Slashdot Mirror


WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever

retroworks writes: "Telecom giants AT&T and Verizon Communications are lobbying states, one by one, to hang up the plain, old telephone system, what the industry now calls POTS — the copper-wired landline phone system whose reliability and reach made the U.S. a communications powerhouse for more than 100 years. Is landline obsolete, and should be immune from grandparents-era social protection? The article continues, 'Last week, Michigan joined more than 30 other states that have passed or are considering laws that restrict state-government oversight and eliminate "carrier of last resort" mandates, effectively ending the universal-service guarantee that gives every U.S. resident access to local-exchange wireline telephone service, the POTS. (There are no federal regulations guaranteeing Internet access.) ... In Mantoloking, N.J., Verizon wants to replace the landline system, which Hurricane Sandy wiped out, with its wireless Voice Link. That would make it the first entire town to go landline-less, a move that isn't sitting well with all residents."

449 comments

  1. no access to POT... by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 0

    that's unconstitutional!

  2. A Good Thing For America and Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Are you pro America? If you are you are for this. End POTS now! It is the future!

    1. Re:A Good Thing For America and Americans by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      I am anti America. Exactly because of institutions like AT&T.
      Next!

    2. Re:A Good Thing For America and Americans by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      I know you're trolling, but (hear me out on this one) this is actually true.

      I don't know about anybody else, but I don't use POTS. I haven't used it in over 6 years. In fact, the house I most recently moved into was missing the POTS equipment at the demarc (the little plastic box is empty with a pair of obviously torn wires leading up to it.) I didn't care though because I don't ever plan on subscribing, and whatever copper thief made off with it can have it to feed his crack habit for another 5 minutes.

      I fully imagine I'm not alone and that a lot of other people are in the same boat. That said, I think it is wholly unreasonable for the government to mandate that telecoms maintain an aging system that nobody save for a small subset of individuals even wants any more. Eventually that comes out of your bill somewhere if you happen to subscribe to another service that these companies offer, so effectively it is a tax on you for something you don't even care about and doesn't even affect you in any way. In fact one of the few people who might use it would be the crackhead who stole my POTS switch, but even he has cheaper options available through wireless, so not even he needs it.

      Is it good for America to do away with obsolete systems that we don't use anymore? I'd say yes.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  3. Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like a fair trade.

    1. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we give up something we've had for years, and in exchange we get to keep something we've had for years? And what happens when they come back in five years saying Net Neutrality is just too much of a burden? What do we give up in ransom next?

    2. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True dat.

    3. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You guys in the US have had net neutrality for years? News to me. I thought you had this watered down thing where the ISP's along with major peers were giving the thin veneer of that, while saying they're not shaping traffic while slapping in sandvine boxes all the while. I know that it's what Rogers, Bell and Telus were doing in Canada for quite awhile until the CRTC, Industry Canada and the Feds smacked them around.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather they allowed any competing company to lease their lines, like they are forced to do under POTS.

    5. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by macraig · · Score: 1

      The problem with your suggestion is that, like every other American, you have no fucking idea what true network neutrality looks like or how to implement it. What you would ask for, and if you got it what the rest of us would then have to endure, would NOT be network neutrality. One election cycle is all it would take to whisk away the facade and return us to business as usual.

    6. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair trade? WTF dude, Net Neutrality should be expected no matter what. If you tolerate US Telcos being allowed to commit extortion, then your children will be next.

    7. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      If you are going to get Rid of POTS what we really need more then Net Neutrality is to be sure we have an infrastructure for its replacement.
      AKA make sure everyone has access to fiber before you get rid of pots.

      Nearly every American household has a phone line to their home, even if they don't use it it is there. However most people do not have a fiber optic connection to their home, and Wireless is very spotty.

      Get us connectivity with a choice of carriers then we can talk Net Neutrality.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a fair trade.

      Anyone who isn't addicted to either Netflix or YouTube has no fucking idea what this Net Neutrality thing is all about, nor have they seen an impact.

      We should just stop calling it Net Neutrality and call it what it is. The Netflix law.

    9. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Relax, buddy. You'll still be able to get shade-grown telephones, artisanally made by peasants. They will just be connected to SIP now, rather than the old network of dedicated copper.

    10. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by hjf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a network administrator, I can guarantee you that traffic shaping *is* necessary.

      Just like in "real life" you drive at a certain speed, and traffic lights decide which cars pass and which ones have to wait.

      Just like in "real life" certain vehicles have priority above all (ambulances).

      Expecting a fully unregulated internet is dumb. No matter how much capacity you can add to YOUR network, there will still be a bottleneck somewhere. And you really don't want ICMP queueing up at that point, or Bad Things® happen.

      And you really don't want SMTP to have the same priority as HTTP. You really don't need that email to arrive in a second. It can take 10, 20, 30 seconds. It can take a minute, and that's OK. But your web browsing can't wait 10, 20, 30 seconds.

      Let's not be fools. Traffic shaping IS a need. I get where you're coming from (priorizing one company over another) but it's silly to think it should be completely unrestricted. Real life isn't. Why should the internet be?

    11. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Couple things:

      1. Traffic Shaping *CAN* be done in a Network Neutral way. If all RTP traffic is higher than all SMTP traffic (regardless if the RTP traffic is from my house to a friend and the SMTP traffic is from Comcast), then you have preserved NETWORK (not traffic) neutrality. I think this is acceptable to most people that support Network Neutrality.

      2. Traffic Shaping should only be used in bursts. If you are using it for hours at a time, BUY MORE CAPACITY. I've yet to see any shaping that works as well as more capacity.
      In other words, if your ISP is saturated every night between suppertime and bedtime, they need more capacity.
      If they use shaping to make sure a sudden burst of downloads for the latest Apple iOS updates don't impact VoIP and Video RTP for their customers, that is a good thing.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    12. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      They will just be connected to SIP now

      And what will the SIP run on?

      I have several family members without access to any network than can support VoIP. Another's only choice is LTE via HomeFusion from Verizon. 30GB for $130 a month. Have you tried running a modern family of 6 people (each with their own tablet, phone, and then the varied internet connected devices like DVRs and consoles) on 30GB? It sucks.

      If they mandate unlimited LTE at a reasonable price or mandate fiber optic instead, then I agree this would be great & we should kill POTS.

      If this is just a scheme to get people that pay $30/mo for phone service to start paying $100 a month for internet + voice, then it should die.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    13. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is a capitalist country, and capitalism is all about fucking over the little guy at every turn; there will be no fair trade, or any trade at all.

      European "social market" style economies, and socialism itself, are all about "fucking over the little guy at every turn", and indoctrinating them to actually think they are better off.

    14. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For ISPs, traffic shaping and net neutrality are orthogonal problems, that have nothing to do with each other. It is quite a shame that you bring this up while saying you are a "network administrator".

      And you really don't want SMTP to have the same priority as HTTP.

      Ever heard of Fair Queuing?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      How you administer your network is up to you. But it is not up to an ISP to tell me that SMTP is less valuable than HTTP on my network. I can make that decision on my network. The role of the ISP is to deliver my packets *fairly* such that my IP packets are no different than someone else's.

      Traffic shaping based on *what* is in the packet has nothing to do with efficient ISP networks. ISPs should have 5% reserved for ICMP and the rest should be in a fair queues and that's it.

    15. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If traffic shaping out of necessity were the issue, your post would be relevant. However, your post does nothing to address what's actually upsetting to people. The problem is ISPs are picking and choosing certain sources to shape based not on what's important or necessary, but who's paying them. If the traffic from Netflix is really causing a problem for ISPs, that problem can not be solved without upgrading infrastructure, Comcast would have no room to cut a deal with Netflix if they weren't able to support the traffic. They did, so they must be able, which means the need couldn't have been there to begin with.

        The "real life" analogy is impossible to make real sense of, because "real life" traffic management is based on an entirely different set of needs and limitations.

    16. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      So if we take the opposite approach, we run Internet service as slow and rickety DSL (which is highly dependent on distance from the telco switch) over the POTS copper. Which would you really prefer?

    17. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      In what fucked up world is that a fair trade?

      We paid for those copper lines, almost all of them, via the USF that they took from us without so much as asking.

      Net Neutrality is god damn built into it when they took tax dollars to build networks.

      Fuck them, and anyone else who thinks this would be 'fair', and fuck you for even suggesting such a stupid idea.

      They don't want to deal with copper ... FINE, then it becomes government maintained utility that can be leased by anyone, like it should have been from day one.

      Fair? Its mind blowing that you think thats fucking fair. How far have we sunk to where we trade one level of getting shafted for another, shitter level of being shafted and then we smile about it? No.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    18. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      As a former network engineer of a very large ISP, I can tell you that when you start talking like that, its because you've already failed at your job and you're already a shitty network engineer who hasn't properly built out his network.

      Traffic shaping is a need when you oversell your services beyond the point of being able to handle your traffic properly.

      Traffic shaping of any form and network neutrality are incompatible.

      You don't need to do traffic shaping, you need to keep your links properly built up in relation to the service you're selling.

      That means you don't sell your links to 100% capacity ... or even %75 capacity. But thats what you think you do.

      Traffic shaping implies you're lying to your customers about providing them a generic pipe to the Internet.

      I hope you and your ignorance/shilling results in a nail between your eyes.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    19. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by hjf · · Score: 0

      Former.

      Gee, I wonder why.

    20. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your not the only network admin here and I disagree. ISPs should not prioritize traffic. They should be neutral. There is a difference between managing a small network and managing a large one. The ISPs should be be dividing bandwidth, not deciding what traffic should take priority over other traffic. If traffic is going to be prioritized it aught be done at the DSL/Cable/Fiber modem such that users have control and only divided amongst a local network. Personally I feel it should be done differently. Each computer should be prioritizing traffic and the each mac should get the total bandwidth available divided by the number of systems with burst speeds wherever bandwidth by the rest of the users is not being used. Essentially users are guaranteed a minimum amount of bandwidth that can be divided as each system/user sees fit. Obviously some traffic should take priority over other traffic, however that should not be at the ISP or even network level ideally.

    21. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      You're making a false choice.

      Those family members already have POTS service. Some do not need Internet, but all would like it.

      Where they live, cellular is NOT an option. No Internet service exists (not even slow and rickety DSL) that they can use for VoIP, as Satellite-based Internet has too high of a RTT to work.

      The phone companies want to take away their POTS service.

      I'm fine with that, as long as they have something that is at least the same cost & functionality running over VoIP.

      Again, MANDATE LTE coverage without limits (my grandma can talk as long as she wants over POTS on a local call with no extra fees), OR, mandate fiber be put in to replace the POTS infrastructure.

      Universal service is a something we have had for a long time and depend on. Your food is grown by people that use this.

      If that means we have to charge a USF for everyone's Internet, fine with me. If that means we quit spending USF money for things that are not related to providing Universal internet access, also fine (there is a lot of waste there).

      What isn't fine is removing an infrastructure that everyone that has ever had a phone paid for with USFs, and not putting in a modern replacement. Essentially, that is theft.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    22. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Aqualung812 · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it wasn't because he made a typo on a comment. Grow up.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    23. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you screwed that up something fierce. You can be either a good or poor network engineer and it won't matter. The suits and bean counters are going to control what you can actually do. Upgrade your entire infrastructure? Buy a traffic shaper and set some rules on it? You know what? They will pick the cheaper option. Guess what? You aren't a failure and a shitty engineer just because the budget doesn't allow you to do things correctly. Try living in the real world...

    24. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who live out in the middle of nowhere can chose to move. It was always a stupid thing to collect those universal access fees and force the telcos to offer service everywhere. Can't call 911? Can't get cable / fiber / LTE / 3G / whatever? Pay to have it installed (yeah, that will be a bundle of cash), move closer to civilization, or just STFU and choose to enjoy your idyllic existence free of connections to phone, TV, etc.

    25. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      So if we take the opposite approach, we run Internet service as slow and rickety DSL (which is highly dependent on distance from the telco switch) over the POTS copper. Which would you really prefer?

      VDSL2 over POTS copper, leased to a CLEC at rates that are open, published, and available to all on equal terms (ie, if AT&T or Verizon charges themselves $19/month for a dry copper pair, they're required by law to lease it to any CLEC who wants to use it instead for the same $19/month).

      With the best VDSL2 available today, 100mbps over two pairs (one for uplink, one for downlink) up to about 2,000 feet is quite do-able... and those are 100mbps that AT&T and Verizon can't fuck with, and are my inalienable right to use as intensively as I want to communicate with my ISP's VDSL2 backplane.

      This isn't about un-burdening AT&T and Verizon with obsolete legacy infrastructure. This is about eliminating one of the few remaining back channels that motivated individuals can use to do an end run around them to avoid their metering & caps.

      If Verizon wants to deploy ONLY wireless in Mantoloking, fine... let them. But apply the same regulatory standards that applied to POTS to them. Require 10 days of backup power, like the central office had a gigantic array of lead acid batteries to provide them with. Force them to sell unbundled raw IP transit to any CLEC, with the same guaranteed and unmetered throughput that could be achieved via VDSL2, for the same price as unbundled dry copper.

      The second part alone would probably stop them dead in their tracks, because the only way they COULD provide guaranteed hundred-megabit throughput (maybe pooled among 2-4 households, max) within the constraints of their spectrum licenses via LTE would be to lay new fiber to all the neighborhoods ANYWAY, and stick a microcell every 4 houses. And prohibit them from charging higher or new fees, so they can't pass off the costs on customers anyway.

      If the up-front capital costs of deploying 14,000 fiber-networked picocells across Mantoloking to serve ~40,000 customers didn't stop Verizon in its tracks, the long-term maintenance costs of replacing 14,000 sets of backup batteries capable of supplying power for a week, plus the nontrivial number of picocells that would die due to lightning or ruptured Chinese electrolytic capacitors, *would*. Verizon barely has enough spectrum to feed any one tower site with 50mbps. If they had to potentially supply that much guaranteed sustained throughput to every single customer at the costs they now charge for a dry copper pair, their only option would be to settle for making literally the "last hundred feet" wireless and deploying a brand new fiber-networked nightmare of picocells serving 3-4 customers apiece.

      For LESS than what it would cost them to purchase, deploy, and maintain an ungodly huge network with 14,000 fiber-connected neighborhood picocells, they could just skip the picocells and run fiber the last hundred feet to everyone's house. Actual fiber is now cheaper per linear foot than UTP copper wires, and a bundle of direct-burial cable with 8-16 fibers now costs less per linear foot than direct-burial cat5e.In contrast, if Verizon could deploy a remote picocell with fiber termination and enough battery backup power to run for a week without commercial power for less than $20,000, they'd be lucky. If they had to shoulder the cost of deploying all those picocells themselves as the cost of eliminating copper, they'd NEVER go through with it.

      What REALLY needs to be done is another forced breakup of AT&T and Verizon to make them divest their ROW, wire, and fiber to a new company that's required by law to deal with them at arm's length, on equal terms with other wireless carriers, CLECs, and service providers. If Verizon and AT&T don't want to own wires anymore, fine... but make them sell them to someone who DOES, instead of allowing them to create artificial scarcity by decommissioning them, then hoarding the public r

    26. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by antdude · · Score: 1

      And give us fibers!!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    27. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that reach around they give is worth it in the end. In capitalist countries they simply slit your throat after they orgasm.

    28. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by BradMajors · · Score: 2

      The difference is you are using traffic shaping to make your network work better. The major ISPs want to use traffic shaping to make the network work worse. (in order to extract money from content providers.)

    29. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by knarf · · Score: 1

      Nothing, we build our own mesh network and forego on using commercial services. They'll try to buy some laws to make that impossible - either ignore the laws on a massive scale, vote out the vermin which sold them those laws or make sure the mesh is law-proof.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    30. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND fiber to the premise EVERYWHERE.

    31. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      As a network administrator, I can guarantee you that traffic shaping *is* necessary.

      Just like in "real life" you drive at a certain speed, and traffic lights decide which cars pass and which ones have to wait.

      Just like in "real life" certain vehicles have priority above all (ambulances).

      You mean like a few years ago when your ISP's in the US were using traffic shaping to slow bittorrent to a crawl. But not HTTP? I remember places like the World of Warcraft forums where people from Comcast, Altopia, Roadrunner and others would bitch and moan because Blizzard used torrents for patching, and they were stuck at a glorious...10kb/s down. Pretty good on a 4GB patch. Yep...I guess that's good uh...necessary shaping or something. After all wouldn't want all those pirat...I mean actual legitimate customers who were using something as it should be to be inconvenienced or anything.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Yea, try to relocate a rural resident without a shotgun pointed at you.
      So farmers shouldn't get internet access while their operation is just a technical as many other companies it's size. Or the case rural home prices are cheaper, less violent crime, quieter areas with better school.
      No let's all move to a dangerous, crowded, smelly, and expensive city. Where my quality of life is much lower just so I can have basic/modern communication service.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    33. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Couple things:

      1. Traffic Shaping *CAN* be done in a Network Neutral way. If all RTP traffic is higher than all SMTP traffic (regardless if the RTP traffic is from my house to a friend and the SMTP traffic is from Comcast), then you have preserved NETWORK (not traffic) neutrality. I think this is acceptable to most people that support Network Neutrality.

      This was my idea of what network neutrality was. HTTP is treated differently to streaming video but ALL streaming video is treated equally. So YouTube gets the same priority as Netflix and it's not legal to charge Netflix more to get the same level of service as YouTube.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    34. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Seems like a fair trade.

      Sure... as long as your definition of Net neutrality includes: Incumbent telcos and cable companies must provide equal and non-discriminatory access to all Layer 2 protocol providers, for data services delivered over copper, cable, or fiber, including all competitors for transport and IP networking services, AND the physical plant/facilities based telecommunications providers may not bundle their own internet or telecommunications services with the physical lines -- or vary the price or terms of the physical lines according to which data providers are used with data services on the physical lines.

    35. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by unitron · · Score: 2

      Former.

      Gee, I wonder why.

      Perhaps because s/he is now retired after a successful career that started long enough ago that s/he was in on the ground floor of working out the proper way to do this stuff?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    36. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a fair trade.

      Along with regulations guaranteeing service availability to all residents. It basically switches out POTS with new technology. Maybe not exactly what telcos were hoping for, but definitely more in line with their claim of wanting to move into the future.

    37. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!!!! NO!!!! Are you just COMMENTING or you can actually call anyone who matters (pun)? FOR THOSE SYSTEMS WE NEED REDUNDANCY AND PARALLEL TECHNOLOGIES. Or they WILL, NOT, LAST, IN, HUMAN, EXPERIENCE. They think in terms of business plans, for the next few decades, but in fact they only need turn all their financial plans into equivalent perpetuities to get the right frame of view. OF IT AINT BROKEN DO NOT FIX IT!!!! Serves well for software and for HARDWARE, despite ideas on OBSOLESCENCE and _economic_ _misconceptions_. Danilo J Bonsignore.

    38. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect a knock on your door at night.

      Pwrrrrt![THuD]!

    39. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees a right to have a landline telephone. You and these other free speech extremists reading too much into it need to compromise.

    40. Re:Fine, get rid of POTS, give us Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      POTS and a regular, non-wireless phone will almost ALWAYS continue to work during power outages, even long ones. This assumes no non-wire links in the chain between your line and the central office. The central office that your line connects to has ample backup power and powers your telephone, all the way down that wire. Your wireless phone will go dead if your power goes out, since the phone line doesn't power that. Your cellphone battery will die. (ok, charge it in the car, if you have a really full tank of gas, or buy a standby generator, or get some solar panels that charge large lead-acid batts and an inverter. Unfortunately solar panels + inverter tied to the grid generally will not function if the grid goes down.) Of course none of that will help your cellphone if your close-by cellphone tower site, or the microwave or fiber links from it to or from the cell network fail, too. That's the only reason I still maintain a POTS. Unless the line gets cut, it works. 24/7/365, house power or no house power. And you can also be called on it, successfully, even if your power is out. Net Neutrality is unlikely to effect your having the ability to communicate by POTS. Of course, if the cell providers can manage to get rid of POTS, then they can REALLY jack up your communications cost because you would no longer have the relatively inexpensive POTS as an alternative.

  4. Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Fulminata · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As soon as they can guarantee reliable cell service to everyone, they can be allowed to cease providing land line service to everyone.

    1. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I'm in a big sparse country so not quite the same as the States but if I lost my land line I'd be out of contact. No cell service as I'm 40 miles outside of a city that including suburbs only has a million and half people and internet comes over that land line at a whole 3KB/s. Satellites are behind mountains and trees and lots of rain as well.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it would be nice if the service fucking worked! I live in a major US city and cell service is spotty at best. 4G Internet access, which I'm paying for, is even harder to come by. Worst of all if there's some kind of major event that has a massive crowd, good luck being able to get any sort of cell service. Cell service needs to improve by leaps and bounds. It still feels like it's stuck in a beta testing rollout.

    3. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by anubi · · Score: 1

      I have been a landline user for about a half-century.

      This is how they are "encouraging" the abandonment of landline service.... they are hiking the bills through the roof!

      I used to pay about $6 a month for service. Now its right around $40. PER MONTH!

      I hardly ever use the damn thing... I guess I just want one around for emergencies... anyone have any recommendations for me?

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    4. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're funny. AT&T can't even provide decent service in the top ten urban areas of the US so your demand is just ridiculous. You know you're being a ridiculous amrat-ass. Please stop your trolling. AT&T can't provide decent service, and you know it.. Go fuck yourself.

    5. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in a big sparse country so not quite the same as the States but if I lost my land line I'd be out of contact. No cell service as I'm 40 miles outside of a city that including suburbs only has a million and half people and internet comes over that land line at a whole 3KB/s. Satellites are behind mountains and trees and lots of rain as well.

      The telcos can build more towers to service remote rural areas. These days most cell towers communicate via satellite in the absence of line-of-sight between each other. The biggest issue for consumers is cost - the data caps are very low and each tier costs exponentially more for "reasonable" service. Currently, I have Internet access provided by a cable company and by two wireless carriers. I generally use the cable (high-speed, low-speed service / 5 X 56kbps allegedly) provided Internet when streaming media (YouTube videos, training videos, lectures, and webinars, and streaming music); one of the two wireless carrier (3G/HSPA+ service) provided Internet is limited to web browsing, web email access (I get email on my smartphone as well), and other low bandwidth stuff; while the other wireless carrier (4G/LTE service) provided Internet access is for work-related activities. Obviously the wireless carrier Internet access costs more per MB which unfortunately reflects the anti-competitive oligarchy amongst the major wireless carriers in this country. This is in addition to my smartphone data plan.

    6. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been a landline user for about a half-century.

      This is how they are "encouraging" the abandonment of landline service.... they are hiking the bills through the roof!

      I used to pay about $6 a month for service. Now its right around $40. PER MONTH!

      I hardly ever use the damn thing... I guess I just want one around for emergencies... anyone have any recommendations for me?

      And in 50 years of service, how many emergencies can you count...on one hand?

      $40 per month may sound like a lot, but that justification is entirely up to you. As you said, it is NOTHING more than insurance in your life. YOU decide whether that it worth it or not. That is not up to the internet to decide or judge what is worthy to you.

      Obvious alternatives would be cell phone.

    7. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Disasters tell why this is a terrible idea. People were without cell service after Sandy for how long? Weeks? Any one remember what happened on 9/11? The cell service was immediately brought to its knees and disrupted the communications of emergency responders.

    8. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is wrong on so many levels. The good of America is not necessarily the good of AT&T. Infrastructure is needed everywhere, and not just where it makes the greatest ROI for AT&T and Verizon. Sure this approach would help make more profit, but it is not the right thing to do. It is a pity that the average American is easily swayed by clever commercials and such.

      That being said, the POTS needs to be replaced not eliminated. You need to replace one network with a better one more suited to the needs of our time and periodically update it on a regular schedule in a cost effective manner. For instance, remote regions may be more limited in bandwidth and such, but what they have should be reliable, so if they need to make a call, or heaven forbid access a government web site they can do it. In the cases where it is not feasible to have multiple copies of infrastructure, some oversight is needed to prevent abuse of the monopoly status and to insure that a reasonable upgrade and maintainance schedule is actually followed.

      Simply put wireless spectrum is never going to have the capacity to replace land line links. It just isn't. The two aren't comparable, though having very small cells does help a great deal, the systems tend to only be sized to average use and fail in emergency situations. If your going to make wireless any part of the last critical link to society, then you have to spend the additional cash to insure high availability of the minimal tier of service under a much wider range of circumstances. Personally, I think we need a nationwide quality IPV6 data network, then the phone company could offer discounts for installing a microcell receivers for additional wireless coverage. This kind of service would need a competitive bidding process with solid requirements for performance behind it and then periodic rebidding again with solid requirements so their is incentive to not attempt any get rich quick schemes, but rather to maintain a solid infrastructure.

    9. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by penix1 · · Score: 1

      If you have reliable internet then I recommend a VoIP service like Magic Jack. That is what I use with the added benefit of wiring it to the incoming existing service box meaning all the phones in the house are using the same device without rewiring the whole house. All for $19.95 a year. Not too shabby.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    10. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was my argument against dismantling AMPS. The quality may have sucked, but you could connect a call from damn near anywhere in the continental U.S. Now if you're out in the middle of nowhere and have an emergency, you either have a satphone or you're screwed.

    11. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where does your power come from?

    12. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by penix1 · · Score: 1

      It gets it from the external wall wart but since it is right next to the router there is a power source right there. If power goes out, I have a whole home generator that kicks in 1 minute after it goes out. Gotta love Generac!

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    13. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell service is not a replacement for POTS. Never has been. Never will be. If they want to get rid of POTS, they have to replace it with fiber to the home PERIOD.

    14. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hardly ever use the damn thing... I guess I just want one around for emergencies... anyone have any recommendations for me?

      If it's just for emergencies, make sure you don't have any added services like voicemail, caller ID or call waiting. I'm not sure if it makes a price difference anymore, but my landline also has no "dial 1+" long distance carrier.

    15. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I use a Magic Jack and I can't recommend them as your only line. I have about 98% uptime-- perfect service and then it just stops working for a few hours or even once a couple days.

      I think they may not t have enough servers on their end.

      Unplugging the majic jack and rebooting my cable modem fixes the problem most of the time but people trying to call me call me bounce until I notice the line is down.

      But as a backup for a cell phone- it's awesome. Saves a lot of minutes on calls to landlines and on daytime calls to numbers I'm not sure is a landline or a mobile.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    16. Re:Sure, Just Require Universal Cell Service by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      I live in an apartment building on the fourth floor. I finally cancelled my cell service, as my coverage was dependent on which way my desk chair was pointed. Nothing like dropping a call because you got uncomfortable and shifted... And I am pretty unsure AT&T will not/will not be able to slap another tower in my neighborhood.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
  5. So who is liable for our $300 billion refund? by witherstaff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With carriers having overcharged over 300 billion who is then on the hook if there are no more landline companies? Of course telcom giants want people only on wireless, Verizon has been selling off their landline business for years.

    I haven't kept up with the laws the last decade but the ILECs - incumbent local exchange carrier - were the equivalent of government mandated monopolies. Telco reform act of '96 forced the ILECs to share the publicly paid for infrastructure with startup phone companies. The Internet exploded with thousands of ISPs popping up. This was rolled back under Bush Jr when Powell's son was running the FCC. I wonder if this means other companies can move into these abandoned areas without the ILEC screaming like crazy?

    1. Re:So who is liable for our $300 billion refund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      With carriers having overcharged over 300 billion who is then on the hook if there are no more landline companies? Of course telcom giants want people only on wireless, Verizon has been selling off their landline business for years. ...
      I wonder if this means other companies can move into these abandoned areas without the ILEC screaming like crazy?

      No, the ILEC's won't scream. And no, no other companies will move in. Once all are converted to wireless, POTS will be forbidden by law ... it 'interferes' with wireless networks somehow, all they need is a line item inserted into a 'farm aid' bill or similar that declares POTS installs of any kind to be dangerous to the wireless businesses ... then they'll say "see, we can't do POTS because it's bad for you, we know it is because there is a law that says so" ...

    2. Re: So who is liable for our $300 billion refund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was there when all that went down! You a correct. It was crazy fast change... W Bush got in, appointed Michael Powell ( Colin Powells son ) to head the FCC, very soon after the BOCs ( Bell Operating Companies ) got clearance for long distance ( was banned before ). Soon after that CLECs ( competive local exchange carriers ) got screwed by the gutting of ( Al Gores Internet invention, haha - I know ) telecommunications act of 1996, this mandated UNE ( unbundled network elements ) be provided to the CLECs. Then after 911 BellSouth CEO Dwaine Ackerman was named Telecommunications ZAR ( of all things ) to head the new NSA anti-terror domestic spy program ( still as the phone company CEO mind you ), we now know what that led to thanks to Snowden... This all happened in less than a year! Thanks George W Bush, your the man!

      Boom, bing, bang... The rest is history.

  6. Tons of copper saved .. by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    Storms of electromagnetic radiation created ...

    1. Re:Tons of copper saved .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. The radio spectrum is getting so crowded these days. Keep the wires!!!

    2. Re:Tons of copper saved .. by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Very true. The radio spectrum is getting so crowded these days. Keep the wires!!!

      Okay, but I'm going to need a bigger SUV to carry the spools of wire necessary to keep me connected while I'm out around town...

    3. Re:Tons of copper saved .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you need to talk to whom so badly when you are driving to the town dump that you *have* to have that mobile phone?

      I don't get the need to be constantly chatting. I see people on the phone at 7:30 in the morning on my way to work, and at 6 PM on my way home. What on earth is so urgent that you need to be talking about it at 7:30 in the morning?

      It's important to have time to think. Can't think when you're talking. Can't drive either, for that matter. Put away the mobile phone. Be in the moment. You'll be calmer and happier for it.

    4. Re:Tons of copper saved .. by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Are you one of those people who use their cell or landline primarily for talking to people?

      Most Millennials don't use voice frequently, but do use data. I have basically no need for a POTS line (or even a wireless service) that does not provide me with an internet connection.

      And before you go full-luddite on me, yes, I *do* need net access when I am away from home. I don't use it while driving, but I do at practically all my destinations. I *don't* need to talk to people via phone, either at home or while out around town.

      To restate: there are practically no arguments salient to me in favor of a landline. Any arguments against wireless service do not bolster the utility of POTS for me (dialup internet? really?). I would drop having phone service altogether if I could not have wireless. However, that's not going to happen and I will happily continue to use my wireless data plan everywhere I go.

  7. An option? by oldhack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Municipality should simply take over the existing land line infrastructure.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:An option? by anubi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think twice before you want to assume this mess. Ever seen inside those telco boxes? They are a mess of 50 year old wire, eroded, and crumbling. I have seen them in my neighborhood and wondered how the telco kept them running.

      I think they are pricing landline use through the roof to get people to abandon their line, then they re-allocate the remaining working lines to the ones who have not jumped ship yet.

      Personally, I think the landline infrastructure I have seen is rotten to the core, and is inevitably sinking, and even I cannot really see them investing much money in order to keep it alive. I think they see this kinda like I see my 40 year old car... its hard to get parts for it ... and everything in that car that is flat wore out. Its an old Toyota. Around 300K miles. Looks like shit and still runs, albeit rattles like a sonofagun and accelerates like an old coot getting off a couch. I have to be prepared to buy another car when anything major goes. I think the telephone companies have already written off the landline infrastructure, and is just milking it along for a few more years until they shut the whole thing off for good, but for now, a few lines still work, and they are pricing them for the last hangers-on like me. ( Yes, I still use a Western Electric 500 series phone - the black one... you know, the one with a carbon microphone ). I did get the touchtone pad though...however the old dial phone in the garage still works. Doesn't ring anymore though - I had to disconnect its ringer because I only had enough ring current coming to me to ring one old phone. I have to hand it to the phone company for always having their stuff work.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    2. Re:An option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, realatively speaking, copper is so cheap and easy to maintain. How well do you think optic fibre will endure in 50 years' time?

    3. Re:An option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't necessarily the old equipment that has the value, it's the *rights of way* acquired through the government's power of eminent domain. If local government reacquires this right of way, then the local entity can have its own fiber to the home system, financed through the recovery of the stolen funding collected by telco for the rollout of broadband but never done. Tie in to the network mandated by law, tie in rates regulated, etc.

    4. Re:An option? by Goody · · Score: 1

      Quite well. Fusion splices don't corrode.

      --
      Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    5. Re:An option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fiber optic cable is made from glass fibers. The splices are made by fusing the glass fibers together. Glass will last practically forever if protected from physical damage and has the advantage of being non reactive with water. It should last 50 years with no problem. Current testing of old fiber optic cables indicate they are nearly as good as the day they were installed. As with any cable the biggest danger are backhoes, cars and trees striking utility poles.

    6. Re:An option? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      On top of that it is a "passive" optical network (at least Verizon's is), so no powered equipment in the neighborhood to worry about maintaining.

  8. Fine, with conditions by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Only a couple of conditions:

    1. All government services must be accessible at no cost via a method which is guaranteed to be available to any person. IOW if landline phone service isn't required to be universal then all government offices must have in-person hours and be staffed at a level sufficient to get everyone who shows up on any given day served before the office closes, or all services must be available via mail (postage pre-paid). Online-only services are not allowed, since the government isn't guaranteeing that everyone will receive Internet access. Phone-only services are not allowed since the government isn't guaranteeing everyone will receive cel phone service. Online-only or phone-only would only be allowed if the government mandated that everyone would be able to receive either Internet access or cel-phone service regardless of location. Which the service providers won't go for, since their whole goal is to avoid being legally required to provide service in unprofitable areas.

    2. Any person must be able to get basic (local calling and 911 service) phone service at any address, regardless of where that address is, upon request at no more than the previous cost of equivalent landline service. Whether it be via cel or VOIP, the service must be available. Note that this doesn't completely get around requirement #1, since the basic service isn't guaranteed to provide access to government numbers. To the extent that it does, it would satisfy #1.

    1. Re:Fine, with conditions by sjames · · Score: 1

      1 can never be adequately satisfied unless the phone company wants to be Oprah and give everyone a car. Even then, it's a bit of a problem to go to the police in person if someone is attempting to break in to your home.

    2. Re:Fine, with conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a couple of conditions:

      1. All government services must be accessible at no cost via a method which is guaranteed to be available to any person. IOW if landline phone service isn't required to be universal then all government offices must have in-person hours and be staffed at a level sufficient to get everyone who shows up on any given day served before the office closes, or all services must be available via mail (postage pre-paid). Online-only services are not allowed, since the government isn't guaranteeing that everyone will receive Internet access. Phone-only services are not allowed since the government isn't guaranteeing everyone will receive cel phone service. Online-only or phone-only would only be allowed if the government mandated that everyone would be able to receive either Internet access or cel-phone service regardless of location. Which the service providers won't go for, since their whole goal is to avoid being legally required to provide service in unprofitable areas.

      2. Any person must be able to get basic (local calling and 911 service) phone service at any address, regardless of where that address is, upon request at no more than the previous cost of equivalent landline service. Whether it be via cel or VOIP, the service must be available. Note that this doesn't completely get around requirement #1, since the basic service isn't guaranteed to provide access to government numbers. To the extent that it does, it would satisfy #1.

      #2 is upwards of $40 per month in some areas. For a fucking POTS line. I suppose you think that ass-raping amount is fair for the new and improved wireless service.

      But don't worry, I'm sure the elderly will love it when the government mandates that all Medicare/Obamacare recipients carry one of these "government-approved" wireless POTS lines in every home to ensure "functional communications" or some horseshit, and of course, people's current "unapproved 3rd party" cellular contracts won't meet that requirement.

      This will be the way that the LECs will ensure they butt-fuck everyone with a wireless "land" line that is separate from a wireless cell phone.

    3. Re:Fine, with conditions by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I agree with you.

      Until there is 100% coverage of 100% of all the places there is POTS now, you can't abandon POTS at all, and IDGAF about their 'business model' or profits or any of that. It could quickly and easily become a public safety issue. If even one person died because they couldn't quickly and easily call 911 because the POTS phone that used to be sitting there isn't there anymore, then we've screwed up. Also, wireless signals are not as reliable as wired phone service is, there can be pocket areas where the signal is poor to non-existent, and wireless signals can be tampered with (i.e., jammed, intentionally or unintentionally) whereas wired phone service cannot easily be (you have to physically cut the lines). There is a possible gotcha for the wireless companies if they get their way, though: With no more POTS, then wireless would pretty much have to be declared a Public Utility, since it would be taking the place of POTS. Not sure if they've considered that, or if they're living in some rose-colored-glasses world where that's not going to happen.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:Fine, with conditions by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Oprah has never given anyone a car.

      In fact, she's never spent a dime to give away shit on her show.

      Those 'gifts' are from people who want their name attached to Oprah. Its nothing more than paid advertising and product placement ... but you know, be ignorant and pretend Oprah cares or something stupid.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Fine, with conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm not mistake, any phone can make a 911 call, even if you don't have any service on it.

  9. It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we use daily. Why throw it away?

    1. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Your.Master · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because most of us don't actually use it daily, or weekly, or monthly. I haven't had a landline in over ten years, including both my work and home phone numbers (my workplace uses VoIP).

      I would say a first step is that the requirement be loosened such that the so-called POTS should be sufficient, but not necessary, to meet the requirements. The alternatives that could replace the POTS should not require an unreasonable sacrifice compared to keeping the POTS.

      If you can come up with a reason that it's unreasonable in your locality, then good on you. I have absolutely no doubt that there remain good uses of the POTS for some scenarios, probably geographically-constrained, but I don't know them.

    2. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by arfonrg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it works well (especially in emergencies) but isn't a cash cow.

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    3. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      I have 3 POTS coming to my house to feed my 'vintage' 551 KSU. I guess I win the nerd-off in this thread.

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    4. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      emergencies

    5. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because capitalism failed.

    6. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The use in emergencies is an important point. In every major emergency cell networks have reached capacity. There was an incident near me when a minor accident caused traffic to come to a halt and the cell network was saturated by people calling to say they'd be late home. Someone ran into the back of the queue at speed and this more serious accident was only reported by people going to a nearby house, knocking on the door and using the land line. POTS should be kept until there is a replacement that has sufficient capacity to cope with major incidents.

    7. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      battery powered radios not good enough for you? cause everyone already has one in their pocket

    8. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      POTS has a hard limit on the amount of connections it can make as well, ever heard "all circuits are busy"

      theres only so many wires and relays in a POTS system

    9. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Trouble is your broadband typically relies on pots to work, cable tv providers don't reach everybody even in cabled area's.

      I live in an area where there is never going to be cable tv its uneconomic for them to lay cable this far out. DSL via the phone line is also not possible due to distance from the exchange and 3g barely works.
      Cell service is adequate for text messaging but making voice calls is tricky you have to be in precisely the right place for you and the person you are talking too to hear each other.

      when it rains the 3g service becomes intermittent. Even the satellite tv broadcaster needs a pots connection to use their broadband option.

    10. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the vast majority of us haven't used a POTS line in the past 5 years.

    11. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 1

      Not when you have to call for an ambulance, I don't think a Radio would work, do you? Also I live in a City and have 2 cell towers about a mile and half away, and I have TO go out side and walk to the corner to anything over one BAR on my cell phone. It been that way for the last decade...

    12. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know about you, but there's no way my cellphone is staying up for a week without power.

      I know the towers don't.

    13. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      It can happen, but emergencies very rarely saturate the POTS network. Nearly every major incident has brought cell service to it's knees.

    14. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very fact that you heard that message means that POTS itself hasn't failed - you were at least connected to the exchange. The problem is that the exchanges are all digital nowdays and the telcos, being the cheap-ass scum-sucking arseholes that they are, only provision limited bandwidth between them and their peers. You got the message because there was no more bandwidth available to "connect" a virtual channel.

    15. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Get a repeater. An antenna mounted on your roof and pointed at the tower works wonders. Any attempt to replace a PTOS with wireless will most likely rely on such repeaters for approval.

    16. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      It can happen, but emergencies very rarely saturate the POTS network. Nearly every major incident has brought cell service to it's knees.

      Well, duh, that's because people now have mobile phones that they use in the event of an emergency.

      What do you think happened back in the good old days when POTS was all they had and there was some sort of crisis?

      You're telling me you can't remember exactly that occurring 20 years ago? Because I sure can.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    17. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by adolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We were without power here for over a week after the Derecho a few years ago...this led to some fun (and very hot) experimentation. Some results:

      - Most small-ish generators are loud, a bitch to maintain (a synthetic oil change every 30 hours? if you insist...), loud, expensive to fuel, loud, and difficult to fuel at first until (some) gas stations had proper gensets brought in from out-of-state, and loud.

      - Cell service never blinked. Whatever they were doing for backup power, be it regular fuel delivery or natural gas, was working fine.

      - That with a cheap (less-than-$20) unregulated solar panel from Lowes and the car charger for my Android phone (which accepts up to 24VDC according to its label), I was able to keep more than one phone going continuously even on a mostly-cloudy day just by putting the solar panel in an unshaded window. They charged normally (ie: in an hour or so), and the charge lasted about as long as it normally would (24 hours or so). (I learned all of this because of generators being loud and sleep being useful.)

      - Our VDSL line never dropped. It never even thought about it, according to its accumulated stats. The modem/router/gateway/whatever-widget has a perfectly reasonable battery in its external DC power supply, which would get opportunistically charged whenever the generator was running (usually a just few hours/day to charge batteries for lights and make ice to keep the beer cold, though there was some running of dishwashers and window ACs as well). (Interestingly, the only reason it has its own battery is because we initially ordered it with a VOIP phone line. If we'd ordered just Internet, it would have died as soon as the power did.)

      Our provider (Deathstar) had gensets at each VRAD cabinet, humming away quietly 24/7. Most of these were VERY shiny trailer-mounted rigs, but I did spot a couple of smaller portable ones. And I did my part, too, by opening up my AP and renaming it to "Free Wifi for Storm Victims" -- which actually served a fairly big area, since the 2.4GHz spectrum was remarkably interference-free. ;)

      By extension of all of this, I can quite safely assume that if I still had POTS, I'd have had a functional dialtone during that entire time: The CO plainly had power (and was built to withstand a war), and the VRAD cabinets (which also terminate some POTS lines these days) had power, and everything was proven to have connectivity....despite most of the telephone pairs and backbone fiber being overhead in these parts, and -lots- of trees down everywhere.

      I got through that storm with multiple forms of uninterrupted communication just fine, just by using crap that I had laying around. I'd have done it just as well without a generator (which itself was just a lucky break), between the cheap solar panel and multiple vehicles and an inverter and charged SLAs and CFL lights that can run from them directly, full-conversion sinewave UPSs, and other stuff that I've accumulated just because I'm a geek.

      And that, I guess, is the point: Even if one form of communication failed (multiple cell tower failure, OR VDSL failure), I'd still have been a happy camper without power. Me. Just me.

      I have thus demonstrated that I, myself, don't need POTS. In my neighborhood.

      But then, this is /., and I am therefore not normal. I also live in in a small city in mostly-rural Ohio where I have a fair variety of communication options and just enough density that a little bit of work on a provider's part will light up hundreds/thousands of people instead of dozens...or 1.

      A 15-minute drive will take me to areas that are not so-blessed, and these folks still need POTS: The local loops are tens-of-miles long and can't support *DSL, there is no cable, cellular service (while normally quite good) is often served by a singular tower with redundant zero overlap, and any notion of "bandwidth" comes from an 802.11-based WISP which also has zero redundancy.

      These folks a

    18. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      User convenience problem. During an emergency everyone has a phone in their pocket. Everyone is not standing in the kitchen at the same time hence the POTS system goes under utilised. I have seen the POTS network come to its knees too, but that was before the days of ubiquitous cell phones.

      Though this is all entirely irrelevant because if you've ever actually been in a disaster then you'd realise if you're at the point where you can't even get through to the tower then a) you're unlikely to get through to a 911 operator because they are all busy and b) help is likely already on the way.

    19. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that almost all radio stations these days are completely unmanned. That person whom you think is a live DJ actually lives in a different city on the other side of the nation and records the intros for about 20 different music stations days in advance. Think talk radio is different? The news on the top of the hour is done the same way. The local news/weather is recorded maybe twice per day and is combined with national news feeds. After 5 pm there isn't anybody in most radio stations studios or offices. Most radio stations don't have a news department anymore and are dependent on a partner TV station.

      The days of there being a DJ manning the studios 24/7 and each talk radio station having an actual news department are long over. Radio stations these days are essentially mp3 players with ads and DJ banter inserted between songs. They don't break in to inform you of any severe weather anymore because there is nothing more than computer running the show. There is FCC mandated EBS and that's it.

    20. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Because those running modern industries are intimidated by the simplicity and reliability of the services that came before.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    21. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because phones suck. We should not only get rid of POTS, but phones in general. There are a million ways to communicate these days, and a real-time synchronized voice conversation must be one of the very most annoying and inefficient.

    22. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by climb_no_fear · · Score: 2

      You are right about the wires but wrong about the demand pattern in case of a localized emergency.

      For POTS, the telephone is at a fixed location (obviously close to the accident in the parent's example), therefore, in an emergency, the person is more likely to be trying to get help for an emergency which happened near or at that location.

      Those with POTS are not calling to tell someone that they are going to be late coming home, because they already are home.

      In contrast, mobile phone users near such an accident trigger many calls unrelated to reporting the accident (telling someone they are running late) and overload the cell network.

      Most people living close enough to such an accident are not home, are not directly affected by the accident or are simply unaware of the emergency, and don't or can't call, therefore, the POTS will generally not overload (although you may overload the number of 911 or 112 operators).

      Therefore, for an emergency covering a small area, POTS will almost always be better.

      For emergencies covering a larger area that might overload the POTS system (8.5 earthquake, a hurricane or such), you have other problems anyway.

    23. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the towers went down on 9/11, they made it so calls could only go out because the incoming calls overwhelmed the system.

      Also, GTE/Verizon had equipment in the basement. It kept running, after the tower collapsed on top of it, until the batteries ran out. I'm sure that helped a large number of people during the disaster.

      I doubt any internet type infrastructure is built to that standard.

    24. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It is trivial to bring a cellphone network to it's knees, every single minor event that attracts people crushes the AT&T or Verizon network. Cellular is one of the most unreliable technologyies out there because the cellphone companies were allowed to oversell the network so hard so there was no reserve for emergency use.

      Blame the complete shitheads in congress that deregulated everything for this.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    25. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "Most small-ish generators are loud, a bitch to maintain (a synthetic oil change every 30 hours? if you insist..."

      No, every 300 hours is far more accurate (I do it yearly well under the expected hours) as long as it is not a garbage generator and has a spin on oil filter, and loud? a honda insight is louder than my 7500watt generator that is for the house. and it takes no maintenance except for once a year.
      and yes 7500 watts is small.

      I'm guessing you think that a generator is the old outdated very light duty cheap garbage you see on construction sites or at harbor freight. You should look at what people actually buy from Generac and others for backup power at their homes, very low maintenance and no I don't need synthetic oil.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    26. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      There was a time when cell phones lasted weeks on standby. You can still get them if you don't fall prey to the smartphone fad. Mine lasts 2+ weeks between charges on a 1 year old battery.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    27. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a telco. It's incredibly expensive to maintain copper, and everything is moving toward fiber. This sets us to to move towards fiber-only instead of fiber for data and copper for voice.

    28. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      That's what a solar powered cell phone charger is for. There are very nice ones, with solar panel and small battery pack built in, for about $30 on Amazon.

    29. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > I have seen the POTS network come to its knees too

      Typically on Mother's Day. According to colleagues who worked in the older phone systems, that was the busiest day of the year and was used as a very reliable test of the full capacity of the complete live system, every year. It was invaluable for finding unexpected choke points or poor load distribution throughout the system.

    30. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After Hurricanes Irene and Sandy, my neighborhood had a 5 day power outage and a 10 day power outage.

      During that time no ones's cell phones worked, but my landline had no problems for either outage. I had neighbors lining up to use my landline.

      It would be idiotic to throw away reliable technology that is useful in emergencies.

    31. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most of us don't actually use it daily, or weekly, or monthly. I haven't had a landline in over ten years, including both my work and home phone numbers (my workplace uses VoIP).

      You've probably been using it without even realizing it. Does your company receive calls from other companies or individuals? Does your company place calls to other companies or individuals? Are you sure none of those people are using POTS?

    32. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by sjames · · Score: 1

      Now, about those towers. They often have 24 hours of less battery power.

    33. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by sjames · · Score: 1

      The POTS lines were always more resilient. It wasn't impossible to overload it, but it was rare.

    34. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      so does the POTS system in your neighborhood, ignorance must be bliss but go crack open that big green box, its fall full of lead acid batteries, they aint there to keep it warm

    35. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by sjames · · Score: 1

      I know for a fact that the POTS service has more than 24 hours runtime without power since we've had power failures longer than that.

      That's because POTS service is mandated to be reliable.

    36. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I can bring the cell network to its knees with $10 worth or parts from radio shack ... and kill every cell phone in a couple mile radius for an extended period while someone figures out wtf is going on.

      Do that with land lines.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    37. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Every winter during most of the 1990s, whenever it snowed, I'd read many, many numbers of announcements on my radio show from the phone company and various local officials requesting people to stay off the damn phones except for essential/emergency calls because everybody was ringing everybody else to ask if they'd heard about the schools or could they borrow some mittens or what have you and thereby paralysing the phone network across the whole county.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    38. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Check me on this: wouldn't a POTS network be more resilient against EMP attacks?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    39. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by sjames · · Score: 1

      Imagine how terrible cell service would have been then.

    40. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Our VDSL line never dropped. It never even thought about it, according to its accumulated stats. The modem/router/gateway/whatever-widget has a perfectly reasonable battery in its external DC power supply, which would get opportunistically charged whenever the generator was running (usually a just few hours/day to charge batteries for lights and make ice to keep the beer cold, though there was some running of dishwashers and window ACs as well). (Interestingly, the only reason it has its own battery is because we initially ordered it with a VOIP phone line. If we'd ordered just Internet, it would have died as soon as the power did.)

      Err, doesn't your VDSL line run over the copper cables which form the POTS network? What AT&T and Verizon want to do is make it so they do not need to provide that copper cable which your VDSL runs on. Honestly, they just want to make more profits. Cellphones and 3g/4g/etc cost more to consumers then POTS/xDSL/fible services and are cheaper for the providers to maintain. They are crap for disasters (towers can only handle so many connections at the one time so when ten thousand people are trying to make a call or use their network, its going to fall over.

    41. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most POTS systems are digital from the exchange and are only analog for the last mile and have been for quite a while. They generally run on the same backbone as the internet (for the most part anyhow).

    42. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by fafalone · · Score: 2

      We were hit hard by Hurricane Sandy. The power at my house was out for 6 days. But cell towers were up the entire time (the closest one was down 12hrs, but calls could still be made with a weaker signal), and as soon as the water allowed physical access, Verizon rolled out trucks that parked at a few places in the neighborhood from 10am to 10pm where people could plug in power strips. About 100 people plugged in at any given time. Gave us a chance to talk to our neighbors, and recharge our devices to get on Facebook, which was the major method the city government used to communicate with us. Power updates, food/water relief, shelter info, transit updates, etc were all on Facebook. Not just government updates either; updates from people around town in the comments were critical. Phone numbers always had outdated info.
      I used to live in a more rural area. Yeah we had working POTS, but nothing else. Hurricane Charlie hit us hard there; I wish we had cells and local government on facebook. I think people really overestimate the value of POTS, especially if you don't know what numbers to call or local government sucks at providing info. The resources used to maintain POTS could be put towards emergency restoration of more useful services.

    43. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by sjames · · Score: 1

      Where I am, it's the opposite. The POTS stays up through everything and even in clear weather we have bad cell days where I can't have even one conversation without the call dropping.

    44. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most of us don't actually use it daily, or weekly, or monthly.

      Citation needed.

      I haven't had a landline in over ten years

      Amazing how "I" somehow becomes "most of us".

      but I don't know them.

      You don't know, yet are ready to cast your vote anyway, without knowledge of what it is you are really advocating.

    45. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Alioth · · Score: 1

      1. I can see a cell tower from the roof of my house, but doe to our houses being end-on to it, I get very sporadic signal.
      2. Internet service. If everyone's watching Netflix via 3G/4G there just isn't enough bandwidth to go around even with plenty of cell towers. At best, 3G/4G service has very variable latency. Streaming video over mobile is fine if there's just one or two people doing it. But get rid of POTS (and the ADSL it carries over the back of it) and everyone's trying to stream over 3G/4G in your area then this just won't work due to laws-of-physics constraints. Latency problems with 3G/4G internet service make it impractical for gaming. It's bad enough sometimes using ssh over a 3G connection with round trip times measured in tens of seconds.

      Wireless isn't the answer. Perhaps fibre to the home would be a suitable replacement for POTS but the telcos won't like that alternative much.

    46. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Alioth · · Score: 1

      That was the 1990s when there were still plenty of non-digital phone exchange equipment around. By now most exchanges are digital (or even IP based, where I live the local telephone exchange is now IP based) and so long as the trunks have sufficient bandwidth, every telephone can be off the hook and talking to someone without an issue.

    47. Re: It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Nope. All those long pieces of copper will have huge voltage spikes induced in them, and POTS will fare no better at all.

    48. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most of us don't actually use it daily, or weekly, or monthly. I haven't had a landline in over ten years, including both my work and home phone numbers (my workplace uses VoIP).

      Does it really use VoIP? You may have an IP phone on your desk and perhaps some h.323 or SIP connectivity to other branch offices, but what is the delivery method of your "phone" lines? By phone lines, I mean what delivers to your premises that published identifier (usually a 7 or 10 digit number in NA) that people need to enter into their communications device in order to have an audio conversation. I also mean what carries your audio connectivity to the outside world when you dial "9" or some other access code prior to the published identifier of some other entity to which you wish to converse?

      'd wager that better than 80% of the companies/offices that are bigger than 20 people are still using some form of TDM connectivity (usually PRI or channelized T1) with at least 1 or more analog lines as a backup. Many companies that claim they "want to use VoIP" really have no idea what they are talking about, especially when they say that they want to save money by doing it. This is especially true when they learn that they will have to replace their entire data network to support QoS and PoE, increase the bandwidth of their internet connection and purchase an SBC to safely support a SIP trunk provider. When the cost of that phone system upgrade jumps from $25,000+ to $50,000 plus because of the added costs of the LAN/WAN connectivity, many companies decide against "moving to VoIP" because of the capital cost alone.

      Sure, there are adopters of Pure VoIP. Your company may very well be one of them. But many do not want anything more than "dial-tone". This is especially true if they are an inbound call-centre or manufacturing facility or any other such entity that does not need frills such as video, presence, etc to extend beyond their workplace.

      I speak as a Pre-Sales Systems Engineer for an international re-seller of communications and data gear from several manufacturers. I've worked on RFP's for municipalities, hospitals, regional governments, federal governments, national and multi-national corporations in various verticals and small single site companies and it's always the same.

    49. Re:It is the single most reliable piece of tech by adolf · · Score: 1

      When I said "most," I meant what I said: Most.

      Most small-ish generators are the type you see on construction sites or at harbor freight. They are loud. They do not have oil filters. Why "most"? Because they're the most available, and they're the cheapest.

      This trend is not unique to generators, but extends to all manner of tools that consumers buy. Everyone should want a Simplicity mower, but most buy MTD. Everyone should want a Stihl saw, but most buy Poulon, HF, or other cheap tool.

      The generator I was using was brand new, as in bought retail and unboxed on the first day of the blackout. It had a very loud Briggs & Stratton engine. It had a stated requirement for a fresh quart of oil every 30 hours. An oil filter would certainly extend that dramatically, but it was not equipped with one. Most aren't.

      I realize that you're fond of telling people that they're wrong. But neither my observation, nor my anecdote, are wrong.

  10. I'm kind of of the opinion that... by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...these supercarriers need to be advised that any service they plan on replacing POTS with, will fall under common carrier regulation, and they will need to get approval from state regulatory boards for price modifications, service level changes, and the like. Under Common Carrier regulation, they will have to open up their service offerings to competitors at the same rates they charge their internal providers, i.e. their Internet Service capability will have to be available to companies like NetZero, at the same rates that they charge their own internal ISP organization.

    They will also be obligated to build out their infrastructure to provide universal access to provide coverage to every customer they pull POTS services from. That's not to say that they can't make hybrid service available, where they provide some form of a wireless trunk to an equipment stack outside of town that provides local distribution in the same area that they already do this for with POTS. Essentially they will replace T1 trunk hardware at those remote vaults with a wireless T1 system, and presumably none of the customers would be the wiser.

    Note, I don't expect that this is how things will play out, just how I think it should. I'm biased, as I am a customer who's worked in the telecom industry.

    --
    You never know...
    1. Re:I'm kind of of the opinion that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wireless is not a replacement. Either FTTH or GTFO.

  11. power over phonelines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope you all have backup power supplies in place for when the power goes for more time than your mobile battery lasts.

    1. Re:power over phonelines by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Hope you all have backup power supplies in place for when the power goes for more time than your mobile battery lasts.

      That used to be my argument for keeping a landline. But you know what? Even with old style phone service, people tend to not keep a corded phone around - they prefer wireless handsets. When the power fails, so do those phones. Even with a landline, the last few times we had a power failure I had to use my cell phone to call it in.

      We finally dumped our landline last year. Well, actually, we still have the number - my wife won't let us get rid of it. But now we're only paying ten bucks a month to T-Mobile for it instead of the forty-plus we were giving Century Link every month for way too long.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:power over phonelines by the+plant+doctor · · Score: 1

      Mmm, yes, I while had cell phones that I mainly used when I still lived in the States; I also had a landline in my home. Two cordless phones in the house that used. However, I had a cheap corded phone that I just kept in a cabinet in case of an emergency. Like the 7 days we were without power due to an ice storm. Corded phone came out, I was able to keep in contact. Sure, I could charge my cell phone in the car, but I had to leave the car running to do that.

    3. Re:power over phonelines by ledow · · Score: 1

      In a prolonged emergency, your phone is not the weakest link. Hell, once of those "emergency chargers" (a plug and a pack of AA batteries, basically) can be put next to your fusebox quite easily.

      The problem is the cells. If your mobile phone is powered up by the local cell is flooded / offline / out of power then you're fucked.

      I don't think landlines have much life left, to be honest. They are fast being replaced by wireless technology and are getting obsolete. And yes, while I have made phone calls on landlines in powercuts, the same can be said for mobile phones when the landline has also gone off.

      The problem you're wishing to solve - long-term powerless - is much more of a problem all around and not one that either technology solves.

      But then, generally, after a few days in anything catastrophic, calling from your house is likely to be not as important as you think. You either won't be there any more (and will be relocated somehow), or there'll be some other way of keeping in contact made available to you.

      If you're that paranoid, keep a pair of cheap walkie-talkies charged. Worst that happens, you give one to a potential rescuer or use them to call in help yourself.

    4. Re:power over phonelines by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      my celphone charges in my car, and runs for a week

    5. Re:power over phonelines by sjames · · Score: 1

      Most of the people I know keep at least one old corded phone around just in case it's needed.

    6. Re:power over phonelines by sjames · · Score: 1

      You'll need really long jumper cables to keep the tower up and running. They like to really skimp on the batteries (if they don't just fail completely).

    7. Re:power over phonelines by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you are making some assumptions about use of your car in protracted emergency. what if the shit hits the fan and you are miles from home with your car but can't drive anywhere. so you make a long trek home without your 2000 lbs. "charger".....

    8. Re:power over phonelines by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      have you seen the inside of a pots box, its not just wires stapled to a chunk of plywood

    9. Re:power over phonelines by sjames · · Score: 1

      And?

    10. Re:power over phonelines by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      its ran off batteries ... really did i have to spell that out for you

    11. Re:power over phonelines by sjames · · Score: 1

      And because POTS lines have a mandated reliability, they provide adequate battery power for the mission and they actually maintain them. Because cellular has no such mandate, they don't provide adequate runtime or do appropriate maintenance. Occasionally a cell tower goes up in a big fireball due to poorly maintained batteries.

  12. Bad idea by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

    I think we should probably be keeping that POTS system around, maintained and such. You just never know. We might need it for something!

  13. Defensive considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this is the paranoid schitzo part of me talking but with regards to pots if its use is being discontinued thats fine, however Leave the existing equipment where it lies. Removing it costs money, repairing it costs money, but in a pinch it may be discovered that at some point its needed.

  14. Government 99.999% Killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, our government enforced 5.26 minutes of downtime per year is being killed and in its place, we only have unreliable networks. As a nation we promise to become weaker to threats both domestic and international, as inflation erodes any quality our economy would have offered. Getting rid of a QoS helps to reduce costs due to quality and lets America ride a slope towards incompetence.

  15. Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition. In fake capoitalism (read government controlled), you're pretty much the only game in town and have a protected monopoly and can screw your customers with impunity.... Kinda like the current utilities system we have.

    1. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the real world, ISPs rely on laying cables, and allowing any schmuck to lay cables throughout your neighborhood is a recipe for disaster. Realizing this, a competent (ie, non-Randroid) local government would require the companies that lay cables to sell usage of their cables at a fair price to competitors to promote healthy competition. Unfortunately, Randroids rule the day, and the companies that are allowed to lay cables cannot be burdened with regulations because ARGLE BARGLE FREE MARKET, and so we are in the situation that we are in.

    2. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by dryeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition. In fake capoitalism (read government controlled), you're pretty much the only game in town and have a protected monopoly and can screw your customers with impunity.... Kinda like the current utilities system we have.

      In real capitalism, you make sure there is no competition left before you screw over your customers. Being good capitalists does mean using any means to destroy your competition and government is a good tool, fairly cheap and well armed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Yeah, people who pay for the cables, the installation, the maintenance, and the repair should be forced to allow the competition on their infrastructure even though it might interfere with their operation. I mean, we need to control who can lay cables and only allow our biggest political contributors and/or the highest bidder to lay infrastructure. Because Randroids HARG ARGLE BLARGLE...

    4. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence "fair price", you stupid cunt.

    5. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The alternative is that they can negotiate with each individual property owner whose property the cables run through individually. Good luck with that.

    6. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In real capitalism, where the government doesn't prevent the development of monopolies, there is no competition to go to when you get fucked over.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    7. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, a registered slashdotter who actually understands natural monopolies. I feel like I've just seen a unicorn.

    8. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey now.

      Any cunt that can post on slashdot is a very SMART cunt.

      I mean just using your labia to manipulate the keyboard is pretty darned smart.

    9. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Never mind what dialogue a clever psychologist has planted in you Pavlovian brain.

      So you want to kill people.

      I hope your house is the remote one that doesn't get a signal and is the first to lose POTS.

      I look forward to your urgent need to call an ambulance and your untimely death.

      If you don't need civilization then the rest of us can do without you.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    10. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition.

      Real capitalism cannot exist they way you described. The world isn't big enough.
      There are hundreds of fields where a single company has gained worldwide dominance. Sure, there are competitors, but every distributor is better off playing ball with the big company.

    11. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      I can't believe this drivel got upvoted enough for me to see it. In REAL communism all live in peace with equal shares but just like so called "real" capitalism IT WILL NEVER EXIST because money equals power and power WILL be abused.

      If you want to believe in the invisible hand fairy go right ahead, at no time and in no place has actually existed.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 2

      I REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition.

      Which is selling you exactly the same shit sandwich as the company you left.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    13. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what you are saying, but you seem like an asshole.

    14. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In real capitalism, you don't have the option of having a monopoly unless you satisfy every customer completely (which is unlikely). If there is a possibility of using government as a tool, then you don't have capitalism. You have cronyism. That's what we have right now.

    15. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      In the actual real world (outside of your worker's paradise) having companies lay their own cable works better, because otherwise there's no incentive for the company that owns the cable to keep overhead expenses down. That's the way it was done in my town, and it works quite well.

    16. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've got your capitalisms reversed. Fake capitalism, aka "fantasy capitalism" is when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition. This scenario of a just world largely only exists in the imagination of libertarians. Real capitalism with unregulated markets inevitably leads to monopolies as more and more wealth gets concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people as competitors eventually get bought out.

      Don't like a particular company, start your own! This is the popular libertarian/corporatist mantra. Of course, its virtually impossible to start your own telephone company, ISP, or cellular service provider. But that won't stop the libertarian from making that claim, nor will the near impossibility of such justify the government imposing any type of regulations whatsoever on such companies.

    17. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hear bagpipes! You are using the same no true Scotsman fallacy that the communists employ when every real life attempt at implementing it fails to produce a utopia. The communists will claim that true communism can only exist when the government ceases to exist. Funny how you libertarians are making the exact same argument with capitalism, blaming the very existence of a government for its failures.

    18. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Teun · · Score: 2
      You don't understand the principle, the cables belong to a cable company, the content transported over them to a media, internet or phone company and they all pay their share to the owner of the cables.

      Over here in The Netherlands that's a quite common scenario and it works fine but it does require there are no legal obstacles in the way and net neutrality is a must.

      Like some towns were fed up waiting for a company to lay cable so they financed a non-profit to do so.

      At some point in time they'll probably sell their cable company and the money goes back to the city.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    19. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look forward to your urgent need to call an ambulance and your untimely death.

      He can call it on his cell phone, and as a bonus, he can do that from the middle of a road somewhere that doesn't even HAVE a land line.

      People increasingly don't even subscribe to land line phones. Those are very 1990s.

    20. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who decides what a "fair price" is? I'll bet you could do it!

    21. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Euler · · Score: 1

      Who's property is the cable residing on: power company poles, roadside easements, individual agreements with every house on the street?

    22. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      That only takes skill, not brains.

      I mean... you can see stupid posts made by penis heads all the time.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    23. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That reminds of an old joke ...

      Q. You know the best thing about America? A. Capitalism!
      Q. You know the worst thing about America? A. Capitalism!

    24. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > where the government doesn't prevent the development of monopolies,

      . /sarcasm except development of other governments.

      Government always tries to have a monopoly on government.

    25. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean they paid for those rights of way? They weren't given how many Billions to build out high speed infrastructure by the Govt? /s

      How about they take that into account before claiming they invested so much and deserve a monopoly?

    26. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Euler · · Score: 1

      So true. There is essentially no such thing as "true capitalism." Socialism, communism, capitalism, etc. all depend on a government to enforce them. The case of capitalism or "free market", is especially an antithesis. In other words, they only exist because of governmental framework creates environment: property, contracts, copyrights, central banking, roadways, educated workforce, etc.

    27. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are big problems with the switch. The old analog phone lines were powered by the -48 Volt signal DC voltage from the phone company switching stations, which had very reliable backup power and facilities to cut off phones that were accidentally left off hook and kept draining current from the batteries or secondary generators. All this has evaporated in the modern cable modem/FIOS/internaet/land line era. Each house needs its own local battery or other power supply to keep the phones active, and each buried switch needs its own power, and many cut-rate DSL or phone companies are skimping on the quality and size of these backup power systems. The result is much more fragile, and phone service is much less reliable than the old analog system. That old analog system was _amazing_ in its ability to survive natural disasters and still provide _some_ phone service, even if only to a few homes in a neighborhood.

    28. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by towermac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, 'free market' is abused quite often. Let's look at the term.

      'Free', as in the freedom to buy a thing, or not buy a thing; the freedom to pick and choose among various styles and vendors of that thing...
              There's no freedom here; I have to have internet access to my house, on just about the same level as I need power and water. Going without it is not an option. And as far as the kind of internet access I need, there's really just one of those too; and it's called 'Fast Enough'.

      'Market', as in more than one store to buy something at. There's no market here; I have to buy that internet access from whatever cable comes to by house, regardless of what they call themselves this week. I will give you that where FIOS has overlapped cable, you have a market of 2. (I won't count DSL) And yes, we see temporary price wars, but I'm not fooled into thinking that it's a healthy 'market', or that it's good for me in any way in the long run.

      There is no free market, and to try to fake one, pisses me off as a conservative. It's a utility already, and access to it needs to be 'owned', in the physical sense, by the government, or the people. Cities should probably administer it at a municipal level; Co-Ops are great for more rural areas. Maybe county, or even state. Whatever works best for for your locality as a voter, with as much right to internet access, as the right to have power and running water to your house.

      The only hesitation that I have, is that it's early, and standardizing on something like fiber optic might be like Edison jumping on DC too early. Plus, the existing infrastructures would have to be bought out; the government can preeminent domain take something to a point, but the takee has to be paid. The moment such a law passed, but long before unprepared municipalities would be ready; investment money would flee the space instantly, resulting in chaos. The opponents would use that to their advantage, and would probably win.

      Still, I can't wait for ISPs to be taken over by the people, and the term replaced with lowercase 'isp', an anachronism referring to a particular type of hookup to the internet.

    29. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised the parallel to banking doesn't come up in discussions. Very few people do not recognize the importance of separating commercial banking from investment banking (though lobbying, aka bribery, has prevented action on this.) On the other hand, I am amazed that few people seem to recognize that for the exact same reasons, it is imperative that we separate internet infrastructure from content and ISP. If we made this simple step, then conflicts of interest would disappear overnight! But noone is pushing for this solution (certainly not Randians.)

    30. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      allowing any schmuck to lay cables throughout your neighborhood is a recipe for disaster.

      Why would it be a disaster? If the reason would be "a street would never be in the state of not being torn up!" I'm sure that a competent local government could write laws and regulations that say "A section of street can only be under construction X% of the year, and fines will be implemented against any work that goes beyond the permit date". And then yes, streets might get torn up a bit more, but given that most streets are under repaired in the US right now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Plus, it's not like there are hundreds of ISP's covering every little town. Ideally we'd have local municipalities realize that they should install the last mile of cable, and then make it property of the home, but for some reason that never happens.

    31. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition.

      In REAL capitalism, companies acquire each other until there are only a handful (or only one) left, and there is no effective competition.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    32. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > everything in moderation

      . /sarcasm except moderation.

      technically right is the most obnoxious kind of right

    33. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you have never been to a rural area where cell signal is minimal, at best. Calls do not work and texts may be delivered, but it can take quite a while. In areas like that, POTS lines are not optional. People, including regulators, need to remember that not everyone has decent high-speed Internet and/our cell service.

    34. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Megol · · Score: 1
      And here in reality a relative was switched from POTS to cell phone with an incredible increase in reliability, something on the order of 500% (and increasing - the cell phone haven't failed yet).

      There are so many ways the POTS can fail compared to the wireless cellular system - power failure, capacitive failures (often caused by marginal insulation letting water seep through), wires breaking, wires short-circuiting (no or failing insulation) and much more. In comparison the cellular design is much more complicated but have less failure modes. Both the tower and the phone have local battery backups and there are no wire signal that can fail. Cell towers are placed so that most catastrophic failures aren't possible and are built to survive storms, lightning strikes and such.

    35. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. They should. At the fair price.

      And in perfect world a non-profit, probably government-financed organisation would build those and then lease them to private companies. That way no one has the stranglehold on competition and private business can actually flourish instead of being strangled by private monopolies with power to bully everyone, including law makers into doing what they want to be done.

    36. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      The other day I thought I saw a horse at the park, but it was just a Unicorn with it's horn broke off.

      Sorry, you just reminded me of that joke.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    37. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by ewieling · · Score: 1

      "they all pay their share to the owner of the cables" This is not how it works in the USA. In the USA the owner of the cable in the ground will not lease capacity to ANY company. The could if they wanted to. They don't want to. The exception to this is the copper telephone infrastructure, the government forces telephone companies to lease capacity on the telco's copper facilities to other companies. The regulations do not require the phone company to actually maintain the copper in the ground. For a long time the wholesale price for an ISP to lease the copper to the customer were higher than those same services sold to the telco owned ISP. The Nederlands has a reasonably sane telecom regulatory framework. Don't assume the USA has the same.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    38. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who pay for cables? You mean the customers, or the government tax breaks?

    39. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, that won't work, because they will still need to cross municipal property, and the city has an exclusive deal with someone else. I suppose they might be able to put up optical links wherever they need to cross municipal property, but that will usually be about once/block. And you'll need a variance to erect a tower tall enough that a parked truck won't cut the link.

      The "negotiate with each individual property owner" is a standard argument as to why natural monopolies exist, but it isgnificantly understates the problems.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    40. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The fundamental problem is that POTS sucks by any definition, but it rarely fails suddenly and catastrophically in areas where the phone lines are mostly underground (I don't know about the rest of the US, but in Florida, there are a LOT of places where the phone lines are buried, even though the power lines aren't). Most of what you describe is progressive deterioration over relatively long periods of time. Wireless networks, in contrast, tend to lose power suddenly, and stay down for at least the remainder of whatever catastrophe caused the failure in the first place.

      Twenty years ago, it was almost UNHEARD of in Florida to actually lose phone service during anything short of an Andrew-like hurricane... and even in Andrew, few people actually lost phone service. When they did, it was almost always due to catastrophic destruction of their own home's demarc box. Two years ago, half of Dade & Broward county lost Comcast & U-verse for half the day during a GODDAMN TROPICAL STORM (Isaac) that didn't even hit us directly. In fact, it seems like the most disruptive storms are, in fact, "slow & sloppy" tropical storms that have enough gusts to knock out commercial power early in the storm, then leave the area in limbo for another day and a half as the storm slowly passes through the area.

    41. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > where the government doesn't prevent the development of monopolies,

      . /sarcasm except development of other governments.

      Government always tries to have a monopoly on government.

      In a democracy, the government is of the people (theoretically), so how can you go to "other people" to form an "other government".

      If only we lived in a system of government that was derived by the consent of the people, and not the lobbyists.

    42. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      By your argument you are noticing that there never has existed "true capitalism" in the entire history of the world. Your position is even more extreme than mine, and yet even for my milder positioon (the government must not raise any artificial barriers to the entry of competition) there are no historical examples.

      I *believe* that actual capitalism would only tend towards monopoly in areas where the natrue of the business caused significant barriers to entry, but there are no historical examples to test my belief against.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    43. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add the "best" part about the circumstances under which the outages occurred -- the storm's worst part was Sunday afternoon, but Comcast & U-verse went down on Monday morning. Why? Because storm knocked out commercial power to their network centers on Sunday afternoon, and Monday morning is when they ran out of diesel for the generators. This seems to be the new normal with tropical storms. :-(

    44. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government has a monopoly on physical force, although you can often leverage this via contractual instruments. I can get the government to forcibly take your property if you violate a contract me with me. Which as a regular citizen turns out to be a revolutionary development, because previously you had to be buddy-buddy with the King or Emperor to have that kind of power.

      Also, modern industrial societies have innumerable governing bodies, above and below your national government. I'm not talking about your city council or the U.N. I mean all the various business and social communities that you engage with. Not long ago these associations were illegal, because despotic governments were afraid of groups coming together to govern various aspects of their lives independent from king or church. Again, revolutionary....

    45. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Roads. Of course they had some bureaucracy to work through.

    46. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      Having multiple redundant links is a good thing. Tell you what, we'll do it your way, but only after three competing companies have each laid their own cable provided that all three of them are running fiber optics from end to end.

      Right now we're doing it your way, and the cable company gets to say "Oh gee look, I'm already here, guess nobody else can build now so I get to dictate terms to the market. Thank you mr politician, here's your bribe money."

      You do realize though that modern city developments use conduit right? No more trenching, we just run cables inside of an existing pipe that can fit a lot more wires than what a single company would be interested in deploying anyways.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    47. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your post interesting because you refer to yourself as a conservative.

      I don't know about the rest of your views, but on this topic they line up exactly with mine and most of my friends, and we are quite the progressive liberal bunch.

      If your view on this agrees with most other self-identifying conservatives, we may stand a chance of making real progress on this thing.

    48. Re: Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communist-era joke:

      In America, you have capitalism, where one guy screws over another guy. In Russia, you have communism, where it's completely opposite!

    49. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      local government would require the companies that lay cables to sell usage of their cables at a fair price to competitors to promote healthy competition.

      The problem is: this makes it unprofitable to lay cables, as consumers are unwilling to pay the price for infrastructure.

      If the company laying the cables can't get exclusivity to sell services at a premium, then chances are that they won't ever recoup the cost of laying the cables.

    50. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey moron, what's a "fair price"? Who determines the "fair price"? Probably the same government control freaks that weaponized the IRS to go after their political opponents. Or maybe the OTHER government control freaks that have no idea how to balance a budget and therefore would run the whole system into the ground.

      You know the funny thing is, we have the exact system you so lovingly desire now and you still whine about it and blame capitalism. You're a retard.

    51. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Co-ops are NOT a great idea. We have them here in Texas, and they are just as bad in all aspects as the worst utility company.

    52. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by chiefmojorising · · Score: 1

      So... it doesn't suck by any definition, then?

    53. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution would therefore be to have the cables put in by a third party who is required to offer use fo the lines fairly to all or be removed by the goverment.

    54. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Dredd13 · · Score: 1

      I find it odd that you would think that "Randroids" would be in favor of government-mandated monopolies.

      It really goes to show how little you know about the people you intend to mock.

    55. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to tyranny, bagpipes are not required. Welcome to the natural human condition.

    56. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      That's because conservatives and progressive liberals and libertarians in fact agree on a lot, and oppose much of our current system - which is in fact a fascist economic system.

    57. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Tear up street once, lay down "conduit"...

    58. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      At $70/month for internet. I am sure Comcast could afford to lay down some cable.

    59. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Amish probably come closest to implementing Communism....and they're still not perfect.

    60. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      At $70/month for internet. I am sure Comcast could afford to lay down some cable.

      They wouldn't be able to charge customers nearly $70/Month if they had to sell usage of their cable to competitors with nondiscriminatory pricing.

    61. Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... by cavebison · · Score: 1

      I[n] REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition.

      No, Capitalism - the free market - does NOT LIKE competition. While every *small* company is trying to outdo their competition (which is good and manageable), every *big* company is trying to *kill* their competition (which is very very bad).

      You seem to ignore the fact that nothing can work without rules. Capitalism is not - and has never, ever been - about letting companies off their leash and go crashing about like bulls in China shops. When there is less regulation, things like the GFC happens, as well as people dying from smoking, asbestos, pollution, etc.

      Without government regulation of the market, you would not currently have cheap water, because there would only be 2 major water companies (after they'd killed all the smaller competition) and you'd have a choice between cheap and nasty, or clean and expensive. Give me one example of a deregulated market which has ended up providing consistent quality at affordable prices.

      The only time Capitalism works well, is when government regulates to *ensure* quality and competition. Smell the air in Beijing. That's the smell of lack of regulation. The GFC - lack of regulation. Yes, *too much* regulation is bad, and *not enough* (or inappropriate) regulation is also bad. It's not a zero-sum game, it's about getting the balance right.

  16. Old system by kegon · · Score: 1

    what the industry now calls POTS

    It's been called POTS for at least 20 years. Sheesh, kids these days

    .

    1. Re:Old system by quarxdmz · · Score: 1

      Old Reliable System

  17. Compromise. by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I will fight to keep POTS as long as you prevent all unlicensed use of select short-wave radio bands.

    1. Re:Compromise. by atomicthumbs · · Score: 1

      wait, what's the connection here? what bands?

      --
      http://pinopsida.com
  18. Cellular doesn't work by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm in Silicon Valley, and cellular just doesn't work very well. At least not Sprint's CDMA network.

    At home, I have to go to a window to get one or two bars, because the local community association doesn't want a cell tower nearby. I have a Sprint Airave box, which gives me a femtocell which mooches bandwidth from my IP connection. This gets me VoIP quality at cellular prices. If I lose Internet connectivity, I lose cellular connectivity. The Airave box is badly programmed; when it loses IP connectivity it still captures local handsets and insists it's the best path to the network. You have to disconnect its power to reach a cell tower instead.

    At TechShop Menlo Park, which is adjacent to a major freeway, I have to get near a window to get coverage. I'm not sure why there's a coverage hole there.

    For a long time, there was no Sprint coverage on the Stanford campus, because Stanford had an exclusive deal with AT&T.

    I was in San Jose recently, near PayPal HQ, and couldn't get Sprint connectivity until I drove up to a closed Sprint store. They have a femtocell so their demos work, and just outside the store, there was good connectivity.

    Even when it works, cellular voice quality sucks. Sprint finally seems to have fixed their delay problem, though. For a while I was getting delays as long as a second, with delayed echoes coming back, like some low-end VoIP system.

    The land line works great. Voice quality is very good, because it's only about 150 feet of copper to the big underground AT&T vault (the size of a shipping container, air conditioned, and full of racks of gear) out at the street. But there are no cellular antennas at that location; it's all wires and fiber.

    1. Re:Cellular doesn't work by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Funny

      stop using sprint, DUH

    2. Re:Cellular doesn't work by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      At TechShop Menlo Park, which is adjacent to a major freeway, I have to get near a window to get coverage. I'm not sure why there's a coverage hole there.

      Chances are, it's a steel-frame building. Which is probably the next best thing to a Faraday cage, plus whatever echoes and distortions the interior structure contributes. Then there's the questionable radio transparency of concrete floors and walls at cell frequencies.

      It's when you're outside and the coverage is crap that your should be concerned/annoyed.

      If interior coverage was that important to the company, I'm sure that they could arrange it.

    3. Re:Cellular doesn't work by Rhywden · · Score: 2

      You're forgetting the windows. Chances are that the windows are also coated in a thin metallic film (intended to reflect IR) to either keep heat out or in.

      Can see that easily at my parents home - as long as the glass door to the garden is open, their handheld has a connection to the base station. Glass door is shut - connection to the base station is lost.

    4. Re:Cellular doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are in Silicon Valley, and aren't using WiFi in the building? Use that and Skype the calls while at work. Easy-peasy.

    5. Re:Cellular doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. my inlaws are about a quarter mile from a cell tower. They have a new house. I don't know why but cell phones simply do not work in her home well. You have to stand by a window on the side of the house that faces the tower to get a weak signal. Can't imagine trying to call 911 if you do something like break a leg.

  19. POT is Constitutionally Protected by MarkvW · · Score: 1, Insightful

    POT is a constitutionally protected privacy interest. The airwaves are not.

    1. Re:POT is Constitutionally Protected by BlazingATrail · · Score: 0

      Constitutionally protected privacy? you are joking right? wires, air waves, your front door or cute laws are not going to stop your government from spying on you.

    2. Re:POT is Constitutionally Protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the Republicans said they want the death penalty for everyone that still uses POTS lines, no. You are incorrect. They want to murder you. You need to hide. The Republicans are horrific people that want to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans, and by admitting you don't recognize the Republican's right to murder you, you are fucked. They will murder you.

  20. or 2 competing providers before an area loses POTS by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's not a bad idea. I don't know if you meant truly universal, or "full coverage in the affected area". I think it would be fine to allow an experiment in a town that has had the POTS infrastructure already wiped out, if the town has at least two competing VoIP or wireless carriers with full coverage in the town.

    If it works okay in the town that had already lost POTS due to the hurricane, the same policy could be tried elsewhere. The phone company could drop POTS service in the county only if that leaves at least two providers of phone service with full coverage in that county. (Either two wireless, two, VoIP, or both).

    In theory, that would be good for everyone. According to the phone company that would be good for them because they wouldn't be forced to use antique methods for rebuilding the network in the town, then maintain it. Consumers would be guaranteed multiple choices and therefore competition. We wouldn't need the government (in cooperation with the phone company) setting rates at 28Â / minute like we had with fully regulated phone service in the 1970s and 1980s because the guaranteed competition would mean companies compete on price and service.

  21. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by dryeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem is the people outside of town. It's easy to have a cell tower or 2 in the centre of town but to have multiple towers will mean eating into their profits.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  22. At an affordable price by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Informative


    The price of a land line as far as I know is capped so even remote locations will be able to afford one. Not only that, but I believe that almost every location should be able to get a land line at this price and telcos are mandated to provide that service.

    If telcos want to go wireless, they are essentially talking about getting the "last mile" out of the equation. How they get (voice) data from and to the neighborhoods isn't mandated. This has already led to phone systems being out on the fritz when they are most needed, because phone companies decided to cheapskate on things like electrical power availability, line of sight and such. The telephone system has helped keep communications going for disaster areas throughout the last 100 years or so with varying amounts of success. Lets at least get them to do it properly if they are ever allowed to replace it so people can be certain it's affordable and it will work even in disaster circumstances when the reliability is required most.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:At an affordable price by lfp98 · · Score: 1

      The opaque price structures of both Verizon and the cable companies show just how essential a regulated service is. If the telcos want to abandon POTS, then in return they ought to be required to offer comparable service on whatever system they propose to replace it with, and at the same price it was on POTS, a price that can never rise more than inflation. After all, electronics costs are dropping all the time, and they ought to be saving millions not having to maintain 2 separate systems anymore. Instead they seem to be offering exactly nothing in return. Where it's still available voice + DSL can be had for $50. Any hardwired replacement, cable or fiber, approaches $100, and so does wireless with a data cap comparable to DSL (150 GB/month). In my area, you can't even get internet without also taking voice. It's criminal. The other thing they need to do is to ban bundling and teaser rates. Mandate standard, transparent pricing: one price for the connection, then separate prices for internet, TV and voice. As it is, the pricing structure all but forces consumers to buy entertainment services if they want a connection at all.

    2. Re:At an affordable price by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > The *HAM radio enthusiast community* has helped keep communications going for disaster areas ...FTFY. YW. HAND.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  23. bad deal. by strstr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So first there's a privacy risk although POTS can be tapped with a satellite or radar system, so even if it's constitutionally protected they're still tapping it.

    The real argument is: POTS is obsolete but fiber is it's successor. They should be requiring the phone companies to install fiber to all homes, providing 10Gbps+ Internet and access to network resources like VoIP and IPTV.

    The problem with an all wireless solution is limited capacity and radiation exposure. We've already ramped up emissions by millions upon millions of times, and it's literally causing DNA and brain injuries, preventing curing of cancer, causing species decline and extinction, and other problems. The Schumann resonance which the earth produces and all life is dependent on is literally being over powered by microwaves and other EMF causing all these different phenomena, including conditions like anxiety and schizophrenia.

    When you walk around you're walking in a field of EMF smog. The mind cannot turn off, and melatonin production is also dropping because the pineal gland which produces it is activated by EMF of all wavelengths and doesn't get the chance when being flooded with signals 24/7.

    Watch this video for one guys story. Who is Elisa Lam? On YouTube. Also covers bioelectromagnetic weapons development and their use by our governments to attack people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:bad deal. by ledow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "We've already ramped up emissions by millions upon millions of times, and it's literally causing DNA and brain injuries, preventing curing of cancer, causing species decline and extinction, and other problems. The Schumann resonance which the earth produces and all life is dependent on is literally being over powered by microwaves and other EMF causing all these different phenomena, including conditions like anxiety and schizophrenia."

      No.

      It's not.

      Please put your white-coat back on (in either sense - lunatic, or go and actually work in a science lab and prove it to yourself).

    2. Re:bad deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have been totally convinced by the well-researched sanity and rigorous analysis of the problem had you not blown it by using "it's" instead of "its" in paragraph 2.

    3. Re:bad deal. by anubi · · Score: 1

      If there is one thing I can say about POTS, it had to be the absolute least secure way possible of conducting a phone call. All the signals were pure clean analog, in the clear, and you could tap in on any of them at a telco connection block with just a headset and listen right in. Remember those phones the linemen would wear on their belts... thats how they found where the line went bad - just clip in and and see if they had a good line. Red and green... tip and ring. They were not even polarity sensitive until the touchtone pads came out. They would put 20 hz on the line to ring it, then put something like 48 volts through a resistor to the line to power up your microphone and dial, and you had a little inductive coupler to pick the signal back off the line to run the earpiece.

      The telephone company back in the 60's and 70's had their RIAA-style heyday with a lot of kids using "blue boxes" and the like to make free calls or prank calls through the long distance system. The magazine "2600" originated with this... it turns out one guy, going by the moniker "Captain Crunch" started spreading the word that General Mills just happened to distribute a little plastic whistle in boxes of breakfast cereal for a kid's toy, and this whistle just happened to emit one of the frequencies ( 2600 Hz ) which would divert a call to an 800 number to an outgoing trunk. Hilarity ensued there for a while. When I was a kid, it was all the rage to rip off the phone company for unpaid-for calls... many of which were prank calls to overseas for "bragging rights".

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    4. Re:bad deal. by atomicthumbs · · Score: 1

      The Schumann resonance which the earth produces and all life is dependent on is literally being over powered by microwaves and other EMF causing all these different phenomena, including conditions like anxiety and schizophrenia.

      Can I have some of what you're smoking? Whatever it is it sounds like it's good shit

      --
      http://pinopsida.com
    5. Re:bad deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odds of someone listening in on your phone calls at the telco pedestal is vanishingly small. As for making long distance calls, everyone's cell phone do not charge extra for domestic long distance anymore so long distance theft is hardly an issue anymore either.

      In my neighborhood, they would literally have to use an extension ladder and tap into the phone cable mid span between telephone poles to gain access. If the actually did that, my hat is off to them as that would take some major balls.

    6. Re:bad deal. by strstr · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't be worried about the Telco's listening in unless some rogue employee has in it for you. The constant danger is the military, police officials, other countries, and people in the public.

      Cellphones are tapped by satellites, and long range antenna. Next pots are, through a technique called van eck phreaking in which signals of cables can be remotely read and tampered with using directed-energy over great distances.

      In fact, any EMF emission can be remotely tapped and electron imaging can occur over long distances making nearly all biological and electronic processes identical and open to remote attacks.

      Anything which is not encrypted or heavily shielded is open to at least governments through their satellites and phased array antenna systems, which they call "Signals Intelligence" or "Radiation Intelligence."

    7. Re:bad deal. by strstr · · Score: 0

      I give you props man. I stopped caring about grammar and English years ago, though. I actually had the CIA beat my skills and knowledge out of me during years of torture sessions, which is both how I know as much as I do, and why I don't particularly dot all i's and cross all my t's.

      http://www.obamasweapon.com/ has the low down.

  24. That is a cost for the telco to consider by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I suspect in certain areas that would indeed be costly for the telco. They'd have to balance that cost against the cost of laying and maintaining copper if they had to cover the entire county. Would they rather keep providing copper to the whole county, or switch to providing fiber or wireless to the county? Either way, the entire county has service.

    1. Re:That is a cost for the telco to consider by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "I suspect in certain areas that would indeed be costly for the telco."

      And I say Boo Hoo. They are making record profits, so they dont have any right at all to while about costs of rural infrastructure and service.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:That is a cost for the telco to consider by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The coppers mostly already laid and was paid for by the government originally and now often the developers have to pay in new subdivisions. They also do a crappy job of maintenance with quite a few trees leaning on the lines where they don't use the electric poles (high voltage due to the damn).
      Here in Canada the telecommunication companies do still regularly have record profits.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  25. careful though - govt set rates at $2 / minute by raymorris · · Score: 0

    I understand where you're coming from. We should be careful, though. Back in the 1970s and 1980s we had tight regulations on long distance service and the government set the rate 40 cents per minute, which is $2 / minute in today's money.

    When regulations were greatly reduced and changed to promote competition rather than regulation, prices dropped to 10 cents almost immediately and then even further.

    That national experiment always comes to mind when people propose a new a list of government regulations and mandates to add. Sometimes less is more, we should be cautious of mandating too much, because that normally ends mandating stupid. You mentioned "service level changes". When I lived in Denver, it was illegal to reduce the emissions of my car, and reduce it's fuel consumption. Why? Because the area was one the federal government had identified as having too much pollution, so they required the state to inspect cars for "any modification that may affect emissions". A cleaner, more efficient exhaust system would emissions (reduce them), so it was illegal.

  26. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm OK with that.

  27. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A big thing is that they don't get to define 'coverage'. Too many areas they claim are covered have terrible and unreliable service. To be covered, it needs to have x signal strength INSIDE each and every home all the time. No dropped calls at all, and no drop outs.

    In other words, it needs to be at least as good as properly maintained copper. That also means they will need to have several days of backup power at each cell tower.

    And since it costs a lot less than POTS to install and maintain, we expect it to cost less than POTS service. Note that in many areas they will need a low cost voice only unlimited minutes for a flat fee rate.

  28. return of the cb etc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when moving backwards & lowering the levels of communication is presented as 'progress' http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=communications+sabotage&sm=3 nothing really new in centuries

  29. That's not an argument against regulations by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not an argument against regulations, it's merely an argument against putting horse judges and drinking buddies instead of professionals in charge of drafting, revising and enforcing regulations.

    1. Re:That's not an argument against regulations by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bingo. And the precipitous drop in rate was not really a function of de-regulation, per se, but of the requirement that the lines had to be shared. The barriers to entry were lowered.

      What we need is a full-on, forced corporate divorce of plant operations, provider/service/access operations, and content creation and distribution. You can't own more than one as a corporate entity at any level. Destruction of vertical integration offers only minor cost savings when compared to the cost increase a monopoly creates in the intellectual property area.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  30. Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here in the UK, our governments certainly have had many failings but your attitude is completely alien to our way of life.

    Over here, we understand that the best way to have real freedom and competition is to have more than one powerful competitor and the government actually works to make sure that happens.

    In the town I live in, there are two major supermarkets within 5-10 minutes walking distance of each other and there's another major one on the outskirts of town. If one of them does something stupid, then I would just move my business to another one.

    The same goes for other types of businesses.

    In other words, you are free to make as much money as you want in the UK (and Europe); you just have to do it in a socially fair and acceptable way.

    And BTW, while we are discussing American "freedoms", what's all this about about allowing people to ask for your receipts and inspect your bags when exiting a supermarket in the US even though you are not suspected of doing anything wrong ?

    Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the UK if a supermarket (like Tesco) was stupid enough to try that over here ?

    Such a concept of guilty until proven innocent is totally alien to our way of life and it would result in a massive backlash against the supermarket in question as well as a mass migration to supermarkets who did not treat their customers as criminals.

    For a country which has given the world so much, and rightly deserves to be recognised for such, it saddens me to see Americans talk about freedoms and then willingly subject themselves to things which would never be tolerated over here.

    1. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Froggels · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the UK if a supermarket (like Tesco) was stupid enough to try that over here ?

      Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the US if the major TV networks tried to implement a TV licence?

    2. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the UK if a supermarket (like Tesco) was stupid enough to try that over here ?

      Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the US if the major TV networks tried to implement a TV licence?

      In Canada we have an annual de facto television license fee called the taxpayer-funded Canadian Broadcast Corporation. Most of the time the programming aired on this network is reasonably good, in some cases it exceeds the quality of content from the United States of America. To name a few of the excellent television series over the years there is Street Legal, Road to Avonlea, Da Vinci's Inquest, Intelligence (not to be confused with the current series of the same name), and Murdoch Mysteries. For some reason the US network that picked up Murdoch Mysteries has renamed it the Artful Detective. In the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation can anyone argue about the excellent of Dr. Who: TOS? Anyway, my point is state television can produce good programming when sufficiently motivated.

    3. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably none, people are very willing to bend over the government.

    4. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the US if the major TV networks tried to implement a TV licence?

      Do you even know that most countries have a TV License? It just happens to be invisible in most other countries, because it's taken out of general taxation.

    5. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Teun · · Score: 1
      Neither do UK networks implement such a licence.

      The UK TV licence is a government mandated charge that pays for the public stations, worldwide known as BBC and the vast majority of voters is in favour of the system.

      You do have to pay extra for watching commercial channels like Sky, I'm sure similar exists in the US :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by metalmaster · · Score: 1

      The only grocer that usually checks my receipts is a wholesale warehouse where they dont have grocery bags. If you're seen carrying out a case of water bottles they'd like to see that you paid for that item. The folks at my local walmart just greet me at the door.

    7. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      "The UK TV license" is a federal tax. Don't let the name confuse you.

    8. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Teun · · Score: 1
      Don't use the word 'Federal' if you want to survive in UK politics :)

      But uhh, what is it you want to say?
      The TV licence is not a tax, it has one purpose only, to pay for the public broadcasting system and it is levied only on those in possession of a TV or radio receiver.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    9. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Described the way you said, the TV license should be renamed the BBC license because that's all it funds.

    10. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the UK, there is no 'Federal' that you speak of.

    11. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Federal in United Kingdom?

      What?

      Do you even understand what United Kingdom is? It's a union of four nations. There is no "federation" in there. It's a union of nations of England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland.

      These nations have far, FAR more independence than any state area in a federation would dream of.

    12. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And the "UK TV License" is enforced at a national level. I do apologize that my use of the word "federal" was confusing, that's an american distinction from state or county or city taxes. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my adjective? None of that means it is not a tax enforced throughout the entire UK, see http://www.publications.parlia...

    13. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > The TV licence is not a tax, it has one purpose only, to pay for the public broadcasting system and it is levied only on those in possession of a TV or radio receiver.

      Yes, it is a tax. Being dedicated to a specific purpose does not mean it's not a tax. That it is paid whether or not you _use_ the television shows that it is, indeed, a tax for ownership of a television. The world "license" is like pretending that a sparkling wine is not champagne, it's deliberately misleading. Refusal to pay this tax is a criminal offense in the UK, even if you take hardware components out of your television so it can't work with a television signal.

    14. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Teun · · Score: 1

      At the time the licence was instituted there was only one TV broadcaster..

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    15. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Neither do UK networks implement such a licence.

      The UK TV licence is a government mandated charge that pays for the public stations, worldwide known as BBC and the vast majority of voters is in favour of the system.

      As an Australian, I'd happily pay for a UK TV license (A$270 p/a) just to get access to the BBC's online content.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would you happily pay it if you didn't want or use any of the BBC's content?

    17. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Being someone who has lived in the UK and USA (and currently lives in neither, but still lives in a British territory) I can say quite honestly that's wrong. Only Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland comes anywhere near the level of autonomy that a state in the United States has (but both Scotland and NI fall far short of the level of autonomy that, say, Texas has from the Federal government). England and Wales have generally far less autonomy from the UK government than a US state has from the US federal government.

      British crown territories (such as the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Falklands etc) have more autonomy than a US state even to the extent that they issue their own passports, but the crown dependencies are *NOT* a part of the United Kingdom.

    18. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      The point is that some things you accept easily would create an uproar here and somethings that we accept easily would create an uproar there.

      And really, it's more about change period and the total picture of other taxes and history than it is about the particular change.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    19. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      And BTW, while we are discussing American "freedoms", what's all this about about allowing people to ask for your receipts and inspect your bags when exiting a supermarket in the US even though you are not suspected of doing anything wrong?

      With the exception of stores where you buy a membership and in so doing enter into an agreement that they can inspect your purchases, that's not allowed here unless the shopper agrees to it.

      It's perfectly fine for a merchant to ask a shopper "Can I look in your bags?" It's just as perfectly fine for the shopper to tell the merchant to go pound sand, but a lot of Americans are unaware that they have that right.

      Unfortunately, sometimes the merchants and law enforcement are equally unaware of these points of law, and so inappropriate things happen, but that's reflective on the particular idiots violating peoples' rights rather than our law as a whole.

      http://www.thelegality.com/200... is a pretty good summary of how it works over here, if you're interested.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    20. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Receipt checking in the USA? Survellance cameras everywhere in the UK? Ess-Tee-Eff-You!

    21. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I suspect your opinion is formed on the basis of opinions of some people that simply do not have any understanding of the actual legal facts on the ground in either country. Your mentioning of Texas for example suggests that you have an opinion that Texas has a legal right to secede from US - a fairly common misconception about that particular state held in certain strata of society. It does not in fact have such a right, as it would be unconstitutional, as states do not have a legal right to secede from USA, unlike member countries of United Kingdom. In fact the only way it could possibly do that, is to have a pan-US vote on the issue, which would be very difficult to organise, and would almost certainly result in a rejection.

      As a point of comparison, Scotland is setting a referendum in a few years, and all it needs for approval is majority of the residents of Scotland - rest of the Union has no say.

      There are similar differences in legal, financial, linguistic, cultural and other aspects of society.

      Crown dependencies are on the other hand not members of the Union, so they obviously don't count in the first place. Not certain why you chose to drag them into this.

    22. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Even if you never watch the BBC or any TV, you have to pay it. As long as you can receive BBC it is assumed you watch it.

      You don't really have a choice to pay it and need to resort to fraud to get around it. It is a tax in everything bu the name.

      In principle, requiring a fee to be paid for property you own and operate in your own home is ridiculous.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    23. Re:Spoken like an American; come to Europe instead by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Nope. I'm not mentioning Texas because of the supposed legal right to secede, it was chosen pretty much at random.
      Member countries of the UK do *NOT* have the right to secede, a special exception was made for the Scottish referendum so the UK parliament passed an act to allow this to go ahead. It took a new law to be made by the UK parliament to allow the Scottish referendum to take place. This act is called the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013. Scotland didn't have a right to do this until this act was passed. (The referendum is September this year, not in a few years, so your knowledge of the UK is perhaps not quite as good as you try to make out).

      A state in the United States can do things such as set its own sales and income taxes (no member of the UK can currently do this), states can set criminal law and penalties to a much greater extent than parts of the UK can, for example, the Welsh couldn't suddenly decide to introduce the death penalty, whereas US states can do this. The UK can also impose direct rule on a member, which has happened more than once to Northern Ireland when the squabbling parties couldn't come to any sort of compromise. Until recently, Wales didn't even have its own parliament. The Welsh assembly didn't get its first election until 1999 (and Wales has less autonomy than Scotland or Northern Ireland).

      I only mentioned the Crown dependencies because there is a common misconception that they are parts of the UK.

  31. Need to teach kids about amplitude by dbIII · · Score: 1

    We've already ramped up emissions by millions upon millions of times, and it's literally causing DNA and brain injuries

    Very strong signal do that, little one don't. Simple enough?

    1. Re:Need to teach kids about amplitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the engery in the photons is important. Microwave energy cannot cause DNA damage regardless of power (although indirect damage from heating is possible of course). The frequency has to be high enough to ionize chemicals.

    2. Re:Need to teach kids about amplitude by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that heating damage counts.

    3. Re:Need to teach kids about amplitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IR radiation from the sun shining on your head has a greater heating effect than any cell phone ever will. The sun also produces actual ionizing radiation both the radioactive and the ultraviolet kind. Don't hide in fear from cellphones. Hide in fear from the sun!

    4. Re:Need to teach kids about amplitude by strstr · · Score: 0

      if you watch the film, you begin to understand that DNA uses magnetic fields to conduct itself, to control particles and matter function. these fields can be disrupted by microwaves and EMF, thereby causing errors in DNA function. this may result in damages, injuries, and sickness over time. the effects cannot be reversed or stabilized.

      the secret to all life happens to be controlled magnetic and electromagnetic functions. otherwise matter cannot control itself or hold itself together. :D

      the molecular bonds of DNA and molecules can also be disrupted and torn apart by microwaves and EMF. some people refer to it as dustification.

  32. Public Domain by mverwijs · · Score: 1

    Yes. Drop POTS. Drop it and make it Public Domain. See what happens when you give us a little infra to build on.

    1. Re:Public Domain by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Yes. Drop POTS. Drop it and make it Public Domain. See what happens when you give us a little infra to build on.

      The meth-heads already started the POTS == public domain movement years ago. I think that is a glimpse of what a true public domain POTS future would look like.

  33. Opportunity lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My feeling on copper land line phone service. Is that its still a very viable service for many. From the traditional phone service, to being a solid communication link for security systems and disaster communications. We already know that wireless fails in comparison in capacity and reliability. I am not surprised that this is happening because people are making choices in what to spend their limited incomes on. Of course wireless trumps land line phones every time. I myself dropped land line service because the costs was far exceeding the value on a day to day basis.
    But let's also look at the lost opportunity of the phone companies who could have invested in fiber optics and not only improved on a old technology, but also would have had capacity to provide other services like broadband internet, TV services and possibly other products.
    But if the phone companies are unwilling to invest, then we cannot blame this surge in interest in eliminating it all together. I don't think its what we should be doing.

  34. What's stopping those companies now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that if ATT stops being a carrier, then no once can force them to be.
    Just sell off all responsibility for maintaining the POTS to some subsidiary and then close down the subsidiary.
    Wouldn't that be possible?

  35. Re:how about we keep both by anagama · · Score: 0

    When you say "Republicans", do you mean the New GOP (aka Democrats) or the Old GOP (aka parody of itself)?

    Once upon a time, Federal prosecutors got prison time for 1100 banksters in the S&L crisis (which was 1/40th the size of the "meltdown"). Exactly how many did Obama prosecute?

    And remember, it was under the current regime that GWB's due process free detention was expanded to include due process free execution, via secret legal memo no less.

    You Democrats make me want to puke. You're like a bunch of Nixons. Hell, Obamacare is just Nixon's healthcare plan with the liberal parts stripped out. And of course, Obama's NSA would have made Nixon cream his pants ... hourly.

    So just sneak off and have a heart attack already you partisan retard. Here's the hint: DNC===GOP===FuckingBastards

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  36. That is not capitalism either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Being good capitalists does mean using any means to destroy your competition and government is a good tool, fairly cheap and well armed.'

    It is crony capitalism.

    Real capitalism consists of a buyer and a seller who negotiate a fair trade where both can benefit, and everyone else keeps their freaking hands off it.

    1. Re:That is not capitalism either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Real capitalism is where you start off with many competitors and slowly whittle them down as one dominates the others either driving them out of business, or merging them into the fold, until eventually you have one giant monopoly controlling most/all supply and using sheer weight of capital to crush any competitors that attempt to enter the market. You get this with or without government intervention (sorry anarcho-capitalists, but your blind belief in competition solving all problems is sheer lunacy). And once all competition is gone, there is no incentive to compete on price, so the customers get screwed in the end. This is especially prevalent in large, infrastructure heavy businesses where huge capital is required just to start doing business, let alone compete with the incumbents.

      The only system that combats this natural evolution of capitalism is government anti-monopoly intervention (forcing large monopolistic entities to break up into smaller entities, and blocking mergers that will result in monopolies).

    2. Re:That is not capitalism either. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You are oversimplifying. What you describe happens where there are high barriers to entry. Not all barriers to entry are imposed by regulatioon. Many of them are natural.

      OTOH, where there are high barriers to entry, either natural, or created by government regulation, then monopoly will be the final state, unless there are higher bariers to monopoly. Please note, any line of business where there are fewer than around 10 significant competitors is tending towards monopoly. If there are more than around 10, then it is plausible that new competition is entering faster than old competition is being eliminated. ... But "significant" is tricky to define. Even "competition" can be difficult to define in the face of secret agreements and patent pools, etc.

      To put at it's most simple, neither the free market nor unfettered capitalism nor totalitarian control has ever existed in the historical record. We find many examples of societies tending in one direction or another. however. E.g., classical Greek civilization had an essentially unregulated marketplace. They were not notably successful economically, though they did do slightly better than did the Germans of the same time period (about which I know little), and extremely poorly compared to either the Egyptians or the Persians. OTOH, this may have been due to their tendency to invest heavily in their military...and to get into lots of fights with their natural enemies, the Greeks. (Athens and Sparta eventually wore each other into insolvency.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  37. No, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys are the biggest cronies, that is why I avoid both. But unfortunately my only other alternative is a big crony - TWC.

    Anyways - there are still many areas not covered/in range of a decent signal. And, call me crazy but I like that fact that POTS have their own power supply.

  38. Replace one utility with another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone is too focused on the telephone aspect of this. If you replaced POTS as a utility with an equivalent broadband utility, everyone could have VOIP, and once it's set up all the computer illiterate wouldn't even have to learn anything new. Cell phones are nice, but they aren't the right replacement for POTS.

  39. Weaseling out of regulatory obligation + Cash Grab by Chas · · Score: 2

    They want to be able to sell you wireless, internet, etc, etc. But if you look around, they're not going to let you out the door for anything less than $100 a month anymore.

    I had a client trying to figure out why AT&T was charging her $400/month for 2 "business" POTS lines. They told her she could reduce her bill to $150 if she took 2 POTS lines and a DSL connection. She already had Comcast cable and a Comcast phone line. Adding 2 lines to the Comcast plan would have cost $70 (the first 3 lines are usually the most expensive). But damn if that AT&T person didn't try the hard sell!

    Basically this is about shedding regulatory obligations and pumping the public for even MORE money. Make no mistake.
    They're still not promising universal coverage, coverage in underserved areas, higher speeds, etc. They're basically just trying to force the customers into paying more without the government coming down on them like a ton of baked shit bricks.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  40. Hello 911? by Cryacin · · Score: 2

    Can you hear me now?

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:Hello 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yup, got your GPS coordinates and have help on the way".

    2. Re:Hello 911? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      "Yup, got your GPS coordinates and have help on the way".

      NO SERVICE

    3. Re:Hello 911? by plopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One lesson from recent emergencies such as Katrina is that landlines are *much* more reliable than wireless. Ensuring good communications during emergencies is a legitimate role of government.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    4. Re:Hello 911? by twistedcubic · · Score: 5, Informative


      This is not how it works. I've called 911 on a cell recently, and on a land line around 10 years ago.
      When I called on the land line, the operator asked, "Are you MY NAME?", which means she had my information INSTANTLY.
      When I called on a "smart" phone, I had to tell the operator where I was, so she could forward me to the right jurisdiction, and there was a little hold time.
      To me, this is a big difference, because the time I called 911 on the land line, there were two men trying to break my door down, and being put on hold would not have improved my confidence.

    5. Re:Hello 911? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      True, but ensuring corporations remain profitable and the stock price goes up every year is the real role of gov't. At least until Citizens United get overturned.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    6. Re: Hello 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    7. Re:Hello 911? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 3, Funny

      And honestly when seconds count the police are only a few minutes away.

      In your sitation my phone call wouldve been notifying the police to have them pick up 2 guys who are approaching ambient temperature due to a nasty case of lead and copper poisoning

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    8. Re: Hello 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is not just 911, either. There are remote medical monitoring processes built around landline availability, for which there are no mobile equivalents, such as pacemaker monitoring. I have elderly relatives who depend on that infrastructure - and who have cellphones and would have already cancelled their landline service, except for that one use for which it is absolutely critical.

    9. Re:Hello 911? by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      the time I called 911 on the land line, there were two men trying to break my door down, and being put on hold would not have improved my confidence.

      Nothing says "get the F*** out of here" like the sound of a shell being chambered into a shotgun. It's universally understood and almost universally respected. If that fails to get the message across then the site and sound of a discharge from said shotgun is almost always enough. The first round in mine is always a blank, that way I can deliver a warning shot before laying down the lead. I can always call 911 after the invaders are dead. Forcible entry of uninvited guests, aka breaking down the door, is the textbook example of justified use deadly force in protection of hearth, family and home. I don't think that there's a jury anywhere in America that would begrudge a man that right when his home is being invaded with violence.

    10. Re:Hello 911? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Forcible entry of uninvited guests, aka breaking down the door, is the textbook example of justified use deadly force in protection of hearth, family and home.

      Speaking of which... do you have a recommended method of getting the shot delivered, before the perpetrators are finished breaking through the door?

      Often it takes the uninvited guests a while to complete the forcible entry due to the metallic cladding around the door, the high-security strike plates; additional steel reinforcement of the door frame, additional physical bolts.

      While it is clear they are working on getting through, and they will eventually succeed --- if not divert to a window instead.

      The problem getting the shot delivered is... until they have successfully broken through: there is a door in the way.

      Not wanting to do damage to the door, and possibly speed up their attempt to attack, or engage them face to face -- for fear that the uninvited intruders are armed --- can you think of a resolution, or way of getting the lead shot delivered successfully?

    11. Re:Hello 911? by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      Speaking of which... do you have a recommended method of getting the shot delivered, before the perpetrators are finished breaking through the door?

      I have a 357 magnum revolver that could probably penetrate the door, but I don't shoot at things I cannot see. It's dangerous and silly to try and shoot intruders you cannot see through walls or doors. This isn't the movies after all.

      Often it takes the uninvited guests a while to complete the forcible entry due to the metallic cladding around the door, the high-security strike plates; additional steel reinforcement of the door frame, additional physical bolts.

      Plenty of time for me to take up a good defensive firing position and make ready to lay into them as soon as they enter. I have the advantage of knowing the layout of my own home and the best firing positions so it's very likely that I would be able to fire several rounds before the intruders even knew which direction the shots were coming from. They would likely be dead or incapacitated before they could return fire.

      Not wanting to do damage to the door, and possibly speed up their attempt to attack, or engage them face to face -- for fear that the uninvited intruders are armed --- can you think of a resolution, or way of getting the lead shot delivered successfully?

      The door and maybe the windows too have already been damaged or destroyed by the attackers. As I've said, I would take up a good firing position with cover and surprise them after they entered.

    12. Re: Hello 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not just 911, either. There are remote medical monitoring processes built around landline availability, for which there are no mobile equivalents, such as pacemaker monitoring. I have elderly relatives who depend on that infrastructure - and who have cellphones and would have already cancelled their landline service, except for that one use for which it is absolutely critical.

      I am not calling into question your concerns about your elderly relatives but...the future has arrived.

      I know such monitors do exist in "the wireless world". For example, I know of some ambulance services in the North East US that have such monitors connected to the mobile wireless (not Wi-Fi) system. They use them in the ambulances (the actual box is small) and it does work well for immobile patients.

      In your case, ask your medical professionals if such devices exist for "mobile usage". I don't see why such technology couldn't be included in a device attached to a should harness like a Holter (cardiac) monitor. Now there is the matter of finding manufacturers for such a "niche" device.

    13. Re:Hello 911? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Heh, when I phone my land line company (we only have one) I have to enter the 10 digit phone number, then when you eventually get to living person the first thing they do is ask you for your phone number. Fvck knows why you have to enter it in in the first place. Fvck knows what happens to it afterwards.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    14. Re:Hello 911? by Zordak · · Score: 2

      Speaking of which... do you have a recommended method of getting the shot delivered, before the perpetrators are finished breaking through the door?

      I have a .30-06 that would easily go through the door, and through the intruder, and across the street, and maybe stop at the neighbor's stone fence. But you don't want to shoot at what you can't see, and .30-06 is not a great home defense round. Honestly, for most thugs, the sound of you racking a slide or loading a shell is probably enough to persuade them to pick another home to invade. If not, take up a good defensive position, and nail them as soon as they get through the door.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    15. Re: Hello 911? by jhumkey · · Score: 1

      You make an excellent point (I thought).
      Plus . . . no Cable Modems in my parents house area, so DSL comes in over POTS. And no, some places in RedNeck KY don't have 4GL, heck, we're lucky to have cellular service. So going "full wireless" for everything (Security links/Medical/mmorpg . . . wireless just doesn't always cut it.)
      One of the most important points everyone leaves out . . . Cellular Services had no sense of PRIORITY. Little Timmy calling Grandma after the "big wind" came through, to make sure Gamma's OK . . . ties up Cellular Channels, just like Tina calling 911 to say her husband is having a massive heart attack.
      Every time a little wind/lightning/thunderstorm/... comes through, everyone jams the Cellular lines with trivial traffic. (Here at least.) Heck, it can even be hard to get a line on Friday afternoon as work is letting off and everyone is gearing up for the weekend. (In total honesty this is 1000% better than it was 4 years ago.) Cellular capacity seems to be built for the AVERAGE load, not to sustain the PEAK load. And its a darn shame, when 911 calls can't make it through, because hundreds-thousands of people are making trivial calls. In my experience, the switched network nature of hard line switching circuitry does a better job of getting 911 calls through, even when Cellular networks are flooded. So yes, even though its burning a hole in my wallet, I'll have a wired phone in every house/apartment I have . . . for as long as they're available.

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    16. Re:Hello 911? by thienanvietnam · · Score: 1

      CÔNG TY C PHN T VN U T & THNG MI THIÊN AN VP HN: P.311 S 204 H Tùng Mu, T Liêm, Hà Ni T: 04.37.920.787 – 0439.949.829 - Mobile: 0983.958.379 – 0978.281.057 Mail: thienan2009.jsc@gmail.com - banhang.thienanvietnam@gmail.com VPD Min Trung: S 76 Trng Vn Lnh, Nghi Phú, TP Vinh, tnh Ngh An VPD phía Nam và TP H Chí Minh: Cm 10, khu ph 3, phng Trng Dài, TP Biên Hòa, tnh ng Nai: Ngi ph trách Mr Hiu: 0979.206.187 Website: http://www.thienanvietnam.com/http://thienanvietnam.blogspot...

  41. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might I add to the list of demands, that the voice quality must be as good as G.711 @ 64kps.

    Many times I use VOIP just because the voice quality blows away cellular. If you ever tried calling someplace that has a call center in India, you'd better be using a decent codec with VOIP or be using a landline. The combination of overcompressed cellular, overcompressed overseas voip, and a non native english speaker working on script make it sounds like you are conversing with an early 80's voice synthesizer hooked up to a crappy AI that fails the Turing test.

  42. Works both ways by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    That "inspection at the door" works both ways. On several occasions, Costco inspectors have noticed I forgot to pick up my Forever stamps, etc. Two of them are among the friendliest staff in the whole store, and if they catch someone taking stuff then that translates into them keeping MY prices down. Everything about Costco comes across as "a great and fair deal for all", and yet that is the only store I exit that checks my receipt.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Works both ways by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Just like a cop pulling you over to inform you that your tail light is broken and that you should fix it for your own safety!

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:Works both ways by justthinkit · · Score: 2

      I question the sincerity of your response, but can agree with the point that different inspections have different levels of gain for both parties.

      Parents checking the texts on their kid's phone can learn quite a bit, and this is a good thing, even if the child would freak if she found out.

      Your local auto repair shop is probably looking for extra work when they tell you your radiator could use a flush. But this is a relationship, that can work both ways. If they report stuff as broken that ain't, you find some other repair shop. If they are right about the radiator flush, you thank them (at least to yourself) and the relationship improves.

      Your employer checking what you say on Facebook is not a bad thing. Them requiring you hand over your password is beyond a bad thing. Still, it also serves to tell you that you don't want to work for this company...and that is a good thing.

      Not everything is a zero sum gain, denzacar.

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re:Works both ways by denzacar · · Score: 0

      Not everything is a game. Or a sum. Period.

      The issues involved can't be quantified numerically, and then just put through an equation until everyone is equally happy or miserable.
      Nor could we call such a process just, good, right, proper or any other similar positive term.

      If I'm stopped with no reason and unjustly accused of a crime just for shopping there (Which is what asking for a receipt is. Next time try not having it on you and see how it goes.) - I'm not shopping there anymore.
      And I'm raising a fuss prior to that. See how that goes regarding their promotions and stamps.

      As for your other examples, it appears to me by what you are letting slide and in which way (centering on authoritative and economical aspects of human interaction and disregarding the moral issues like spying, stealing, more spying and workspace harassment) that you are either purposefully putting those up as strawmen OR that you really don't see anything wrong there.

      A parent-child relationship with no trust or privacy, where children are objects and not persons. Nice.
      A commercial relationship where both trust and honesty hinges on the question of technical abilities of both sides, along with the ability of one side to trick the other without them noticing it - and if they do, that's OK. Cheating - fine if you can get away with it.
      And a "I'm your boss, I'm your god" relationship which allows employee fuck-all of options - they can choose having no privacy or no job.
      And that, according to your argument, is just as it should be. Even more, "that is a good thing."

      Did you check with your psychiatrist lately? You may be a psycho.
      Or working for the NSA. But I'm repeating myself there.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    4. Re:Works both ways by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The only places I normally shop that "check at the door" are Frys and Costco. Both carry expensive items. I don't really like being checked, even there, but they don't know me, and even if they did, allowing me to pass without checking would be unfair to those they didn't know.

      So in both cases I understand why they do it. I may not like it, but I understand. The world is not an ideal place.

      OTOH, even most stores that don't check have security cameras. Generally at least one is focused on the til. I only thought it was focused on me while you were being checked out. When I checked it out, I found otherwise. (Yeah, I'm uncomfortable about being spied on, even if I can be accepting if I see the need.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Works both ways by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you think security cameras are a problem.

      Let's study the behavior of a customer called Nefarious. He opens packages in the store, pocketing a handful of delicious Lindt chocolates here, and pouring half a pound of Starbucks beans into his other pocket over there. A quick checkout for his case of Bud and then he breezes through the exit doors.

      Retail has slim profit margins. Grocery stores, it is like 1 or 2%. At Costco let's say it is 5%. But the cost of Nefarious's visit is beyond what he took out. He left a $9.89 bag of Lindt that is fit only for the break room. Same for the Starbucks bag -- all 5 pounds of it. That case of Bud only cost ...I have no idea, not having consumed alcohol for 30 years, but let's say $18. Rough calculation, the store made a buck on the Bud, and lost $20 or $30 on the other two items. How long can they sustain that?

      A big part of store security is deterence. You won't stop everyone, but cameras, or store walkers, or receipt checkers will discourage many from abusing the system.

      I want to shop at a place that deters cheat, crooks and scumbags. This is definitely a case where, if you are not breaking the law what do you have to be concerned about?

      Getting back to your camera concerns...When you were going through the checkout, the cashier was watching you. If you pocketed something, or tried to slip something past them in the bottom of your shopping cart, they would catch it. Cameras "see" more but notice a hundred times less. IOW, on average no one ever looks at you on tape. It is there to settle the question of did someone put something in their pocket (or what did the guy with the cap gun look like)?

      If you really want to be creeped out, go to a clothing store. The level of security and inconvenience there is very off-putting (to me anyway). Stuff is cabled together. Huge dongles hang off that T-shirt you wanted to try on. There is a limit on how many things you can try on in the change stall with 2 foot tall saloon doors. Etc.

      Still, the only camera that would bother me is one (1) in a change room, or (2) in a toilet stall. I'm not aware of any of those...

      --
      I come here for the love
    6. Re:Works both ways by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're a problem, I just don't like them. There *is* a difference. They don't become a problem until their footage is made available to non-local observers. I don't want uninvolved people to be able to say "OK, at this time of day he's not home." That's setting yourself up for a break-in. So I'd have a problem with it if, e.g., they posted the footage on the internet. As it is I just don't like it...and not really that strongly, but strongly enough that if it was just as easy to get merchandise of equal quality at about the same price from another store, I probably would.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  43. Customers are abandoning PSTN by Kjella · · Score: 1

    It's easy to say it's just the phone company pushing it but here in Norway there used to be 2.6 million land lines (PSTN/ISDN). In the last statistics (H1 2013) there's less than 600.000 and the trend has been >10% reduction each year, so probably less than 550.000 right now. Fiber and cable are growing, xDSL is dropping the moment people get alternatives. Practically everybody already have a cell phone and would never consider dropping it, so price wise you can be on the cell phone forever before you break even having a land line as well. In the cities with multiple choices of Internet providers and plenty cell phone towers it's all but dead, serving a few elderly and such that don't want or need anything else.

    I'm one of those with no land line, I have fiber + cell phone and if the power goes the fiber line goes too. Long story short, if all the towers near me go down or I can't get charge for my cell phone for so long that it's actually a problem - if I forgot to charge mine and there's an emergency I'd bang the neighbors' doors - then we're in deeper shit than me not having a cell phone. I worry as much about not being able to call for an ambulance roughly as much as being struck by lightning twice in a row. If you live on a farm far out in a rural area with crap cell phone coverage and your land line is truly your life line to civilization it's different, but I don't think it's necessary everywhere. That said, who says a tree won't fall over and take down a telephone pole or a land slide wash out a ground cable?

    If I wanted to be really safe, I'd rather not depend on any local infrastructure at all and use something like inReach which I could bring along and will work no matter where I am as long as I got clear sight to the sky. Imagine you take a nasty fall and break a leg, do you really want to crawl all the way back to your land line? What if you're stuck and can't get loose? Yes, it costs a bit ($300 + $12/mo cheapest plan) and is only useful for emergencies but consider it like fire insurance - be happy if you don't have to use it ever. Of course you need to have a decent replacement for day to day activities, but it kind of puts a cap on how much the "emergency service" of land lines are worth. Cell phone only service would suck, but there's no way I'd turn down fiber or cable to replace copper.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Customers are abandoning PSTN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Norway you have two advantages: your infrastructure is guided by strong government regulation, and, to be blunt, you are the size of California with a small population. LoS is fine and dandy when you have sight lines; but what if you have a range to the southeast, where the GEOSAT orbits? SoL. Here, we have two large mountain ranges. The Appalachian Mountains are bigger than Norway, alone. We also have large stretches of the country with low population densities, because they are used for farming or industry. In fact, when you get away from the east coast, west coast, or major city hubs, it's many of the issues you have with isolated Russian communities. Telecoms here, if they don't see a good financial return for the investment, won't put in for fiber in these areas. Hell, in the mountains here(Asheville, NC), cable companies won't lay lines unless you have a whole community who requests it; and it has to be a certain number. Dishes are everywhere around here; but internet over sky is slow and pricey. They still rely on POTS for internet/communications. We're a first-world country with third-world problems.

  44. One of the many reasons capitalism is sub-optimal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Which is one of the many reasons why capitalism is sub-optimal for society: various assumptions such as perfect competition, communication, zero transaction costs etc leading to the conclusion that it is the most efficient model are blatantly incorrect in the real world. Steve Keen has showed this cleary, and Stiglitz demonstrated it ages ago. Still, our dear politicians conveniently forget about these findings and others from a long time ago, such as those by Kropotkin, and continue on the same descending road to nowhere. When will we start discussing political economics seriously again ?

  45. Re: Spoken like an American; come to Europe instea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can ask all they want but they can't force you to unless you agree to it at one of the "clubs" like Sam's club, and only then the recourse is to cancel your membership. At Walmart, when they ask for your receipt you can keep walking. I usually don't because it'll get the poor old lady or disabled person they have doing it fired.

  46. Doomed by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    AT&T and Verizon have been abandoning rural phone for years now. They sell their rural territories and invest in metropolitan areas because there's less expense in metropolitan areas. The same equipment that serves 100 people in a rural area serves 10,000 in newyork. Yet it costs the same. These laws force AT&T to serve the rural customers they have.

    If they do away with these laws then the only option rural customers will have (the majority of the country) is cellular if it's available... and in many areas it is not. Even if you can get cellular, how much will that cost? Will AT&T provide cellphones at a price poor farming families can afford? Or are we going to further penalize those that choose not to live in smog choked city centers?

    I agree there must be some deregulation. The cable companies and satellite providers have a distinct and unfair advantage over those services that are under regulation (telcos) But those telcos are under those regulations for a reason and we can't lose sight of that. They've used their easements and regulatory position for decades for profit. I'm sorry they aren't working so hot for them now, but sometimes you've got to pay the piper.

  47. Re:negative consequences of wireless telephone sys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are worried about EM radiation, a proven non existent risk, space aliens finding earth, another non plausible risk, and the future incomes of criminal scrappers stealing phone lines.

    You are one weird delusional person.

  48. The UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK is one of the most fascist countries in the world, probably nr. 2 after the USA. What the fuck are you talking about?

  49. Re:Spoken like someone from UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Here in the UK", "We undersatand the best way to have real freedom"?

    Don't you live in a country where it makes the news if you walk down the street with a kitchen knife? Where you are not allowed to take a picture of the Queen eating? Where you are not allowed to make disparaging comments about the Queen even if she does something stupid?

  50. swap for broadband by tekneeque · · Score: 1

    As long as broadband access can be guaranteed at reasonable price, it's all good.

  51. Imagine how many new cell towers there would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If they are allowed to proceed with this, because you have to have *a* service at any time.

    They will blanket the areas with signals so saturated and strong, people within them will be literally cooking - in much less time than they are now.

    We are talking about cancers within months not years.

    Then again, one industry supports another, right?

    Pharmas will love this deal, as well as the entire cancer treatment machine, because there will be a magnitude more patients than before. Win-Win, really.

    Oh, I guess we are the only ones fucked in the deal..

    1. Re:Imagine how many new cell towers there would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. You need to start taking some meds. No it's not a big pharma conspiracy, you are mentally ill suffering from paranoia and delusions and need psychiatric treatment. Seriously!

    2. Re:Imagine how many new cell towers there would be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are allowed to proceed with this, because you have to have *a* service at any time.

      They will blanket the areas with signals so saturated and strong, people within them will be literally cooking - in much less time than they are now.

      We are talking about cancers within months not years.

      Then again, one industry supports another, right?

      Pharmas will love this deal, as well as the entire cancer treatment machine, because there will be a magnitude more patients than before. Win-Win, really.

      Oh, I guess we are the only ones fucked in the deal..

      Oh no...the "tin foil freaks" have come to life on /.

      What is next? A zombie attack?

  52. You don't have to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Showing your receipt is not a requirement. Unless the shoplifting sensor goes off, you are very much free to smile and say no thank you.

  53. Kill POTS and replace it with what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many examples that show that Cell is not the complete solution, especially when the chips are down.
    That doesn't say that Plain Old Phone Service can't be replaced with something more useful.
      Hopefully, still with wires or fiber unless they figure out how to repeal the laws of physics.

    We could eventually have Plain Old Digital Service (PODS), but not without rules to balance the natural monopolistic tendacies of telecommunications with the needs of the public for an essential service. I fear the phone companies want to be released from their existing necessary obligations without taking on a new set.

    The correct response from the regulators should be :
        'Nice try. Now let's sit down and figure out how to properly regulate this new digital stuff.'
    I hope the regulators are up to the task.

  54. Landline replacement and fiber by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    If you're running fiber to the premises (as basically all decently fast and non-latent Internet access entails), then it's trivial to include POTS functionality in the endpoint terminal at the home of business. Carriers should be required to maintain the POTS network until they come up with a better, non-wireless solution to replace it. I think that, in general, the network will be maintained IN MOST areas for at least another 10-20 years. Too much legacy equipment that's dependent on it right now. Even in Verizon areas damaged by Sandy (Fire Island), Verizon is changing their mind about providing shitty wireless service only and will be providing FiOS service.

  55. Dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the power goes down for any length of time, the phone lines are the only thing running. You still have people in some areas of the country where wireless communications aren't an option. Here in the Asheville area, I'd go on EMS calls to places with zero reception. If not for a POTS, these people, 25-40 minutes by mountain roads from the nearest ER, would be dead, in some cases. The wireless companies have shown little motivation to set up towers or lay lines in such areas, as it isn't profitable. If the major lines of communication were government-controlled, and the telecoms were true service providers(as they are in other countries), service wouldn't be an issue. We need the POTS, if only as a back-up system in case of emergency. That, or make the tower/fiber system a national system required to have nationwide reach(ignoring that stupid Verizon map. that thing is total BS).

  56. Re: Spoken like an American; come to Europe instea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously ?

    Someone can get fired because you continued walking out the door ?

    Wow. I'm glad I don't live in the US. :-(

  57. 81 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mom is 81 and got swindled into a cell phone by AT&T. It was the worse mistake ever. She couldn't figure out the new technology. Simple things like checking her messages were impossible for her.

    I can only imagine that feature phones will go away and that smartphones will be the norm. This will make it impossible for my mom to deal with.

    She needs a simple phone that works via landline. PERIOD.

  58. What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Randroids rule the day"? "FREE MARKET"?
     
    You have no idea what you're talking about. There pretty much isn't a legal free market left in the US. We're talking about public utilities here that are on their last leg and are probably costing as much to maintain as what they bring in. Overall a net loss.
     
    Government is forcing private business to lose money by enforcing regulation. Show me the free market in that.

    1. Re:What the fuck? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

      Yes, truly on their last leg. I believe a Verizon employee tried to wash my car windshield at light the other day. Or maybe he was going door to door selling FIOS because it is incredibly profitable for Verizon.

  59. It's all a part of the plan... by rgbatduke · · Score: 0

    ... of the space aliens that are coming to take over the earth and set up a huge "meat" processing plant. First it is the phone lines and the copper cable. Next it will be the power lines -- all in the name of this fake "global warming" that is really caused by invisible heat rays beamed in from outer space. Then they will drop a neat pattern of small rocks from space down on the cell phone towers that might as well have "kick me" painted on them, electromagnetically speaking. Finally they will cut the optical fiber network and we'll all be isolated so they can come collect us one at a time to turn us into alien spam, and I don't mean of the internet sort.

    Quick! They monitor all communications already and take action against any who dare oppose them! We must get the word out! I for one refuse to bow to our alien overlo

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:It's all a part of the plan... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      "we only wish to serve mankind"

    2. Re:It's all a part of the plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... of the space aliens that are coming to take over the earth and set up a huge "meat" processing plant. First it is the phone lines and the copper cable. Next it will be the power lines -- all in the name of this fake "global warming" that is really caused by invisible heat rays beamed in from outer space. Then they will drop a neat pattern of small rocks from space down on the cell phone towers that might as well have "kick me" painted on them, electromagnetically speaking. Finally they will cut the optical fiber network and we'll all be isolated so they can come collect us one at a time to turn us into alien spam, and I don't mean of the internet sort.

      Quick! They monitor all communications already and take action against any who dare oppose them! We must get the word out! I for one refuse to bow to our alien overlo

      Oh no...the wackos are out on /. tonight. It looks like this posting woke up the "tin foil hat" brigade.

      What's next? A zombie attack?

  60. It's all about shirking regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regulations have not kept pace with technology, as usual, so the regulations that cover the POTS system were never evolved to also cover the wireless systems. So, Big Telecom can get out from under all of the regulations that were designed to save lives and provide affordable communications to everyone, and instead focus on ass-raping everyone for $400/month, which is their target monthly revenue per customer.

  61. They can have that.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    When they require all Internet providers to have common carrier status and be regulated as such.
    I also want all ISP's that have no direct competition to a customer to be forced to regulated pricing and bandwidth. IF you are a monopoly in an area you are not allowed to rape your customers like Comcast and Verizon gleefully do.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  62. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISPs aren't common carriers and that's what you're talking about in your highly praised reform act.
     
    At least try to stay in the same industry with the same regulations when you're going to try to make it seem like government regulation made "thousands" of new businesses spawn from the ether.

    1. Re:Wrong by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      correct. Neither are Wireless companies or Cable companies.... the concept of "net neutrality" hinged on that idea that POTS was essentially a "right" to all homes and businesses. The new technologies have no such requirement, in fact the courts keep pushing them back. Imagine that companies want to kill off the only "open" service?

  63. There are reasons to keep the POTS going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    POTS is useful and still superior in a few ways...

    1.) Modems in FAX machines for example are still heavily used. One could argue that FAX is also outdated and technically, it is but that doesn't change the fact they are still used. There are converters that can be had but the performance is not all that great.

    2.) All fire alarm systems I've run into REQUIRE a dedicated POTS line. Security alarm systems can share lines but they still need to be POTS or be forced to use a much more expensive cellular system.

    3.) POTS works during a power outage. For the fire alarm example above, the alarm system has a battery but what about all the other equipment the signal must pass through to get to the outside? All that stuff needs power as well and may not have it in the event of a fire. For security, without a POTS line, taking out power could knock out the alarm system.

    There is a reason its called the PLAIN old telephone system - it's incredibly simple from a customer standpoint and that simplicity is an advantage that has be used in many ways that would force a lot of expensive changes for customers of not just the phone company.

  64. Will somebody please... by Endloser · · Score: 1

    think about the privacy?!

    While the PSTN may be illegally tapped as routinely as I eat pizza, evidence gathered in such a way is not admissible in court. It is only a short matter of time before we likely see our other communications showing up in court without warrants to obtain. With the NSA's data harvesting being public knowledge and law enforcement agencies able to request it there will no longer be an expectation of privacy. Our governement has done a great job labeling all forms of dissent "terrorism" and will stop at nothing to prevent political reform.

  65. Good idea by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Get rid of copper POTS and the regulation surrounding it. Enact new regulation requiring the same level of service along with low end data be provided over fiber to each home.

    Just because copper as a medium is obsolete does not mean the necessity of communication service is obsolete.

  66. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by Rhys · · Score: 1

    Even though I'm in town I'm not sure I buy cell over POTS. I have this thing called a basement (actually, under the front porch, concrete coverage 90-95% on all 6 sides -- small wooden ceiling/floor at one end), and I live in the midwest, where hiding in it from tornadoes is a thing that we do. I also have a buried landline (won't get snapped by falling trees). As soon as the cell companies can get me signal in the bunker, then we can being the conversation about removal of the POTS line.

    Barring that we can talk about other technologies that would substitute and fill a similar feature set. Buried FTTP would be an acceptable substitute. Sure, there's the power loss issue for signaling in a disaster event from my end (though that's a signal in and of itself), but I'm willing to take that burden and USPes aren't really that complex a technology nor that high a cost. For the sort of trouble expected here (tornado/wind damage), FTTP should be about as reliable as POTS.

    --
    Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
  67. power corrupts, incompetence is common by raymorris · · Score: 1

    In some alternate reality, where gravity pushes things apart, power doesn't corrupt, most people are highly competent at their jobs, and water is dry your comment is relevant. In this universe, lawmakers are chosen by either by a popularity contest or by whoever has the most guns. Those in power stay there by the loyalty of their friends and they reward that loyalty. In this universe, people rise to the level of their incompetence. That's not a suggestion of how it SHOULD work, that's a law how things DO work, just like the law of gravity. Wishing otherwise doesn't change anything.

  68. offices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all the offices, hotels, hospitals that i been to use landlines. not sure if they would switch to cell phones.

  69. Fuck No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want to get rid of POTS because they're common carriers when it comes to telephone service, but not when they provide VOIP. If they want to get rid of POTS we have to get something in return, like common carrier status for ISPs along with right of universal access.

  70. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Those poor saps might then have to connect remote towers with rural telephone lines paid for by decades of extra fees on everyone else. Perish the thought.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  71. Extremely false, but that's okay. 15 years of poor by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That could hardly be more wrong, but I don't think it matters. Telco profits were good 15 years ago. Since then - not so much. NOBODY has made record profits in the last six years because the economy is in the shitter, if you haven't noticed. (Modulo than a few campaign contributors who get paid directly by the government for maybe building solar panels some day.)

    I don't see how that matters at all, though. If Verizon and AT&T want the rules changed, it's reasonable to expect them to adjust so that the changes don't cause problems for consumers. They've always been required to provide complete coverage, historically via copper wires. If they want to provide complete coverage via fiber, wireless, or coax instead that's fine. Dropping coverage may not be okay. Their profit or loss really isn't relevant to the discussion.

  72. So we should condone corruption? by dbIII · · Score: 1
    However your strawman of an inflexible regulation is the opposite of how such things are intended to work. They are supposed to be an aid to a functioning society instead of an impediment to society or a barrier of entry to new players.
    You'd do well to remember such overstatement is often a tactic of those who use "small government" as code for "not enough oversight to catch me accepting bribes".

    In this universe

    Politically partisan, ignorant and insulting I see. It may work the way you suggest where you live because the people you are cheering for appoint horse judges and drinking buddies to make it that way and then blame the effects of incompetence and nepotism on the very idea of a regulatory framework. Take a look at other places where political parties are not recently descended from gangsters and you'll see your "in this universe" as the worthless pile of shit excusing corruption that it is.

  73. Real Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real Communism, you just start with a monopoly that doesn't have to every worry about actually making customers happy because there will never be any competition. People who suggest competition will then be targeted as trouble makers and dealt with.

    At least taxes will be easer with that. How much did you make this year? Give us that much. lol

  74. They are forcing customers to switch already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon at least has been forcing people to switch for the longest time I know that for a fact. They force you to move to FiOS voice if you still have a POTS line. They never repair POTS line problems and constantly disconnect it when they work in the area. My mother had a POTS line, it stopped working, called they fixed it once. Then Verizon worked on her street again, broke it, she called, they yelled at her that they can't be coming out to fix her line over and over again, when it was Verizon that broke it in the first place. She got pissed off but switched because she needed a working phone. When Sandy hit she hated FiOS voice because she didn't understand how to get the phone to run on the UPS for emergency calls.

    Bottom line, is Verizon is probably saying to states they only have very few people that have POTS installed, but truth is it's only like that because Verizon REFUSES to fix POTS line problems, so many people switch unhappily to whatever alternative is available to them because they NEEDED a working phone. For the elderly people, POTS lines work as they expect them to. You pick up the phone and dial in emergencies even if you lost power. For the newer system, elderly people don't quite get that fiber line is powered by your house power and in emergencies a UPS. You have to turn the UPS on in emergencies to power the phone to dial out. Not exactly something good during real emergencies for elderly people when the UPS is usually installed in the basement.

    1. Re:They are forcing customers to switch already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have to "turn on the UPS in an emergency"...you are doing it wrong. Very wrong.

  75. POTS: Post Office Telephone Service - Ben Franklin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's hard to accept how stupid corporations are compared to, say, revolutionary patriots.

    What's left of the choices they made to assure a republic?
    And what should we be doing to try to keep it?

    The Post Office of today is POTS.

  76. Escaping Technology or Regulation by PPH · · Score: 1

    The telcos want to drop their old copper loop technology? Fine. But mandate that they offer a basic broadband+VoIP service in its place with the same universal service, common carrier requirements. If its the regulation they want to escape, sorry. That just shouldn't happen. If we let one entity escape the rule of law by fiddling with definitions, then we start down a slippery slope.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  77. With a couple billion in investment by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    The copper plant is still usable. Taking the bridge taps off means you can sling data pretty fast and far over a copper twisted pair.

    I say if they want to walk away let groups use it for their purposes. For example, it'd be a good backhaul for a little data project I want to do in my district.

  78. the current GOP by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    When I say "Republicans" I mean the people who vote against Net Neutrality...

    the same ones who deny Climate Change, try to make abortion illegal, always vote for tax breaks for the rich, start wars to increase personal profits

    those people

    just name a policy, any policy, and it is **always** Republicans who are voting to enrich Oligarchs and further enslave everyone else

    seriously, if you're still confused, just **name a policy** and it is easy to discern which are Republicans

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:the current GOP by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      So basically, you're an ignorant fuck that rates right along side Fred Phelps for your ability to group people and be prejudice against them while being utterly fucking ignorant about the world and discussion in question.

      When you say republicans, you mean 'I'm a fucking moron who things my blue team is different and special and nothing like the red team'.

      You're an idiot who's fallen hook line and sinker for the politics.

      Let me guess, when you say black people, you mean those people who rape the womenz and steal/loot all the time, right? Thats basically what you're saying.

      Show us some more of your ignorant prejudice.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re: the current GOP by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      The entire political system is broken! We need smaller government across the board - not just where it is politically inconvenient. I say start by getting rid of most of the bloated executive branch. Do we really need so many law enforcement agencies? Let's also get rid of the spying agencies. Then let's start by axing the judicial branch. No more Supreme Court appointments - justices must be elected every 6 years with a two term limit.

    3. Re: the current GOP by globaljustin · · Score: 0

      hey DaMattster interesting comment

      I don't believe we need "smaller government" as a guiding principle but I'd be strongly in favor of eliminating all kinds of government expenditures on defense, corrections, redundant criminal justice agencies (as you mentioned) etc. etc.

      I think we should end the CIA and FBI completely, and re-organize along function...then if the gov't wants they can have ***one*** secret org...DIA, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security...seriously it's criminal.

      The supreme court thing is interesting...I'm kind of conservative in this area in that I prefer to leave our system as originally intended when possible, but I can see an argument for that.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  79. The problem with that is... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    copper very much either works or it doesn't. It's reliable, but once it starts degrading it goes fast.

    Cell service can often _barely_ work. This leaves you in the position of fighting tooth and nail with a phone company to get the service you've been promised. Unless you're wealthy you going to lose that fight.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  80. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    The problem is the people outside of town. It's easy to have a cell tower or 2 in the centre of town but to have multiple towers will mean eating into their profits.

    One other thing to note is that cell towers have limited range, dependent on a myriad of factors it can be as little as several hundred yards to 10 miles. Do you know how many towers would be needed to cover, say, rural Nevada or Utah? It's completely unfeasible from a cost stand point. If they tried, everyone's basic cell service would cost over $500/month, nationwide. Besides, they would still need the cables in the ground to get the signal from place to place because wireless interconnects would only be line-of-sight.

  81. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by sconeu · · Score: 1

    "Coverage" is a joke.

    I'm the guy who posted this story about a year and a half ago.

    Based on the comments, I went with T-Mobile. I live INSIDE the City Limits of Los Angeles. T-Mobile's "coverage map" showed decent signal at my house. I COULD NOT get a single bar.

    If carriers can't provide wireless coverage to people inside the city limits of the second largest city in the country, why should we trust them to do it for those people out in the sticks?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  82. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    $500/month?

    Bullshit.

    If you know anything about how much profit they rake in you wouldn't say such retarded things.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  83. Technological control has gotten out of hand by TreecieBoix · · Score: 1

    Live in small communities near family and friends, work the land, talk to people in person, barter, use carrier pigeons, starve the NSA and all the voracious government agencies and the multi-nationals. But you might need a spaceship/habitat to get away.

    1. Re:Technological control has gotten out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live in small communities near family and friends, work the land, talk to people in person, barter, use carrier pigeons, starve the NSA and all the voracious government agencies and the multi-nationals. But you might need a spaceship/habitat to get away.

      Oh no...the "tin foil freaks" have come to life on /.

      What is next? A zombie attack?

      magic word: groaners

  84. I'm a POTS fanboi... by the_rajah · · Score: 1

    We had a tornado in our neighborhood in 2006. Power was out for 7 days and cable was out for 10. Cell service ceased working reliably because the cell towers were out. POTS never hiccuped, even as the tornado was overhead. I still had access to dialup Internet so I could at least do email.

    Both AT&T, my POTS provider and Comcast, our cable provider, keep bugging us to switch to VOIP. I keep saying "No" for reason of reliability. There's nothing quite like having a pair of copper wires back to a central office powered by a big battery. Yes, we do have phones that don't require line power to operate including one in the basement where we shelter in a severe weather situation.

    Then there is my ham radio equipment which has battery backup.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  85. Cutting off the poor from participating in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut off POTS, cut the Post Office down, same idea as this from not too long ago (hat tip to Metafilter):

    Look the negative in the face

    "In the early 1970s, arson became a spectacular growth industry. Buildings throughout the borough were burned intentionally in an effort to recoup much of their lost value. In 1976 Roger Starr, city housing commissioner, later New York Times urban affairs editor, proposed a plan he called “Planned Shrinkage.” The city, he said, is divided into neighborhoods that were “productive” and others that were “unproductive,” a drag on the tax base. We have to eliminate the unproductive. This meant to “stop the Puerto Ricans and rural blacks from living in the city.” If we turn off water, electricity, sanitation, and stop making repairs when systems break, we can drive the unproductive out. In the past, the urban system took “ the peasant . . . and [turned him] into an industrial worker.” But now “there are no industrial jobs,” and it is our task to “keep [this man] a peasant.” We must “reverse the role of the city” as a world-historical force. " -- Marxist philosopher and lifelong Bronx resident Marshall Berman, who sadly passed away last year talks about the attempted urbicide of the South Bronx and how it rose up again from it in his last public lecture at the City College of New York

  86. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by ewieling · · Score: 1

    Verizon's cellular replacement does not support fax, modem, postage machines, alarm systems etc. I would not want to be a small business in that area. Unlike the copper, Verizon is not required to lease capacity on their cellular replacement. A nice comparison table between POTS and Cellular is at http://teletruth.org/POTSvsvoicelink.pdf Also see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/verizons-wireless-voice-l_b_3451383.html

    --
    I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
  87. No. they are not lead acid batteries by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    They use Edison Nickelâ"iron batteries. Easily a 50 year life but can work for a 100 years. Depends upon the load how long they run without power - but they are cheap as hell to maintain and you can't run them to death like lead acid; they take abuse and keep going.

  88. . . . . and replace it with what? by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

    My parents moved out to the countryside when they retired. They are a few miles from the nearest small town (population of a few hundred). The only way for them to access the internet is satellite, which is too high latency for VOIP. After a big storm, they lost cellular connectivity for several years (most likely a tower went down and was never replaced due to the small number of users) and pretty much relied on their copper (which was generally in terrible condition and had a ton of noise and crosstalk).

    Is it an obsolete technology? Yes, but remember, obsolete technologies that work (IBM mainframe and dumb terminals, telegraph, et cetera) are a whole lot better than new technologies you cannot access.

    So, do we really need copper telephone wires in New York or San Francisco? No, but companies should not be able to remove phone service unless they have government-regulated VOIP utilities or a net-neutral internet connection with bandwidth to support VOIP ready to replace it.

  89. Re: Spoken like an American; come to Europe instea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Walmart is only supposed to check receipt if you don't have a bag. I can honestly say I have never been asked to see my receipt leaving a grocery store.

  90. No Service by pubwvj · · Score: 3

    I realize you city dudes have a hard time with this idea but there are large swaths of the USA, and world, where there is no cell phone service. POTS is all we have and I had to lay a mile and a half of my own cable to get that. There is something called mountains that make radio, TV, cellular, WiFi and such not work so well.

  91. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by sjames · · Score: 1

    In that case, they will need to include free data at at least 56Kbps with those unlimited minutes on the basic plans. They'll need to offer an allowance to replace FAX and modems with something that can use cellular data. Not sure what to do about the alarms that use a dry pair.

    Suffice to say they're going to have to really step up their game with cellular if they want it to actually replace POTS.

  92. getting out of the broadband business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya, get rid of the landline so they can also get out of the broadband business. That makes a whole lot of sense. But Americans are too stupid to see that.

  93. ignoring corruption is implicitly condoning it by raymorris · · Score: 1

    ou live in a place where power doesn't corrupt? Where all the bureaucrats are competent and politicians are trustworthy? Where is that? I want to move there! At the very least, I'll buy my next car there and maybe get a credit card from there, because here you can't trust used-car sales people or credit card companies.

    I joke, but seriously do you have a counter-example? Is there some place where cronyism isn't common? Somewhere in the United States even, since this discussion is about US policy?

    You say I'm politically partisan. For which party, do you think? Are you under the impression that there's no cronyism in the Obama administration, or that there was none in Bush administration? Which party am I criticizing when I point out that US politics centers around loyalty, which results in cronyism?

    Having the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that cronyism and corruption exists isn't condoning it, quite the opposite. IGNORING it is implicitly condoning it.

    I didn't say that all regulation is bad. I said that we should be careful when proposing a list of new regulations, because that often goes wrong. You're absolutely right that people coming up with new laws INTEND for the effects to be good. The person who made it illegal to "affect emissions" didn't INTEND to make hybrid conversions illegal, but they did. Their intentions were good, but so what? Does that somehow magically undo the harm people cause, because the harm was caused by reckless neglect to think things through rather than malfeasance?

  94. Give up the only high card you have left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a POTS, you can transmit data: slowly, and have voice access to the world. In a crisis, in an emergency, you have access. The equipment is low-tech, has limited functionality, but fills a vital need. In exchange, you get nothing. They might connect you, or not. Did I ever mention how much less bandwidth the 'corded' phone system uses than the wireless system? With the old system, everyone was connected. With the new system, there will be gaps. How much fibre runs to your house? Got fibre? When they get rid of the POTS, they won't replace it with fibre, they will replace it with: NOTHING. Cut off. If you want something, you will have to spend thousands to get a line from your house to the box 20 feet away. The idea of 'public service' and 'public good' and 'community' went away a while ago in the US, and was replaced with 'outsourced' and 'commercial'. Its the least amount of service for the most amount of money. Instead of everyone on your block, or your neighbourhood, or your city or state dealing with the company, they as an entity with lawyers, CXO's technicians, marketing people are collectively dealing with you. And they are looking for a deal. Its a 'take it or leave it' idea, where you have no recourse and they have a monopoly. In short, giving up POTS means giving up the single thing people have for communication to the outside world, and when its gone, they are living in the dark ages.

  95. Re: Spoken like an American; come to Europe instea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A federation is a union of separate political or social bodies.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federation?s=t

    So yes, the United Kingdom is a federation just like any other union or alliance of countries/states.

  96. Re:Extremely false, but that's okay. 15 years of p by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

    Telco profits were good 15 years ago. Since then - not so much

    Try again.
    Verizon made (net profit, after taxes, etc) over 11 BILLION in 2013. AT&T made over $18B.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  97. Re: Spoken like an American; come to Europe instea by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I think it's worse that we preach innocent until proven guilty while behaving just the opposite. As an American citizen, we are ripe for another revolution or civil war. The reset button desperately needs to be pressed as we are basically at society's blue screen of death.

  98. can't name a policy? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I'm a leftist/libertarian

    You're a troll...you're invited to the discussion when you want to talk about...***SPECIFIC POLICY***

    we can look up who voted for what...you know that right?

    name a policy & it's easy to test my theory about Republicans virtually always voting the wrong way on policy issues

    until you do that this discussion is over

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  99. Usefull during emergency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During Hurricane Sandy. The POTS phones were the only thing that still worked where we live on the mainland coast here in NJ. Comcast internet/phone/video was first to go out for 6 days. Then power out for 7 days. The cell phones were useless from congestion for the first 2 days then worked only late at night or early in mourning for next few days till power came back. Couldn't even get a txt message out. Without our normal phone we would have had no way to call anybody.

  100. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

    it took until the last 5 years for states to require power backup systems on Cell towers... you know generators or something so they didn't go dead when the power went out in a storm. Those kinds of things were REQUIRED for POTS.

  101. on $200 billion, 5%. Savings bonds are better by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's a 5% return on their $200 billion investment.
    Historically, savings bonds have often been better than that. Instead of the risks with running a huge business, they could have just bought bonds. Around 1999-2000 profits were twice that. So it's "record profits" only if by "record" you mean "lower than average" and "less than half of what it used to be".

  102. Re:Hello 911? Telcos are thieves by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every ounce of copper infrastructure was paid for with YOUR tax dollars via tax breaks. That is what gace the Bell system a monopoly; that's why they got broken up - and that's why corrupt legislators paid off by the Bell subsidiaries reformed ATT. The telcos have been charging excise taxes for years that are supposed to guarantee fiber infrastructure. They haven't - not nearly as they promised they would do. I say nationalize telecommunications infrastructure, or force out the incumbents. As for POTS: why give it up? It's there; like trolley lines in cities used to be there until we tore them up (and now we regret having done that). Leave the infrastructure in place. The ONLY thing the telcos care about is their profit; they care about nothing else. If they want to eliminate a service, it is for their current senior management's benefit only. Remember that.

  103. ps 2012 was under 3% by raymorris · · Score: 1

    ps, 2013 was the best year of the last ten. In 2012, their profit was less than 3% of their capitalization. In other words, of you invested $1,000, after a year you made $30. Woohoo, huge profits!

  104. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade by MTEK · · Score: 1

    And when your house is on fire, make smoke signals. There's your 911.

    1. Re: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When life gives you lemons, you make it takes those lemons back. Then you burn down their house, with lemons.

  105. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lower frequency services have larger cell sizes. Perhaps a 400MHz or a similar band, combined with long distance microwave links might get a new life in guaranteeing service levels in the less populated areas.

  106. TV WHITE SPACES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least in the interim, use TV white spaces! There are 400-500 unoccupied channels now (considering the whole country and the low power levels normally used); TV-crats do not want to give them up, but that's crazy. There is a vast amount of room for phone, internet, video chat, and much more, with very impressive ranges at very moderate power levels. But the FCC regards this technology as something like an alien invasion.

    The FCC can detect and track it(??); DO IT ANYWAY! There is a limit to FCC tracking, and cheap hardware (maybe home made or cheap imports) can easily be sacrificed to the FEDS tracking!

    It's instructive to consider what happened to the "Radio Free Podunk" Low power stations which sprung up before: The FCC found a way to license them! If you don't take what the plutocrats try to steal first, you'll end up with nothing!

  107. Over my dead body! by woboyle · · Score: 1

    I'll accept removal of my land line when the seas freeze over!

    1. Cell phones don't work in our house (aluminum siding == Faraday Cage).
    2. We would have to pay by the minute for every call we get, including spam calls.
    3. Cell phones need a good battery to work - low battery == unable to call 911 for emergencies.

    I can count on one hand the number of times in my life (66 years) when I couldn't make a phone call with a normal land line. I can count on at least 3 hands the number of times I couldn't make a call in the past week or two on my cell phone (thanks AT&T)...

    So, if these boneheads at the providing phone comapnys do the following, I may change my position.

    1. Guarantee universal cell access EVERYWHERE! (Right...)
    2. Don't charge time for incoming calls, EVER.
    3. Provide a backup emergency power supply (portable) so we can use our phones for emergency calls when the phone battery is dead.
    4. Guarantee that #1 is available 24x365 with a SLA of 6+ sigma (99.9999+) percent of the time.

    Until then, screw those money grubbing b'tards!

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
    1. Re:Over my dead body! by Gripp · · Score: 1

      Your landline is safe. this is a horrible article. They are trying to get rid of old, non-SIP/VoIP circuits... not get rid of land lines altogether. Think of it like saying "we want to phase out IPv4" not "we want to get rid of the entire internet" ...

  108. Dammit! by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    How the hell am I supposed to find my cell phone lost in my house if I have no land line?

  109. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    The wireless gateway would have to implement T.38 to support fax machines. Most alarms have already switched to wireless, so that shouldn't be a problem (dry pair isn't an option with many FTTH installs either).

  110. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I live, many cables runs through the neighbourhood. Old copper cables for phone/adsl, old cable TV, as well as fiber replacing those older cables. Competition works, people can choose between the cheap older cables or cool new fiber at a somewhat higher price. What is wrong with letting "any schmuck" lay cables? Well, any competent schmuck that is, who won't dig up the other cables, but still . . .

  111. How about... by CTU · · Score: 1

    Fuck no, telicoms can not be trusted to do anything other then what gives them more money. So no lets not go with that plan.

  112. don't give up - act by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Get off your arse and vote instead of leaving it to those who treat politics as a game for the rich and you may get to live there without having to move.

  113. in other words, no, it's never happened by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I take it that's a no, you have no counter-example. You can't come up with a single time or place in history when government didn't have quite a few douchebags. 200 years ago Lord Acton said "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It's always been true (see Caesar). Yet your solution to reduce corruption is to give them MORE power.

  114. Re:or 2 competing providers before an area loses P by nwf · · Score: 1

    Sounds like comcast. We got a few business phone lines from comcast where I work, and none were usable for fax, alarm panels, modems or anything. We canceled because they couldn't even understand why there could even be a problem in theory. Voice works, so everything must work!

    At my house, Verizon stopped providing POTS phone service ages ago. VoIP phone is all they offer now, and while better, it's still not very good.

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
  115. Re:negative consequences of wireless telephone sys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - ubiquitous electromagnetic radiation could be harmful for biological organisms
    - increased radio footprint will make our planet even more visible (vulnerable) in the universe
    - scrappers will lose an important copper source (of old copper cables)

    Oh no...the "tin foil freaks" have come to life on /.

    What is next? A zombie attack?

  116. What a piece of slime by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I take it that's a no

    Obviously not. Speak to me and not the strawman in your head.

  117. What a silly example by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Caesar was corrupt before he gained power and it's part of the way he was able to gain it.

  118. Here is the real deal. And yea I work for one of t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for ______ Yes everything is going to fiber. But pots will still exist in another form. Homes will be equipped with a wireless transceiver connected to prem inside wiring . So your regular pots phone will still work okay. The problem with copper is that it rots ...yea it is so hard to maintain that it is far better to do fiber,wireless and soft switch . Soft switch saves a lot of hardware ,time,and manpower. Copper will be eliminated soon . And it's a good thing. I for one have been on the front line of copper repair. Constant dispatches,static ,weather ,animals eating the insulation . The 21 st century of communication is wireless and fiber. And it's far better.

  119. Re:Spoken like someone from UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [citation needed]

  120. Don't end POTS, the alternative sucks by The+Eight-Bit+Link · · Score: 1

    I for one do not welcome our POTS replacing overlords. We had AT&T replace our old POTS connection with a box, for some reason (it's costing AT&T more money!). This box straight up sucks poop through a straw. I hate it. It's prone to crashing, and has to be powered. In our neighborhood, we have Detroit Terribly Engineered for power, and they can't maintain their connections worth anything. What made it so much better over the years was being able to get a corded phone off the shelf in the kitchen, plug it in, and get a dial tone which we then used to scream at DTE. It was a guaranteed bet that it was up, ready to react to your call at the drop of a hat. Does this box replace it? Not even close. It has several problems: 1. The signal strength is weak. Although it's an antiquated technology, I've still had to fire up a fax machine occasionally. The signal coming out of that dumb box is so weak we have to unplug the entire rest of the house in order to convince it that there is a phone connection. 2. It all hinges on the box. As I mentioned before, this box sucks. It's prone to crashing, which can't be resolved unless it gets power-cycled. I don't want to be in a situation where I can't call 911 because some box had a brain-fart. 3. It also needs power to run. This sucks too, because I had to go out and buy a UPS, since AT&T didn't give me one. This will last up to eight hours before finally giving in. With week-long power outages becoming more frequent, I don't want my access to services to hinge on how long the UPS can keep the box going. Sure, it's harder to maintain a web of copper. But the reliability is what made the landline the landline, so unless they have some magical solution which can give at least the exact same service as before, I want out.

  121. protesting this downmod by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    whoeverthefuck is downmodding my comments on this thread should explain themselves b/c this comment and my original one in this thread are NOT TROLLING or FLAMEBAIT

    I'm just not trolling...my comments have a point that can be falsified or debated...yes I use aggressive or colorful language but i'm not mindlessly arguing...

    my points are coherent and consistent....this is bullshit!!!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  122. Everything works as designed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, people who pay for the cables, the installation, the maintenance, and the repair...

    That would be the US taxpayer initially, and then US phone customers thereafter. My father wore a US Army uniform when he was building out the Long Lines system that gave America univeral POTS access. The Federal Government gave the long distance phone system infrastructure to Ma Bell, free of charge, after We The People completely financed the buildout, thanks to the Communications Act of 1934. More recently, have you looked at the charges on your phone bill? Yeah, USF/ASAC is a corporate welfare scam, and we paid for about ten times as much infrastructure as was actually built, thanks to Clinton and the Bushes.

    ...should be forced to allow the competition on their infrastructure even though it might interfere with their operation.

    Yes, the deal with choosing to enter a market that's been federally regulated since 1913 is that you have to abide by the market's regulations (unless you instruct your wholly owned congresscritters to remove them, but that would be dumb at this point since the current set of regulations primarily serve the incumbent power players).

    I mean, we need to control who can lay cables and only allow our biggest political contributors and/or the highest bidder to lay infrastructure. Because Randroids HARG ARGLE BLARGLE...

    NOW you're getting it! Google gets to be a service provider now, because they can provide money and expensive hookers to powerful Washington insiders. You get extra services for procuring underage boys, of course!

  123. Are they wanting access to the copper? by bradorsomething · · Score: 1

    I know the copper lines can be used for very high speed dsl; are they trying to get the lines abandoned and then purchase them on the cheap for services?

  124. Assuming wireless is ubiquitous by M_Krieger · · Score: 1

    It's not that I'm old - even though I am - this can't happen until the quality of service for 3G/4G/WhateverG matches what Ma Bell & Co. deliver. I spend a good amount of my day on the phone speaking on webinars. It also happens that my home office has very poor service from AT&T. I've tried VoIP, tried cellular, both with lousy audio quality results and even a dropped call in the middle of a live webcast - that from VoIP. So, we have a POTS line - and when I'm on a webcast or confcall that's the only one I use. When the other things work maybe they can eliminate POTS. Not yet.

  125. Re:Hello 911? Telcos are thieves by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Too bad I have not mod points for this subthread, today.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  126. all other infrastructures are people owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the taxpayers own all of the infrastructure like roads and hi ways, rail roads etc... Why can't our government own the internet infrastructure... its about the only way net neut will ever happen.

  127. NO! No coverage at my home in the suburbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in a small city, Holland, Michigan. I have been a Verizon customer for years. I used to get good cell coverage at home. Now I can't make a cell phone call from home, inside or outside. There is a fairly large area of poor coverage right in a suburban area. It is MILES in all directions and affects Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T. Verizon says that I have to buy a $275 device to use the Internet for phone calls. They will subsidize the price by a little (if I remember, about $100). They tested outside my house and the coverage is marginal, but they aren't going to change anything. Really? So, NO I am not in favor of dropping wired service. I actually went to Google Voice so I could receive cell calls over my home phone.

  128. I need my DSL by Control-Z · · Score: 1

    It's my only good internet option, slow at 1.5Mb but unlimited. Satellite no, 3g no, dial-up hell no.

  129. Re:how about we keep both by jriding · · Score: 1

    Just remember mouth piece.
    1. The meltdown: Congress remove the funding for the Justice Department so they now have 1/3 the amount of people to pursue the financial crisis. ( call it Obama all you want but he did not defund the people who would build the legal cases to prosecute).
    2. due process free detention / execution: Stated enemy combatant, traitor or terrorist can be engaged by lethal means. Yep if you are a traitor move to a foreign location to be trained by known terrorist, for the purpose of attacking America or American people the US can attack you. Even if you have now moved back to the US to perform those traitor or terrorist actions.

    I would assume you would prefer that we remove the federal sentencing of "up to death" for traitors?

    Go hate to go hate. When all of "your" team votes for the laws agrees with the de funding then complains that the laws are used as worded and and no one has been prosecuted. Well that is an issue you created so stop bitching.

    I am not saying Obama has done great things but damn people. Make the mess then bitch at someone else. Rinse and repeat.

    --
    love the taste, hate the texture
  130. Privatize profit, externalize risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More tax subsidies for the ultra-rich

    Poor people in the 99 percent don't need phones, especially the old ones!

  131. Misnomer by Gripp · · Score: 1

    I work in telco and what this is abut is making all telephony VoIP/SIP not getting rid of the land line altogether. You will still be able to get a normal phone, with a chord and all. It will just work over a different set of circuits is all. Which is entirely black box to the vast majority of.. everyone.

  132. Obligatory Insult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go into college with the intent of landing a job that pays well
    Come out of college expecting that GOVERNMENT is the solution to all problems and that all white males will foot the bill.

    RIGHT?!?

    19041995_168:1

  133. Re: Spoken like an American; come to Europe instea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with that is the National Firearms Act and the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 has made it difficult to obtain that which would be effected in said activity. You know, EXPLOSIVES?

    People can dodge a bullet; try dodging a shockwave.

  134. Telecoms by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I can't even get DSL over copper. I'm not that far in the boonies, but go figure. Once Comcast signed it's wireless spectrum transfer deal with Verizon. All expansion ceased.

  135. No... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    You're an idiot...

    Sure, I am for this, with a 100% guarantee of coverage. What does that mean? It means at my house I get poor wireless reception. So I have to use a microcell piggybacked on my Comcast broadband internet connection. And I'm within a few hundred feet of one of the main routes in the area.

    As such, if this is going to be passed, then the telecoms need to put up a crapload more cell towers. Furtheremore, we all know what will happen.

    The telecoms will grease our selected officials to vote for their cause. They'll be freed from the need to run copper. While at the same time get to keep ALL the fees for expansion, which of course they'll never do...just pocketing the funds.

  136. Except... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    That tax is NOT going to go away. It'll just be converted to even more profit for the telcos.

    1. Re:Except... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      So instead of paying for something you don't use, you pay for something you do use?

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  137. Right... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    What our government SHOULD be doing, is laying conduit....then anyone can run cables through said conduits.

  138. Who pays... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Government subsidies?

    We the customers?

    Truth is, Comcast has been !@#$% us over for years. And really should be split into two companies. One which offers television services and one that offers internet.

  139. Re: Spoken like an American; come to Europe instea by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Actually, in combat, semi-automatics are usually more effective than fully automatics. Though the most effective is likely the 3-round burst mode.

  140. Let me offer that... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Evolution is the same, isn't it? Survival of the fittest. Eventually only one species should remain on earth. And no, symbiosis is a merely a transitional stage to accomplishment.

    So eventually we'll either have humans that can photosynthesize and dwell in air and water....or cockroaches. One of the two.

  141. Because theoretical is far from actual... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    We have a system in which controlling parties manipulate who is their candidate (by the time Pennsylvania got to vote in the primaries in 2008 and 2012. Both candidates had already been selected - we NEVER go to vote), while simultaneously passing legislation that prevents outside parties from being able to access the ballot.

    So no....that's not really government by the people. Furthermore, you can try to speak to your selected officials. Even if 90% oppose something, they'll still pass it based on who is giving them money.

  142. Rural... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Heck, I'm not even all that rural. Just on the very outskirts, about 10 houses down from one of the main routes in the region. I can't even get DSL.

    So I am locked into Comcast or no broadband.

  143. Comcast... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Should have it's TV and internet business split into two companies. (And probably a third to own the wires.)

  144. Oh... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    And overnight I went from not being able to stream 3D content from Netflix over my Comcast 50mbps service, to it streaming just fine. So it was nothing to do with hardware, just greedy politics.

  145. Don't forget Fred Phelps by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Was a registered Democrat who ran for both governor and state senator a number of times. Almost won too.

  146. So what... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    If I'm paying $70 for internet, I should be able to access what I please.

  147. That's 5% ... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    In a commodity industry, during an economy in which the average consumer is hard pressed to get a 1%-2% return on an investment.

    So yes, that's pretty good. And also remember that there are a LOT more profits there that are hidden, and distributed under tax law.

    If I earn $10 billion, but pay my executives $1 billion in salary, which I deduct as a business expense... the solution to companies paying taxes was to minimize net revenue and pay much of the wealth to the elites.

  148. Except... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    They really made $2,000, they just hid most of that other $1,000 in tax loopholes.

  149. Amen by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Agree with pretty much all of the above. Also, Comcast and Verizon should NOT be able to sell each other's services on their websites. Conflict of interest!!!

  150. If that ALL happened in less than a year... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Realize it was planned a few years prior....so let's be honest, let's blame Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama....and anyone else with a D||R

    Until we get smart and change it to DNR (DO NOT RE-ELECT), we're gonna be screwed.

  151. Solution is Non-Disruptive Disruptive Technology by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    The problem with competing is how hard it is to lay all the connecting cable. You're either digging up roads and laying conduit (expensive, disruptive, traffic nightmare) or plopping down telephone poles (expensive, disruptive, traffic nightmare but somewhat cheaper than the last suggestion).

    What we need is a robot that can burrow a 12" in conduit tunnel, while 3D printing it's own pipe, the result would be a technology who's non-disruptive nature would make it an extremely disruptive technology. Suddenly, all I need to lay fiber is a conduit droneand a man above the surface direction it's path while another refills it's 3D printer toner cartridge.

  152. Claiming Verizon paid it's execs a $billion? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    So you're claiming that last year Verizon paid it's top executives a billion dollars?
    That is in addition to the billion that they paid to the alien federation, correct?

  153. Eliminating your competition? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    In real capitalism, you make sure there is no competition left before you screw over your customers.

    And how, exactly, do you do that?

    Space launch probably has the highest barriers-to-entry of any industry. But by building a family of space launch vehicles from scratch, and making them reliable and profitable, all while greatly undercutting his competition, Elon Musk has proven that it's possible to overcome even those barriers. We can conclude that your jab at "real capitalism" is unfounded.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Eliminating your competition? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that Elon Musk was out to screw his customers.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:Eliminating your competition? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      My point zoomed over your head like one of Musk's rockets.

      United Launch Alliance (ULA) needs to significantly reduce its prices if it hopes to compete with SpaceX. SpaceX rose from nothing to become a powerhouse. ULA has failed to "make sure there is no competition," despite the formidable barriers to entry in the launch services industry. If ULA can't do that which you accuse companies "in real capitalism" of doing, other companies stand even less of a chance of making sure they have no competition.

      Musk is in no way out to screw his customers. And he is the finest example of a "real capitalist" that I can think of.

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    3. Re:Eliminating your competition? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I think it was my point that went over your head. It is only when there is no competition that a company feels free to screw over its customers. There are various ways to get rid of competition and Musk is currently doing it the old fashioned way, innovating and being less expensive. Perhaps ULA will go out of business and Musk would be free to screw his customers, at least the ones that have to use an American company. Doesn't mean he would. On the other hand perhaps a government will come into power that really likes ULA and they pass all kinds of regulatory hurdles to increase Musk's costs and ULA wins. Then ULA is free to screw their American customers.
      Thing with the space industry, there is other competition, Russia, China, India, the EU and it is in the Governments interest to have any American company win, especially considering the military significance of space, being the high ground as well as the technology restrictions (remember it wasn't that long ago that even a browser was restricted for foreign nations) so it's a totally different market.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  154. Still necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought home security systems rely on landlines. Also, those button that older folks wear in case of emergency. What about the phone line in cable TV boxes? I haven't had cable for years so I don't about that one.

  155. When all else fails..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in the Southern California area about 15 miles from the La Habra earthquake. As it happened I grabbed my cell phone to let my girlfriend know I was OK.... and it wouldn't work. Grabbed the old POTS line we still have, and no problem at all.

    Before the earthquake was over the cell system wasn't working, yet POTS did. That alone is why my family has never been without the old backup. The only thing more reliable that I've seen in a disaster is Amateur Radio. When we have an earthquake and the cell phone system stays up routinely THEN I'll get rid of the old POTS, but not before.

  156. Egads !!!...Anyone can 'tap' wireless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egads !!!...Everyone can 'tap' wireless...even the NSA !

  157. POTS phone service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Christchurch, New Zealand, we had a disastrous earthquake in February 2011. For one week our home was without power, and for two weeks we had no internet and cell phone connections, so our single analog POTS phone was our link to the world. Just saying...