for internet access. (offtopic: bell canada recently took away their download limit because too many customers cancelled their services after complaining about that. Me and many of my friends once got charged over $90 for downloading over the limit without even being notified.)

    but using dsl means i still have to pay $34 to bell per month for the phone line.

    also videotron requires to sign a contract. being a student that's expected to finish up my degree soon, i'd say no thanks.

    all in all, i'm keeping my phone line.

  82. Spot on. by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Unfortunatly, I doubt we'll ever see benevolent monopolies (or even corporations) ever again."

    If i had the points i had last night, i'd mod you through the roof. This is the most insightful and true statement i've seen today.

    i hate to be a defeatist, but fucking christ, who isn't trying to fuck you these days? It's not enough to have a chalet on some remote lake anymore is it? It's not enough to have 7+ figures in the bank is it?

    i just grow more and more disheartened that there are no truly benevolent companies in monopolistic positions these days. i won't glorify the "good ol' days" and sure as hell, there were sharks in those days, but i can't help but feel that i'm getting fucked, about to get fucked, or have the research to realize that, yeah, i am getting fucked by some company.

    Shit, maybe i'm just out of touch, but i'd hoped that by the age of 26 i'd not be so goddamn cynical and have to watch my back at every fucking turn....like maybe, just maybe, some corps just might give a fuck that i live to next year and buy the next edition. Know what i mean?

    Fuck, i already sound like my grandfather and at least he got be 50 before he was an ass about everything.

    1. Re:Spot on. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      its true what they say then, "Its worse than you think and they are out to get you."

    2. Re:Spot on. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It's npt "these days" at all - it has always been like that - sometimes much worse - for example, take the factories during the early industrial revolution where children had to work 12 hour days so the family could make ends meet.

    3. Re:Spot on. by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "i hate to be a defeatist, but fucking christ, who isn't trying to fuck you these days?"

      I'm with you, and the most interesting thing is that I'm from the UK. To have the situation mentioned in two continental regions is a _bad_ indicator, IMO.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    4. Re:Spot on. by recycledpork · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fuck, i already sound like my grandfather and at least he got be 50 before he was an ass about everything.

      Its the future, things move faster now.

      --
      - w00t?
    5. Re:Spot on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not the companies, it's the people that run them. Look at society and you see everyone trying to screw over everyone else where once people where polite and willing to help one another out. The companies only changed because the people did.

    6. Re:Spot on. by NateTech · · Score: 1

      My friend, you're correct. Business owners constantly look for new ways to "fuck you". I guarantee it. They're looking to maximixe their profits and roll their profits into new businesses, since their expenses are paid PRE-tax in this country.

      The only way to beat the numbers is to start working your ass off to start your own business. Good business. Business that will run and grow as an asset even if you disappear and take a vacation. And building a business like that from scratch is damn hard work -- but at 26, you're in the PRIME spot in your life to decide. Do I spend money on buying assets that can grow into a business, or do I buy that big TV? That shiny new car? That house with more rooms that I need to live in?

      Think about it. Look at the numbers NOW while you're young and make a conscious decision to be one of those "bastards" who's screwing everyone else over. Or decide to buy the big house, the TV, and the car and sit on your ass watching TV and working at a job that builds someone else's assets.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  83. Re:They should take advantage of this opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a matter of rolling the fibre out. It's exceedingly expensive. In Australia, I'm able to get cable or ADSL. However, cable is only offered by Telstra and Optus, and both suck big time.

    I can get cable because we have stobey poles (poles in the street to hold electricity wires, etc). In newer suburbs, all the cabling is underground. And it costs a LOT of money to dig this earth up to lay down fibre. So they wanted to have overhead poles just for the fibre, and various councils/groups/etc kicked up a big stink about it. So, those suburbs miss out on cable.

    A friend of mine lives in one such suburb, and he can't get cable OR ADSL. Two streets away there is cable, but they stopped rolling it out because Telstra and Optus had a spat over something. Even brand new estates built in these areas cannot get broadband. Damn telstra sucks.

  84. It comes down to two things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Cost, and reliability.

    Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- in the computer industry can match the reliability of the POTS (that's the technical term for it: Plain Old Telephone System). It's been there for a long time now; almost a century. Telephone companies have done a lot of work to make it robust and reliable.

    In comparison, VoIP isn't reliable. IP itself isn't reliable. All it takes is a good DDoS attack against a key VoIP point, and all of a sudden, hundreds of people are without telephone service. Need to call the fire brigade? Sorry, pal; you'll have to go next door, hoping that they're still on POTS, or you can hope that your mobile has enough reception to do the job.

    As for cost: rolling out VoIP means rolling out a heap of new infrastructure. That's not going to be cheap, and somebody will have to pay for it. POTS has been around long enough that the telcos can afford to cut prices if VoIP starts undercutting too much. They'll scream blue murder at having to cut their profits, but they'll do it if they have to.

    No... VoIP isn't going to replace POTS any time soon. As for mobiles, well, I'm a little bit dubious about having a potential cancer inducing product jammed up against my head whenever I have to make a phone call. I'll stick to my landline (POTS or VoIP) for the most part, thank you very much.

  85. xDSL, TV.... by Piranhaa · · Score: 1

    Well I must admit, for the telephone/dial-up side, this article is correct. But on second note, telecom companies continue to offer DSL service, which in some ways is better than broadband-cable. For starters, your line isn't shared among your neighbours, *usually* always guaranteed maximum speeds. On top of this, security is somewhat enhanced because once again, the *cable* isn't shared. Another thing is, Telus (the largest telecom provider in Western Canada) is beginning to offer a new type of servce. They call it Telus TV. Right now it is in beta form, but once this gets realeased to all (it will be using the MPEG4 compression to my knowledge), it, on paper anyways, will blow cable out of the water. Who knows what the future will bring us!

  86. Too many wires by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    to go to waste. You need wide band they'll have it and the ones with lots of loot will go to multispectral fiber.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  87. I've been without a landline for about 2 years.. by halo1982 · · Score: 1

    When I went off to college in August of 2002, my roommate and I both got cell phones. I currently pay $40 a month for 750 anytime, 8pm N/W and free mobile to mobile with Sprint PCS. Then I have cable which has been pretty reliable. I got Vonage 6 months ago but I need to cancel it because between the two of us my roommate and I used 9 minutes out of 500 last month. So landline free has worked great for both of us. We've never run into a problem where we needed a landline. (although last time we moved I did go through withdrawal for the 2 days it took the Time Warner guy to show up)

  88. Re:There is a positive side... by symbolic · · Score: 1

    I was talking to my telco the other day, trying to get some charges removed that were initiated by a third party. At the end of the conversation, the guy told me that they could give me more options on my business line, AND reduce my rate by about 30%. If anything, the competition will help- at least in the short run.

  89. The Bells arn't going anywhere! by paratroopertech · · Score: 1

    First off, the Telco's own almost the entire backbone that VOIP, and your Internet connection and cell phone run over. Many of the Telco's offer VOIP, such as Qwest, and they are planning on increasing their VOIP subscribers in the near future. I don't think that many of the people posting on here have any idea how large and developed the "land line" or wired network is. This network will continue to evolve but its not going anywhere. The Bells are the only companies that realistically have the infrastructure and money to maintain this required network. Cell phones and wireless subscribers will continue to grow but POTS, SS7, and ISDN will remain, in part, due to their reliability. It wont matter what technology the future holds, it will be wired to the network at some point. Your cell phone, VOIP, wireless, and fiber networks are all linked to the backbone that the Bells own. They arn't going anywhere, ya might as well get used to it.

  90. 80% of non-last-mile copper will be gone by 2020 by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I predict that 80% of non-last-mile "telephone-grade copper" will be gone by 2020. What's left will be in rural or other low-profit-to-upgrade areas.

    The "last mile" copper will still be there but it'll be a lot less than 5280 wire-feet and it will connect to a neighborhood hub. You can get a LOT of bandwidth out of existing copper if the distances are short enough, and there's no reason to rewire neighborhoods if you don't need to.

    I see CATV and telcos competing for everything - phone, 'net, television, and other services - over their respective networks. Some customers will get "500-channel cable" - or more likely "every available channel cable" - over twisted-pair copper which, in reality, is only delivering them the handful of channels they are actually watching at any given moment courtesty of a magic box somewhere in the neighborhood. Their next-door neighbor might contract with the cable company, and have his telephone over the cable, either as VOIP or some other technology.

    Both CATV and Telcos will have neighborhood boxes in high-revenue areas to allow them to deliver "everything" over their existing neighborhood infrastructure. Lower-revenue areas will be stuck with whatever the connectivity-providers think will make the most money, or whatever the regulators make them put in.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  91. Re:DSL is OK, just one problem... by symbolic · · Score: 1

    At least where I live, it's not competively priced at all. I can pay x number of dollars to my cable company and get 3.0 Mbps, ISP services included. The telcos, for whatever reason, think it's cute to unbundle everything- they advertise that you can get a 1.5 Mbs DSL connection for $29.99 a month, and you can - but this does NOT include an ISP. Once you add that in, you're close the price of cable, and at half the speed.

  92. Re:80% of non-last-mile copper will be gone by 202 by paratroopertech · · Score: 1

    80% of the non-last mile copper is already gone. All inter-office or long distance communications allready uses fiber. Neighborhood boxes already exist and are in place today in most areas. These boxes are normally fed by fiber. They are what feed the DSL and cable for your area. In many cases the only part that is copper is the wiring from that neighborhood box, to the phone jack in your house.

  93. T*Mobile did the same to me! by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 2, Informative

    I had been using T*mobile for two years. This past year I started using text messaging and the AOL IM feature a lot more, bringing my cell phone costs upwards to $200-$300 thanks to overage fees. Ofcourse, the highest they could sell me was 1000, which I would quickly go over before halfway through the month.
    I also tried to get them to automatically take the monthly charges from my Visa check card (same card I used for manual billing) and every month they would fail to debit the account, and they would shut off my phone until I gave em a ring to give them the same credit card number they were supposed to be automatically billing.
    Now, I hadn't switched providers up to this point because T*Mobile offers the best coverage in my area, and I knew if I switched, not only would I have to get one of those newer shoddy flip phones (yuck) but it most likely wouldn't get any signal where I live.
    About the end of June, they once again shut my phone off, and I figured maybe if I didn't call them they would figure it out that they were supposed to use the SwiftPay service for the automatic billing. They had the phone completely booted off the system (the phone wouldn't log in at all) by a few weeks ago. So, I gave in and tried logging in online to pay the bill. The website acted like they never had my number setup!
    So I called them up on the land line. They charged me for June, July, and August, though I was unable to use the phone the entire time, and August it was booted off the network. I was furious at this and there respose was pretty much too bad too sad. So I told them I didn't want service from them any more and that was that.
    Then they gave me a buzz the other day asking me to come back and try their new UNLIMITED text messaging! What a crock! I have actually been happier with out the cell phone these last couple months, and don't plan on getting another provider.

    --

    ==================
    Hippie Logger Jock
    ==================
  94. VoIP makes the phone company obsolete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a high number of people have VoIP why would anyone need a phone company?

    Why not use something like an email address to make VoIP connections. Use a email address to IP address gateway at your ISP or somewhere.

    Then you would not need the phone company and no $30.00 per month either. Except off course if you wanted to connect to the old POTS network.

  95. Skype by schouwl · · Score: 1

    This free software gives the best voip quality. Now you can also use it to call to land lines.
    http://www.skype.com/
    I am waiting for a mobile phone that can use this one. Since I live in Japan we already have IP mobile phones since some time now.

    Lars

  96. The lack of reliability of VOIP vs Analogue by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1

    I am thinking right now to use VOIP with vonage for my business but for my personal line I don't like the idea right now, because of the lack of reliability of the current service.

    If I have an emergency and my ISP is down, then no more telephone.

    If I have an emergency and I have no more electricity, then no more telephone.

    In 30 years of existence I can't remember once when my telephone stopped working even during natural disasters that occurred in my area (well in fact maybe once). But I certainly can tell that I have not enough fingers on my two hands to count the number of times that my ISP what down or that there was an electric outage in my area, that only in the last 4 years. Each time of course, my phone was still working perfectly.

    Until they offer a bulletproof service, I prefer to stick to my good old analogue line.

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
  97. bits want to reach people by valmont · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The whole "last mile to the user's home" issue is very soon guna become less and less of an issue with WiMAX and WiFi.

    The city where i live just deployed free wifi internet access to most residents, with its reach to increase overtime.

    IP is insanely powerful. Bandwidth is increasing, and compression algorithms are only getting better.

    I'm looking forward to a future where all consumer-telco, cable and satellite companies will be replaced by a large multitude of ISPs.

  98. This was the intention from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as how the companies that own the mobil phone companies are the same as the old RBOCs i.e. cingular=SBC verizon=the old nynex et al etc. They are just trading in the old pots loops for wireless connections that A: suck, quality wise but they don't care. B: Do not need to be maintained like the wires on the telephone poles. Therefore C: they make more money. Which is all it is about anyway.

  99. Land lines obsolite by Vskye · · Score: 1

    Last time we had a POTS line was back in 2001, now we have a cell and broadband. Almost everyone I know has a cell and NO POTS. I mean, you get a fixed bill that for us costs $45.00US a month, in-state free LD, voice mail and unlimited anytime minutes. If I need to call out of state, I go to Walmart and buy a 120 minute AT&T card for $8.99 and there you go. (check out those cards, there is a big difference rate wise)

    --
    Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
  100. Wow... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And which real tech-savy person didn't anticipate this?

    Cell phone are the intermediate future, and VoIP (in the real sense, not in the sense that they're still connected at all to the copper wires, but just connected to the real internet) or just plain Data over IP ('cos what else is Voice?) is the future.

    Especially with wireless becoming cheaper and cheaper; what's gonna evolve is a free system of comms (wifi mesh, whatever) run by hobbyists, where the only role the telecoms are going to play is maintaining the fibreoptics between continents, large companies and cities which aren't easily connected by wireless (in all it's forms).

    What's really surprising is that the telco's didn't see this coming: I have a friend who worked for the largest (formerly only) telco in the netherlands, and hwen I told him about this, his response was..."but....but...that's illegal!?". He really didn't understand the power of public airwaves...and he was in strategic planning too!

    The only danger of course is that the telco's will lobby gov'ment to restrict private access to public bands....

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say: Forget it. The telcos will find their way in the market, just look out what will be coming in the next years.

  101. They already solved it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The phone companies over here already found a solution. They just require a phone line to provide ADSL, so they still get the money. So, I have a landline that's unused - nothing connected to it, except for the ADSL.

  102. Taken down? by sita · · Score: 1

    The trend seems to becoming widespread, I guess 10 years and all the old wires are gonna start to be taken down.

    Down? Where I live the wires will hardly go any deeper.

  103. T-Mobile new? by grouse · · Score: 1

    T-Mobile is no newer than AT&T Wireless or Verizon Wireless, being the subsidiary of telecom dinosaur Deutsche Telekom.

    1. Re:T-Mobile new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is Cingular... owned by BellSouth and SBC(I think)

  104. KPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in the Netherlands and I can assure you that KPN is a terrible company. Their service sucks and they do not care about individual customers at all. They provide ADSL connections, but to get it you have to get a home phone from them as well. This is just one example of many of the policy of this company. They also call you in the evening to ask you which carrier you use for calling and imply that other carriers other than them are not reliable. I have a KPN home phone at the moment because of the aforementioned ADSL connection. They were among the first offering ADSL since they effectively prevented any other company access to the network. A network paid for by tax payers. I will get rid of KPN in the coming months.

  105. nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You could save even more money by watching TV and movies at your neighbor's house while they're away!
    Might have some good dvds lying around too!

    And if you clean-up they might not even notice!

    (or ya could be really cool and teach him how to setup passwords and pay for your own frickin' service)

  106. You were lucky! by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where I live we have to rub two sticks together to make a fire and then shear a passing sheep, spin the wool, weave it into a blanket and use that to make smoke signals to a passing ship asking them to drop off our message the next time they make port.

    And you tell that to kids today and they just don't believe you!

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  107. Ok so everythings cheap. Whos packing up the tab? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Theres a lot of naive talk about some nirvana of cheap or free unlimited calls over the internet with no rental charges and 99.9999% uptime just around the corner. Great , but how about a reality check first.

    1) The internet is nothing more than a load of copper cable , optic fibres , co-ax, microwave & satellite transmitters.

    2) All infrastructure has to be maintained & upgraded. So if you with your 0.1p 5 hour call to timbuktu isn't paying for it then who is? Or will we have the same situation as the US power companies where prices went so low they didn't update anything with the problems consequent now?

    Its time we all moved out of this juvenile mindset that we can have everything free cos mummy & dayy will pay for it. When you're an adult someone has to foot the bill and if its not you then it could be me through taxes or suchlike.

  108. Tele 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is a bit of FUD about Tele 2 in this article. Actually Tele 2 is also offering broadband telephony at low costs and aren't being outdistanced at all (although I guess the Skype promotors in this article would like you to think otherwise). I use it at home and it is working perfectly.

  109. Re:Ok so everythings cheap. Whos packing up the ta by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

    well.. actually BT are going switching from POTS type operation to IP signals right up to your house. they reckon its goign to cost them £3 billion to implement over 3 to 5 years, but afterwards whey will save over a £1billion a year...

    explains why are very actually VERY keen on pushing VoIP..

    --
    Have a nice day!
  110. Re:A land-line...? OLD FART by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm an old fart relative to most of you guys and have been without a land line for over a year.
    $140/mo gets me 4 cell phones with 4 numbers and enough time that I don't worry about watching it.
    With two kids off at college and spouse and I working in Hawaii and on the East Coast (man talk about your PITA commute) it's the best solution for us.

    For hobby web I have a colocated server. $100/mo.
    Averages about 30gig/day bandwidth, mostly bittorrent.

    For data at home, I finally beat the cable company into submission and got them to unbundle the 3MBPs(down, 256k up) service and do not have to pay for TV(almost as big a distraction as /.) service.

    So, altogether under $300/mo for connectivity(I drive a $1 used car so it's a small impact on budget).

    Prior to this, I was paying the telco close to $300/mo for ISDN. The colocated server and cable provide much greater BW and the cell phones are much more convenient than wireline and cordless handsets.

    My point. The land line phone companies not only lack a compelling product, they are no longer cost effective.

    I see this in my stock holdings as well. SPRINT, SBC, Verizon, and Vodaphone are all worth MUCH more than I paid.

    The other day, I cut the 6 phone lines away from the East Coast house, coiled them up, and hung them on a climbing spike on the pole :-)

  111. Old Lines Taken Down? by cthrall · · Score: 1

    > The trend seems to becoming widespread, I guess
    > 10 years and all the old wires are gonna start
    > to be taken down."

    Judging by the century old infrastructure around my neighborhood, those lines will be there for a long time to come.

  112. Throw away society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened? How did phone manufacturing fail to improve?

    Not just phones but most appliances, furniture, cars, clothing, electronic components and even housing are physically inferior to what was made 20 years ago. They almost seemed to be designed to fail on purpose once the warranty expires.

  113. Spoofed Caller ID - it's here by wodelltech · · Score: 1

    I just lived this yesterday:

    A guy calls me on my business line - a really miffed guy. He claims (based on his caller ID) that I've been berating him with a sales pitch of some kind. The more I try to explain that he's found the wrong guy, the angrier he becomes.

    I called my provided to verify that his number had never been called from my account. I call the guy back (using my caller ID, of course) and explain that the number of his caller ID is wrong. Although he calmed down a bit, I just don't think he's prepared to accept the possibliity of his phone 'lying' to him.

    My point - people have a much higher expectation of their phone service than they do of e-mail. A quick google for articles like 'phone spoof' will yeild a variety of articles about the dangers of VOIP hacking. You might also consider that fact that we're used to land-lines that survive power outages - as the telocs tend to own pretty serious UPS systems.

    I'll keep my land-line for now...

    --
    Your monitor is staring at you.
  114. Can you actually *use* the GPS? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
    Like, is there a menu or something where you can use your GPS-located phone as a GPS? Seems like a very difficult and unreliable way to locate a mobile phone to me. It wouldn't work inside, for example. I suppose it would work well outside - if you were only in range of one cell, for instance.


    Here in the UK, 999 use cell triangulation, since you are so rarely in less than three cells. No need for a GPS.

  115. Power outage? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Do you have to run your mobile phones off the mains in the US? Mine works just great when there's a power cut. Must have some sort of battery or something.

  116. The Reason Is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...Class Warfare.

    Seriously.

    The top tax bracket used to be 80%, now it's half that. Minimum wage, in the 1960's, actually allowed a single wage earner to support a family of four. Every time Forbes runs for President, he floats out his flat tax proposal (further lowering the top tax bracket), but his proposals only tax salary, not income, and he gets all his money from investments.

  117. My theory, by the way... by wodelltech · · Score: 1

    is that the solicitor was using VOIP or some other means to spoof his phone number. Unfortunatley, the number he chose was mine.

    --
    Your monitor is staring at you.
    1. Re:My theory, by the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing can be done over PRI ISDN. You can send your own caller Id segment to the phone company eventhough it may not be correct. The # could even be someone elses ( like a reputible company ). I wouldn't recommend this, but many sales companies use tactics like this to confuse you. Caller Id should never, I repeat never, be trusted.

  118. Cell phones, maybe but VoIP? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    I remember 10 years ago going to InterOp and you couldn't sling a dead cat without hitting a VoIP display. Here we are now and how many companies/people/entities do I know of that use it? 0! Oh there are articles, examples in articles, hype etc. but I know of no major corporation running their phone systems either in part or exclusively on it. Somebody post a list so I can be as impressed as so many seem to be.

  119. New rules by mhollis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The old telecom companies are embracing this technology for several reasons:

    1. The taxing structure is different or non-existent (collecting and paying taxes costs money).

    2. The consumer wants to head this direction (anyone remember the age of passenger rail in the US?).
      It is truly cheaper to provide this service, it's more efficient and may mean increased profitability.
      They do know how to provide telephony and know that their customers will trust their offering.
      They have not totally besmirched their name yet.

    It has never cost telephone companies anything more to send a telephone call across the country or next door. The higher prices they were allowed (by governments) to charge for "long distance" were allowed to enable them to build their infrastructure. The higher prices we pay for cellular service reflects the need of cell phone companies to build out infrastructure so that they can serve their customers everywhere.

    Now, telephone companies are finding that there is not just their infrastructure, but a whole new and cheaper infrastructure out there that was built without their investment. Some was paid for by the governments, some was paid for by private industry or other telephone companies. And they can use it -- free! Imagine the increases in profitability when you can sell a service that costs you little or nothing.

    Here in the US, one of the reasons why VOIP from telecom companies is so cheap is because the playing field changed. They set up different companies for VOIP and cellular service and these companies don't have labor unions. So not only is the infrastructure cheaper, but labor is cheaper.

    I note that BT immediately jumped on this bandwagon. They are, perhaps, the most hated company in the UK because they have held a monopoly for so long and refuse to bring pricing down to more sane levels in favor of keeping profits up. I kind of wonder at BT because they have generated a great deal of animosity in the public they "serve" in exchange for profits that are not visibly plowed into improved infrastructure.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  120. They can have my wires... by mwood · · Score: 1

    when they offer me flat-rate unlimited cellular with .99999 uptime and 4hr. MTTR for the same price per month.

  121. need an emergency phone? by blanks · · Score: 1

    Simple.
    $30.00 rechargable pay per use cellphone, and a $10.00 100 minute time card. Now not only do you have an emergency phone you can dial 911 with, but you have one that can be used anywhere (as long as its charged or plugged in) you can take it to your car, etc.

    And really in most emergencies you dont just need to dial 911, husband/wife, kids doctor etc.

    And most of the time cards are good for 1 year, some for longer.

    1. Re:need an emergency phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good idea, as long as the power doesn't go out or there is not some form of a real disaster. If either of those happen your cell phone isnt going to work. The land lines were designed with reliability in mind. You outta see the massive generator and batteries that the phone company mantains, just in case the power goes out. Cell sites just dont have that.

  122. International Calling by steveorama · · Score: 0


    I haven't seen this posted yet, so I'll go ahead and toss in my 2 cents.

    Whereas this might not be the case for most people, since I'm living abroad right now, it makes sense to have both. I use the mobile phone as you normally would, however, if I want to place an international call, I make sure to do this from home. It's a hell of a lot cheaper. Enough so that it makes it worth it to pay the monthly costs of the landline.

    -Steve
  123. Fun story by johannesg · · Score: 1
    Something funny happened to me a couple of years ago: I wanted to downgrade my ISDN line to a normal line (for cost reasons, mostly). They were advertising upgrades all the time, so I figured downgrades were also possible, right?

    Wrong. A guy from the telco told me "a contract is a contract. If you pay us the rest of the contract upfront we'll remove it immediately. Otherwise we cannot remove it." The rest of the contract was about 9 months worth of money - quite a large sum.

    "What if I just stop paying?" I asked. "Will you still be unable to remove the line?" It turned out this wasn't really a problem - if I stopped paying they would stop providing me with the service. "So if I just stop paying you, I will in fact get what I want?" I asked. And indeed, I would get what I wanted - but, I was told with a smirk, I couldn't actually get another phoneline from them until I had payed whatever money I still owed them (including fines, interest, etc.). "In other words", he stated triumphantly, "you'll never have another phoneline again!"

    At that point I explained to him that the days of KPN being a monopoly were over, and that any of the new upstart competitors would be overjoyed to welcome me as a customer. He got a bit grouchy after that, and he had to talk to his boss for a bit, but the end of the story was that I was downgraded from ISDN to a normal line, for free ;-)

    Long live the power of competition.

  124. A land-line...?-A power-ful idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There's generally thousands of these RT's in areas where they're used; they don't have enough generators for all of them."

    Really? Can't run a power line from the CO to the RT?

    1. Re:A land-line...?-A power-ful idea. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      You'd think, but the telephone company isn't in the business of running power; they just provide local phone service.

      It would probably be much more expensive for them to get approval to run power in the same right-of-ways as they run their fiber. Not to mention the voltages would have to be reasonably high to counteract voltage drop, and you'd have to have expensive switchgear and protective equipment at each RT that the telco isn't used to maintaining.

      Much easier to just talk to the power company, which does this stuff all the time and can do it cheaper.

      -Z

  125. Re:They should take advantage of this opportunity by anothy · · Score: 1

    Saying they "should" is all well and good, but why would they? that is, what's their incentive to replace the thousands and thousands of miles of copper they've got lying around? particularly in the face of declining revenues, most of them are going to look to cut costs, not incur new ones. further, i think your proposed motivation is sketchy. DSL can push more bits over standard copper than most homes care about. This becomes even more true if you don't have to carry voice over the same pairs, or have to carry less of it, as this trend suggests. The ILECs are already in a very good position to deliver bits - lots of bits - without performing any upgrade. So those of us who want FDDI to the home are just gonna have to wait. :-)

    your argument gets more interesting when you note that fiber solves (mostly) the distance problems. but, again, where's the incentive? If they can already get to 90% of the population with their installed infrastructure, that last 10% would have to be pretty huge to justify the fiber infrastructure. And again, this is in the face of decreasing revenues. No, unless something significant changes, i don't thing the ex-monopolies are going to pull this one off for us.

    --

    i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  126. Packet8 VOIP phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After trying Packet8, Vonage, and SipPhone, I settled on Packet8 and have been a happy caller since. Vonage is too expensive at $30 for unlimited calling in US and Canada, while Packet8 offers the same service for $20. Also, with Packet8, any changes such as changing your phone number is free, while Vonage charges for everything. Another positive for Packet8 is that it works well, even under low bandwitdh conditions, where Vonage failed on me. Anyways, VOIP worked so well for me that I disconnected my land line altogether, and I shuttle the Packet8 phone back and forth between work and home. The best part is that I moved out side the US temporarily, and all I had to do was to get a fast ADSL connection, and plug the Packet8 phone in to the internet connection... I can call back home to the USA for free! I have been using Packet8 for over 6 months now, and highly recommend it. Check out www.packet8.net if you want more info.

  127. Re:Two disagreements (neither of which are valid) by ssstraub · · Score: 1

    I agree. I have a land line phone with DSL tied in and it's cheaper than Time Warner's Road Runner. TW would only do RR with digital cable, and the price of that is $15.00 more than Direct TV(with local channels and 2 receivers).

    And the cost of your land line (required for DSL) is less than $15?

    Plus the fact that there are alot of people hooked up to RR in my neighborhood and I have seen their systems running slower than dial-up when the kids get out of school.

    I used RR for years in a crowded COLLEGE neighborhood in a major city--arguably the home users that use the most bandwidth. This crap about "slower" connections due to using the same trunk is just not true.

    I do not have a cell phone and don't want one. I like being out of contact, it's quiet and peaceful driving somewhere. When I'm not at work or home, I don't want anyone getting in touch with me.

    So turn if off!! Why does every anti-cell phone person say this like the phone is something they HAVE to answer at all times? Cell phones do not fuse to your body. You can leave it at home like just like your land line. You could even argue they are more peaceful than land lines, because you CAN turn them off or mute them very easily. Compare disconnecting all the phones in your house when you want to watch a movie to just turning off a cell phone.

  128. Re:Two disagreements (neither of which are valid) by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    The difference between Direct TV + DSL fees is $15 less than digital cable + RR. The land line is a constant.

    The infrastructure here is maybe not as good as your college town or they are pushing the limits on distance or TimeWarner lies about the speed. The white box dealer I help on occasion went to DSL two years ago when RR was slower than dialup during the summer. He also saved 25% on his business class bill every month since. TW's prices go up at least twice a year.

    I have no interest in a cell phone. It might be useful for emergencies if I traveled a lot but since I don't, who needs it? They are also more expensive than a land line no matter who the vendor.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  129. That is probably the most useful comment i've read in a while. To be honest, i have been thinking about working for a bit, clearing some school debt, and getting an MBA as they didn't teach jack for business in my engineering classes.

    The company i'm about to sign on with is still private (and will be for a bit, i hope), still small enough that access to the top folks is alive, and they seem to be a Good Company (so far). A friend and engineering classmate is there at the same level as i, and we have enough free time and have talked about what we would want to go into business doing for ourselves at some point. Some of the guys that work there have gone the route of 3 cars, big house, and bigass debt to go with it. He hasn't and i won't, so we may be in good shape in a few years to get it rolling. i appreciate the enouragement for sure :)

  130. Re:Two disagreements (neither of which are valid) by ssstraub · · Score: 1

    The infrastructure here is maybe not as good as your college town or they are pushing the limits on distance or TimeWarner lies about the speed. The white box dealer I help on occasion went to DSL two years ago when RR was slower than dialup during the summer. He also saved 25% on his business class bill every month since. TW's prices go up at least twice a year.

    I can't argue for how it worked in your area obviously, but my experience in two different states has been that the bandwidth is capped only by your contracted limit, not by anyone else's usage. I guess we'll only be able to agree that this is a YMMV kind of thing and you'll probably need to check something like dslreports.com and see what other customers have said for your area.

    I have no interest in a cell phone. It might be useful for emergencies if I traveled a lot but since I don't, who needs it? They are also more expensive than a land line no matter who the vendor.

    You interest is your own, so I'll only argue the facts. Like claiming that it invades your privacy when it can easily be turned of or left at home. Pricing is true, BUT with equivalent options; voicemail, 3-way calling, caller id, call forwarding, etc, you'll probably see a similar price on a landline. Also, a good amount of cell phones plans include nationwide LD, which is quite pricey for land lines, under normal contracts.