Could PSTN Go Away By 2018?

An anonymous reader writes "If current rates hold, only 6% of the U.S. population will still be served by the public switched telephone network by the end of 2018. Tom Evslin reports that the 'Technical Advisory Council (TAC) to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recommended last week that the FCC set a date certain for the sunset of the PSTN rather than let the service fade slowly into oblivion as it is doing now.' Since doing 'nothing' isn't really possible, he suggests: (possibly) end(ing) the Universal Service Fund subsidies, ensuring PSTN-dependent services like E911 work on new technologies, and assuring that everyone who now has PSTN service has access to either a broadband or cellular communication alternative."

Comments

What happens when the power goes out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a potentially stupid question.

My family's gone cellular; we only have a landline for DSL. Last night we had a power outage in my part of Philadelphia. Not too bad, perhaps 20 minutes or so, but the outage apparently also took out the cell my phone connects to. As I recall, the PSTN works even if the rest of the grid is down. So what happens if, during an outage that also eliminates cellular connectivity, someone has, say, a medical emergency? With wireline redundancy on a separate system, I can call 911 and get an ambulance to my location in a hurry. Without it, I'm SOL.

The question, therefore, is: How do we mitigate the risk that some related service interruption leaves us completely disconnected at a moment of crisis?

911 access

[sunderland56]

Today the government requires VOIP providers to warn people about the unreliability of 911 access by any means other than copper. Now the government wants to take away the copper since it is obsolete. What??

Re:The actual PSTN might not be needed . . . but

[alexo]

--> First of all, we are AMERICANS over here, but that aside...

By "here" you mean that whole continent outside the borders of the US too?

Nope. If you want to refer to the population of a continent, you use "North Americans" or "South Americans" (or even "Central Americans"). There is too little in common among the residents of the whole American continent to justify a common term. Similarly, you don't refer to the residents of the largest landmass on Earth as "Afro-Eurasians" and even the term "Eurasians" has a different meaning from what you'd assume.

Seriously, you people need to come up with a more representative adjective than "Americans"...which also applies to canadians, mexicans, colombians, argentinians, chileans, brazilians, venezuelans, peruvians, haitians, cubans (there, I said it) and so many many more...

I am, among other things, a Canadian and have yet to meet a single Canadian that refers to himself (or herself) as "American". I am willing to bet that all those other nationalities, that you are so eager to speak on behalf of, do not classify themselves as "Americans" either, nor do they, as a rule, have anything against Americans "co-opting" the term.

I like this USAians.... going to use it until you come up with a good replacement.

They did, you just chose to ignore it, which says more about yourself than about them.

It is generally accepted to use the demonym that a group chooses for themselves. After all, how would you feel if people ignored your given name and decided to use the arguably more descriptive "Ignorant Douche" instead?