Slashdot Mirror
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."
and assuring that everyone who now has PSTN service has access to either a broadband or cellular communication alternative.
I'd rather they work on making sure we have multiple broadband and communication options. I don't like the words "a" and "or" being used here.
Not that the PSTN was much better in that regard but here we have a chance to do it right.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
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?
I happen to like and trust PSTN. It just works. Always has. And it is simple. Sometimes simple is good.
For those comparing this to the switch to digital TV - yeah, I hear you but you know what? The promise of digital TV was over-sold. The picture may be great *most of the time* (not going to discuss the programming - crap, alway was/is/will be - see "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander) but it isn't reliable either. My beautiful HD tv breaks up as often, if not more, than the analog signal I used to receive.
I don't have any confidence in cell or IP service. There are too many ways to make it not work for me to feel comfortable - especially on a "dark and stormy night"...
Luddit? Maybe. I've been an IT manager for over 20 years, use all the toys at work, but still don't trust them. Sometimes simple is good.
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??
"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.
(Disclaimer: I work for a landline company)
You are assuming that 'everyone' wants this, including retirees, people in rural areas, people who just don't need broadband and know it. You assume that the cellular/VoIP offerings will be as robust as the PSTN. You also assume that, if the landline business is 'dissolved', these other networks can take over the load.
Do you know who connects those cell towers? Those towers don't talk to each other wirelessly, they use terrestrial copper/fiber. If you sunset the network that keeps the copper/fiber infrastructure in reasonably good shape, the economics of maintaining the cellular network change, driving up costs significantly.
And please, don't maintain that there is quality parity between these types of services/networks: I have had so many conversations with business owners who tried using VoIP-based services for their dialtone and came running back to the PSTN because their customers complained about voice quality and dropped calls. Also note that while many government agencies have adopted VoIP internally, they recognize that they must have a reliable network to serve the public, especially for emergency services, and thus the vast majority stick with the PSTN for dialtone.
The PSTN and the Internet are both great networks, but they were built on different premises and with different (internal) priorities. One is really good at low-latency communications, one is very good at network survivability.
I'm not a Luddite suggesting that we throw away new technologies, but I'm also not some knee-jerk hype-meister of What's Hot Now. Both networks have their place and will coexist for many years to come.
That's fine, but first the wireless and broadband carriers must be made common carriers like they are over telephone. That is one of the biggest differences between the systems. Telephone companies are not permitted to delay, degrade, alter, or record telephone conversations or modem signals. But no such protections exist over broadband or wireless. They have no requirements for call quality, nothing stops them from inserted advertisements or charging you differently depending on who you call.
Those same protections need to apply to other services, in addition to deregulating them so we have choices.
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.
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.
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?