Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Workers Can Now Be Fired If They Fix Copper Phone Lines (arstechnica.com)

Verizon has told its field technicians in Pennsylvania that they can be fired if they try to fix broken copper phone lines. Instead, employees must try to replace copper lines with a device that connects to Verizon Wireless's cell phone network, ArsTechnica reports. From the article:This directive came in a memo from Verizon to workers on September 20. "Failure to follow this directive may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal," the memo said. It isn't clear whether this policy has been applied to Verizon workers outside of Pennsylvania. The memo and other documents were made public by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union, which asked the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to put a stop to the forced copper-to-wireless conversions. The wireless home phone service, VoiceLink, is not a proper replacement for copper phone lines because it doesn't work with security alarms, fax machines, medical devices such as pacemakers that require telephone monitoring, and other services, the union said.

314 comments

  1. Where to now? by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I left AT&T because they are fucking douche bags
    I left Sprint because they were incompetent douche bags
    I left T-Mobile because They were worse than AT&T...and they are douche bags

    Now I'm with Verizon. Who do I go to next when they start pulling this type of shit on me?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Where to now? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm considering rigging up a string and tin-cans contraption, myself.

      It sort of reminds me of the South Park where Mr. Garrison invents the world's ultimate transportation device--it goes 300 MPH safely on the ground, allowing us to simply skip out on the humiliation of being groped in airport security lines. It does require the operator to insert a "safety wand" into their ass, and the countrols are manipulated using a phallic object via the tongue, but as all the people trying it out say "Well, it's a little uncomfortable at first, but still beats dealing with the airlines..."

      Mobile phone carriers and telephone companies in general are arriving at that level of hatred--people would rather be literally dry ass-fucked uncomfortably for hours than deal with them.

      --
      Who did what now?
    2. Re:Where to now? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You have 3 choices? Wow!

      For about 3 months we had three choices, but then Douche Inc merged with Bag Inc.

    3. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Try moving to a country with a free market.

    4. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left AT&T because they had to come out every year (usually after it rained) to fix corroded taps up on the utility pole outside my house. After 8 years of these shitty repairs, I dumped them. They spend so much time fixing these taps on the entire street you'd think it would be time to replace them, but no... Crane trucks parked somewhere on the street every week. Fucktards.

    5. Re:Where to now? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      You had a t-mobile wired connection? Impressive.

    6. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plot of episode dealing with TSA is at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entity_(South_Park)

    7. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never been dry ass-fucked before. Please share your experience.

    8. Re:Where to now? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Well, you know what they say: You wake up one morning and run into a douchebag, he's just a douchebag. You keep running into douchebags all day long, maybe you're the douchebag.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    9. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant. That way, you'll only have one choice to worry about.

    10. Re:Where to now? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      What problems did you have with T-Mobile? I've had none. Everything is as good as it could possibly be.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    11. Re:Where to now? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Mobile phone carriers and telephone companies in general are arriving at that level of hatred

      I use T-Mobile family plan, and I am happy with their service. My phone "just works" for a simple flat monthly fee.

      people would rather be literally dry ass-fucked uncomfortably for hours than deal with them.

      No, the dry ass-fucking should be reserved for people that use "literally" as an intensifier. Some ground glass should be added for those that use it to mean "figuratively".

    12. Re:Where to now? by kosh271 · · Score: 1

      If you are talking cell service, you might consider checking out Google Fi.

      While I don't exactly like that I have to buy a specific phone, I have been pleased with the coverage area + cost. I used to have an area on my drive I called the "Verizon dead spot". After switching over, I haven't had issues with consistent dropping calls.

      After you get past the phone expense, the price/month isn't bad: $20+data+taxes.

    13. Re: Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will a figurative ass fucking still stimulate my prostate? Asking for a friend.

    14. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left Verizon a few years ago because they were awful. I now use Page Plus for wireless, which has been nothing but great. And I went with google voice and an Obi box for my landline, which also works great.

    15. Re:Where to now? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2

      Wait, wait, wait. You were trying to run from double bag companies and you went TO Verizon?

      The only acceptable reason to be with verizon is the size of their network. In every single other way, they're inferior to all the other options.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    16. Re:Where to now? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, the large corporations with governments in their pockets are in fact run by scum

    17. Re:Where to now? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The only time my country has had a single provider, was for the period when it was a government-owned monopoly.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    18. Re:Where to now? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that you have been in 5 relationships with phone carriers. Have you stopped to conceder that maybe its you?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    19. Re:Where to now? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Well if you want to get pedantic, you're only assuming that "people" means "most people." As long as there's more than one person somewhere who would rather be literally dry ass-fucked then the GP is still technically valid.

      Of course very few people would interpret it that way just like very few people really give a damn if you use "literally" in the figurative sense, or use "who" when "whom" is more appropriate or any of the other grammar nazi-isms that you trolls love to go on about. (Oh crap. I forgot to capitalize Nazi as a proper noun. The end is nigh! There's even a little red underline warning me of the world's imminent doom!)

    20. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then Douche Inc merged with Bag Inc.

      So Electric Company is real life?

    21. Re:Where to now? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Try moving to a country with a free market.

      But they're all building walls to keep Americans out.

    22. Re:Where to now? by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      Why might that be? What makes you think there will be a monopoly in a free market situation, where setting up a cell phone company is as simple as setting up a tower or two (and providing a price low enough that people are willing to give up coverage)?

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    23. Re:Where to now? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Experience. Have you looked at the U.S. economy lately? There's hardly a major consumer-facing industry around these days where the top 2 or 3 players *aren't* trying to merge. And for some reason the regulatory agencies keep approving them.

      The problem isn't that the U.S. isn't really a free market; it's that the market is too free.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    24. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only time I've dealt with an actual monopoly is when the government sold off a natural monopoly (the power lines) that they were originally renting out to many providers.

    25. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just silly.

      Over the last 2 decades the US has been sliding further and further down the "free market" list.

      Sure, everyone knows that Hong Kong and Singapore rank ahead of the US on economic freedom.... but so do Switzerland, Denmark and New Zealand. And quite a few others. Including some that you'd never believe - like Mauritius. And Bahrain. And Chile. Holy crap, Chile. If Chile has passed you on the economic freedom index, you've lost any claim to being a "free market economy" . The UEA? Really? C'mon USA, get it together. You can't be losing out to the UAE.

      Oh, and what has happened to our economic growth? Piddling along like a dinosaur for the last 2 decades. Growth in the US hasn't really been above 4% since 2006. During the prior 20 years it was routinely above 6%. And in the two decades before that it routinely hit double digits.

      And what was the most economically free country on the planet during that time? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

      Economic freedom is what leads to prosperity. It is pretty much a 1:1 correlation.

    26. Re:Where to now? by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      I think it's a little disingenuous to use the US as an example of the free market, where, according to the heritage institute:

      The regulatory burden continues to increase. Over 180 new major federal regulations have been imposed on business operations since early 2009 with estimated annual costs of nearly $80 billion. Labor regulations are not rigid, but other government policies, such as excessive occupational licensing, restrict growth in employment opportunities. Damaging monetary policies, tangled webs of corporate welfare, and various subsidies have bred economic distortions.

      Regulations, taxes, and other government-imposed restrictions on businesses are all barriers to entry and create conditions that are perfect for the creation of a monopoly. When the government mandates that you serve rural areas to create an ISP (or in some cases bans it outright due to corporate capture) or that you use expensive proprietary electronic medical record systems for a private practice, it makes it very difficult to start a competing business. Mergers don't normally create monopolies. There are few true examples of national or international monopolies, despite the fact that governments foster them. If any firm in a free market attempts to take advantage of its market power, it will be obvious to others (there will be high profits) who may not be in the market that there is money to be made, thus prompting them to enter the market and undercut the monopolistic firm.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    27. Re:Where to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do I go to next when they start pulling this type of shit on me?

      Ting

    28. Re:Where to now? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You went from bad to the very worst because the others weren't good enough for you apparently. Verizon is easily the worst of the telecoms. There is not good telecom; they're all horrible. But Verizon is the worst, and most expensive to boot.

      My suggestion for cellular service: sign up for service with Ting and get yourself a Spring phone (though T-mo phones work too). It's much cheaper than going direct with the big companies, you get the same quality of service (coverage) as Sprint since you're using their towers, but much better tech support if you need it. What you won't get is a fancy store to visit in person; it's all web-based. If you're the kind of person who can buy their own phone and deal with any issues by chatting with a tech online, it's a great service in my experience. (If you're a tech-clueless person who needs to talk to people in person and have them hold your hand, it's definitely not the way to go.)

    29. Re:Where to now? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are natural barriers to entry, such as capital costs, network effects, etc. One traditional barrier example is there being many more brands of laundry detergent than companies that make it, so a newcomer into the market gets more limited exposure as just one of many rather than one of a few. Companies that want to stay monopolistic also get into other deals with their customers to make them difficult to replace. Any vendor that can lock you into something proprietary will. A company might pay a grocery store for shelf space. None of these barriers are caused by the government.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:Where to now? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking about that, pending the outcome of the election. I'm fluent in Canadian, too.

    31. Re:Where to now? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      the dry ass-fucking should be reserved for people that use "literally" as an intensifier

      Actually, my use of "literally" was valid and correct there--people bitching about poor customer service regularly refer to it as a "Dry ass fucking." The device Mr. Garrison invented on South Park had an actual phallus that was shoved into the operators ass--an real (cartoon) ass-fucking.

      But it's not valid in the following sentence:

      I literally hate it when people waste their breath bitching about other people's word choice. Did you understand what I meant? Yeah? Well then it doesn't matter if it's "correct" or not. (Although this time, it was, I'm wrong all the time, I freely admit.)

      --
      Who did what now?
    32. Re:Where to now? by TechnoJoe · · Score: 1

      A FREE market is a place that would completely tolerate whatever the companies wanted to do. I believe you want a REGULATED market.

      Please note: the lack of competitors is due to the high capital costs of infrastructure. (Turns out running thousands of miles of copper to central offices with millions of dollars of equipment is expensive, so few companies want to do it.) Please do not conflate the results of driving market forces (lack of competition) with a lack of free market.

  2. Making it official, but... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although this seems to formalize a policy, the reality is that the various telephone companies have been cutting budgets for maintenance of copper phone lines, switching stations, and networks for many years. Ask anybody who has a business need for POTS lines about how hard it is to get any problems with them corrected--it's basically impossible. If you fight with them long enough and ward off enough attempts to be switched to a VoiP service to replace the broken lines, they'll trigger a "truck roll" and then tell you "it's all good" when it's clearly not "all good."

    For example, every one of our remote sites we have a POTS line for the times when (not if, when) the main internet access is offline, taking the VPN to access that facility from HQ offline as well. I have a POTS line at each that I can dial-up to and remotely administer things. Guess how much fun it is to discover a noisy line with a modem? (Hint: Not fun.) Guess how even much more fun it is to discover you have a noisy line at a site in the middle of the only time of year you ever need to use that POTS line, during the Internet outage at that site? (Hint: Super-not-fun.)

    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:Making it official, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, guess its not fun if you aren't doing the equivelent of fail-over testing after the line has been installed.

    2. Re:Making it official, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is just part of the pain of moving from analog to digital. There may be some incompatible things out there but eventually those products and services will need to adjust. FAX machines are fast becoming obsolete. Solutions for legacy medical devices are probably already available.

      Of course the workers union wants to keep those old lines going because that means more jobs (and dues).

      I do wonder what their civil contracts require regarding maintaining the infrastructure or losing it.

    3. Re:Making it official, but... by avandesande · · Score: 2

      I can't remember the specifics but I believe there are laws forcing them to maintain the copper line

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Making it official, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to OP, some of these problems are intermittent. I work for an org with 37 sites, and have seen on numerous occasions where lines work fine most of the time, but when it is raining or has recently rained, they get noisy. It's happened enough that any time an analog issue is reported, we consider the weather when trying to determine if it's an end-user issue or something deeper.

    5. Re:Making it official, but... by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      Cross-talk from an intermittent source has caused hard to track down problems for us too.

    6. Re:Making it official, but... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I can't remember the specifics but I believe there are laws forcing them to maintain the copper line

      Without an SLA with teeth that's pretty much useless. I've been "supported" by an IT department that also had external, paying customers and if you're always last in line and they can't lose you as a customer and they only get a token internal billing no matter what it's going to stink. Just because you're paying for a service on behalf of the tax payers doesn't mean you can skimp on the professional contract and service management, like what exactly are the measurable deliveries and have they been delivered in the right quantity, quality and on time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re: Making it official, but... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      In many states these are called 'tariffs'.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Making it official, but... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Have you tried a letter from a lawyer?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: Making it official, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SLAs don't have teeth; only legal departments do, and if 'theirs' is bigger than 'yours' you are fucked.

    10. Re:Making it official, but... by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is just part of the pain of moving from analog to digital.

      No, it's not. Copper lines carry digital data just fine. This is cheaping out on last-mile.

    11. Re:Making it official, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      POTS does have federally-mandated service standards for things like line quality and availability.

      verizon is just saying 'fuck you all', pockets the same landline fees, federal grants, skips out on maintaining a vital infrastructure, and forces customers (some don't even know it happens) over to cellular-based service which costs a fraction to provide compared to a POTS landline and can only make phone calls (no data, fax, security systems, medical devices, can't get dsl later, etc)..

      even at retail it's way less.. verizon POTS.. about $40ish a month plus usage.. straighttalk (same verizon cellular network, thru walmart) prepaid home phone $15 including unlimited usage and long distance... you think these customers are seeing a $25+/mo reduction in their bill?

    12. Re:Making it official, but... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Wireless is much cheaper to deploy and maintain, the base stations are in predictable locations and one can serve many customers in a decent radius without having to run cable down every street...

      The problem is that wireless spectrum is finite, the more users you have the more thinly it is spread while you could always add more bundles of cable.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re:Making it official, but... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      I could understand if they were replacing copper with fibre, that's progress...
      But replacing it with wireless is stupid, you'll end up with all the available wireless spectrum completely congested and an unusable service.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    14. Re:Making it official, but... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That's really not what happens in rural areas. There's a ton of excess capacity, as the number of towers has more to do with covering square mileage by line of sight rather than population density. The problem is that the data usage caps are the same out there on the underutilized towers.

    15. Re:Making it official, but... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The way around that is just to support a user who really needs POTS e.g. medial device. Help sign over all other users to wireless voice.
      If you really need your phone line, you can keep it...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    16. Re:Making it official, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with an SLA, around here there's one tech to cover a 30-50sq mi radius. Verizon never used to care when the T1 went out, they'd just pay the SLA fine. Last time the reason for the fix 'plugged cable back in', so I think my outage (which they alarmed me about but never did anything about until I called) was due to some idiot in the CO.

    17. Re:Making it official, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I can't remember the specifics but I believe there are laws forcing them to maintain the copper line

      The specifics are that if you can't make a 9600 baud modem connection over it, the line is too noisy

      Enjoy the internets at 960 cps

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Making it official, but... by kackle · · Score: 1

      Seconded. I'm in municipal SCADA, and we have moved many customers from landlines to cellular for over the last decade. I'm old school, so I like things that "just work" (like POTS), but our first conversion complained that it took 3 days to get the phone company to even come out to fix their broken lines, so he/they felt he had no choice.

      I think completely getting rid of copper is another one of those "the momentum versus the better" issues (think "Betamax"). I once calculated my home phone line's down time over my 40+ years of life and it was over 99.9999% reliable.

    19. Re:Making it official, but... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      Allegedly, most states have requirements for redundant power for switching stations, documented maintenance schedules, and the like. But the reality is that the combination of regulatory capture and the subsequent loss of will to enforce those regulations means that, in practice, it's much harder to catch the phone companies out at breaking the rules. As a result, they've cut budgets and are being fined rarely enough that, system-wide, it's cheaper than doing to maintenance to just pay the occasional fines, and as a bonus, it suits their business preference to get everybody shifted over to VoIP lines. ...Which will be a cow for them until somebody realizes that with everybody on VoIP endpoints, now suddenly the internet is critical infrastructure and as such, last mile service needs to be regulated as strictly as the old POTS services were because that's how we access medical help in an emergenct, Police and Fire services, and so the same justifications that brought about requiring maintenance of the old POTS physical plant will then be usable to justify requiring backup power, documented maintenance--all the things the phone companies have been trying to run away from the costs of--onto the last mile residential and commercial internet infrastructure, too.

      It's gonna' be hilarious.

      --
      Who did what now?
  3. Other issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It seems like they also wouldn't work if ...the POWER GOES OUT, or if someone drove by with a wireless signal jammer.

    Sure, landlines may be mostly useless these days, but they do have a few considerations left.

    1. Re:Other issues by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It seems like they also wouldn't work if ...the POWER GOES OUT

      Most modern landline phones are powered with wall current. They don't work if the power goes out. Very few people still have POTS phones that draw power exclusively from the phone line.

      Sure, landlines may be mostly useless these days, but they do have a few considerations left.

      Old tech should be abandoned not when it has zero value, but when the value is less than the cost of keeping it around. It is time for landlines to die. It is also time for fax machines to die. Security alarms and pacemakers can use Internet, VOIP and/or a bridge to the cellular network.

    2. Re:Other issues by omnichad · · Score: 2

      There's more than one use for that copper. Replacing it with cellular is not moving forward and usually a downgrade if you're remote. Replacing it with fiber would be reasonable.

    3. Re:Other issues by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most modern landline phones are powered with wall current.

      In the US, at least, POTS lines power the phone using DC current over the POTS (copper) line -- for normal phone usage -- no house power is needed for ring, dial tone and calls in/out. VoIP modems provide this power to the phones from either house current or their battery backup. Extra features the phone may have, like voice mail, are usually powered by house current and unavailable during a power outage.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Other issues by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The cordless phones and phones like that need power from the outlet in order to work. That's why one should keep an extremely cheap, no-frills phone on hand in case there's an emergency so that there is something that will work with the landline if nothing else does.

    5. Re:Other issues by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      It seems like they also wouldn't work if ...the POWER GOES OUT

      Most modern landline phones are powered with wall current. They don't work if the power goes out. Very few people still have POTS phones that draw power exclusively from the phone line.

      In Cincinnati and the surrounding areas, one of the benefits of POTS is the phone company's independent power source that immediately kicks in at the time of loss of AC conversion. Essentially, weeks can go by with a loss of power (see: Hurricane remnants) and the phone lines are still functional. They have battery immediate, and generator (natural gas), followed by generator (gasoline). There has never been a phone failure unless the individual's line is cut/damaged/etc. It's the best form of backup comms sans ham radio.

      Sure, landlines may be mostly useless these days, but they do have a few considerations left.

      Old tech should be abandoned not when it has zero value, but when the value is less than the cost of keeping it around. It is time for landlines to die. It is also time for fax machines to die. Security alarms and pacemakers can use Internet, VOIP and/or a bridge to the cellular network.

      Who determines zero value? There is limited bandwidth in the air for phone communications. We're not at it yet, but if Verizon keeps pulling this crap, eventually it will be reached. They will then go to the feds and FCC begging for more allocation. Nice way to "force one's self into near-monopoly".

    6. Re:Other issues by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      In the past it was the contact for vital staff on call. Power always flowed, the phone line was always free and would be picked up.
      With small battery packs, lack of remote site generators, lack of generator testing, lack of generator service, remote site damage, todays telco networks are not the best over hours without power.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Other issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time my power is out for any length of time it's because of a natural disaster (yes, it's been 10+ years since my power failed). In which case the POTS network is overloaded anyway. So you have power to the phone, but no circuits to call on. I have Ooma VoIP and a cell phone. If both of those fail I drive a few blocks to my buddy who has a diesel generator and I live there until the zombies arrive.

    8. Re:Other issues by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Well, he's right, you know. Go into your typical Best Buy, and almost all the POTS telephones are CORDLESS, and need AC current in order to charge the phone, operate the base station, and handle voice messaging. There are very few new phones for sale that run off the phone line current.

      But then again, everyone should have one of those phones, in case of a power outage.

    9. Re:Other issues by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      All you need is one cheap-ass phone that doesn't have fancy things like being cordless. It's not like you're gong to be using this daily, so it can be a piece of crap as long as it works. We bought ours at Radio Shack quite s few years ago, and haven't used it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Of course by sl3xd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently it's not enough to getfederal subsidies for copper telecom.

    No, they want to destroy the infrastructure they're getting federal subsidies to maintain.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    1. Re:Of course by Solandri · · Score: 0

      The subsidies the phone companies receive are for maintaining copper wires on telephone poles and leading up to houses. Verizon is only responsible for the copper wire leading up to the side of your house. You own the copper in your house, and are responsible for maintaining it. If you are having problems with the in-house copper wiring, then you are responsible for fixing it.

      You can hire Verizon to fix it for you, or you can call any electrician or telecom/networking technician to fix it. Most contractors are able to fix it too. If you hire Verizon to do it, you should not be surprised that they try to foist their proprietary wireless service onto you, unless you specified in the repair contract that they are only supposed to repair the existing copper lines, not simply "restore" phone service.

      The idea that the phone company is responsible for the phone lines in your house is a holdover from the Bell Telephone monopoly days pre-1982. It's a misconception the phone companies are all to happy to propagate since it keeps people from considering competing repair companies. That's why when you order land line phone service, they will often fix simple problems (like repairing outlets) for free. They're not doing it out of generosity, they're doing it in the hopes you'll only think of calling them if you run into major in-house line problems in the future.

    2. Re:Of course by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      tbh inside wire is not too hard to fix yourself, too. It's not high-voltage or anything.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Verizon is required by law to share access to their copper infrastructure with their competitors. They don't want to support their competitors so they screw their customers instead.

    4. Re:Of course by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

      The subsidies are per-customer. There are buildings full of old-fashioned switches that cost far more to operate than the sum of the related subsidies. The phone companies can't decommission these facilities until they drive away or convert the last related customer. The unions "of course" want to keep the facilities running for as long as possible.

    5. Re:Of course by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 1

      Did you have any other expectation of what happens when critical infrastructure is privatised?

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    6. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they got trillions of dollars for a hundred years due to being monopolies and *now* they're sad because they have to hold up their end of the bargain? Let me find that really tiny violin...

    7. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Just don't plug it into your stereo's speaker outputs. Learned that lesson the hard way in my college days. Was using phone wire from a big roll to connect the speakers and plugged the wrong one in. It didn't end well for the stereo.

    8. Re:Of course by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      In the US, the phone network was ever a state-owned infrastructure. There's nothing to "privatize" as it's always been private.

      Verizon is essentially flaunting regulators here.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  5. Not entirely true by BringsApples · · Score: 5, Informative
    From tfa:

    Technicians can fix the copper line “if the customer does not qualify” for wireless service. In those cases, the tech must document the reason the customer didn’t qualify for VoiceLink.

    “It is a requirement that migration to VoiceLink be your first option when the customer qualifies and the trouble is in Verizon's network,” the memo says.

    So it looks like if a tech is called to a site where all they have is voice over copper, and they're having issues with said VOC, then the techs are to simply test to see if the wireless service will work there, and if so, switch them to it. If not, then fix the copper line.

    I'm not defending Verizon, but the headline here is misleading.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Not entirely true by myth24601 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not defending Verizon, but the headline here is misleading.

      You must be new here.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    2. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which means that they can't get DSL or any of the copper-line services in the future....

    3. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And if they fix the copper rather than switching to wireless wherever possible, they are subject to "disciplinary action". So yes, they can be fired for repairing the copper.

      Looks like you didn't give Verizon their money's worth.

    4. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is troublesome. In Philadelphia, we have a major problem in many neighborhoods with metal theft. People rip open copper cables they can reach from the ground and steal them. I've had to have long calls with Verizon technicians in the past to get them to repair these when it happens. It's often been an issue they won't run the cable anywhere it wasn't run previously, so I can't get them to run it such that it is less likely to get stolen.

      Now I see them surprising site managers with setting this stuff up. We need the POTS lines for fire alarm systems; we experimented with wireless internet services in the past but found them badly wanting. I'm nervous the lines going down in bad weather would set off alarms. Also, I have never proved it, but I think sometimes people running equipment with a jamming effect drive around in the neighborhoods. Most of our small offices I have setup to be 100% wired because of random monthly periods where all wireless stops working for a few minutes.

    5. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you missed the last line:

      "Failure to follow this directive may result in disiplinary action up to and including dismissal."

      The headline looks accurate to me.

    6. Re:Not entirely true by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      And they will be subject to node congestion, interference, power loss and a host of other problems that do not affect a POTS line.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    7. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the headline is very correct. if they do not shove a cellular box up the customer's butt if they're within the coverage area for one, the tech gets fired.

      i'm waiting for the inevitable lawsuit because there are many applications that ***requires*** pots and don't work right, or at all, on any other type of voice line.

      even without needing those *right now* i still wouldn't want the phone company taking away my line-powered, always on, no battery backup needed phone line that is 100x more reliable than cellular or their shitty internet for voip.

    8. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not defending Verizon, but the headline here is misleading.

      I hate to be pedantic, but the headline says "can" be fired, not "will" be fired. Like a tiresome too much of today's world, this is being overblown.

      As a PA Verizon customer who still has copper voice and DSL, I can tell you Verizon have fixed things recently, although very slowly, even though FIOS is available and being pushed. Yes, FIOS is great and all, but I don't (yet) have a generator and if power fails, I would have a few hours of voice calling before the FIOS battery is exhausted. Cell service is very weak where I am, both Verizon and AT&T. I don't know about Sprint or T-Mobile but I bet nil.

      A very wise colleague once said that power, phone, Internet, etc. infrastructure (wires, poles, etc.) needs to be publicly owned by a non-profit entity with open books and open citizen oversight. The problem, as with most of our society and economy, is short-term corporate profit, and with for-profit corporations sponsoring elections, I don't see any way to end this cycle.

    9. Re:Not entirely true by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "And they will be subject to node congestion, interference, power loss and a host of other problems that do not affect a POTS line."

      How many people REALLY have antique phones that require no external power any more? Most cellular gizmos I've seen come with a battery backup -- and unless you want to spend extra on a decent cordless phone (and most people dont), they don't come with one. So the "power loss" issue is at best a very edge case.

    10. Re:Not entirely true by Calydor · · Score: 2

      The constant yelling and screaming over limited wireless bandwidth is the biggest concern with this policy, IMHO. It is one thing to say "Get with the times" but another entirely to say "We are going to artificially limit you from options you used to have".

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    11. Re:Not entirely true by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it *is* misleading, even given your elaboration. How many customers with know that VOIP means the line stops working if the power goes out? If they don't know, then they can't properly justify it.

      What happens if the tech doesn't get the suggested percentage of upgrades?

      I'm not sure the headline *is* misleading. I agree it might be, but there have been so many shady business practices recently that I am reluctant to give them the benefit of the doubt.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have two handsets that will work when the AC power is out. Riding through a power outage is one reason for keeping those, and having a handset that can be found is another.

    13. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who want to have landline service during a power outage keep at least one "antique" phone requiring no external power.

      Verizon just doesn't want their competitors to benefit from access to their copper lines so they have implemented a policy of destroying them. They are required to grant access otherwise.

    14. Re:Not entirely true by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      So, perhaps a version of the Noisy Neighbor Disruptor Circuit that runs during the wireless test and makes sure it fails.

    15. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an cheap old Vtech cordless phone. The base station uses a 9v battery for backup. It works when the power goes out.

    16. Re:Not entirely true by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

      No. First they must see if wireless is available, then run through a checklist. If they don't pass the checklist then they get the copper fixed. One of the things on the checklist is to determine if they need copper for security, medical equipment, fax lines, etc. This is just click-bait.

    17. Re:Not entirely true by Jhon · · Score: 1

      And if you had a cellular gizmo it would continue to work when the power goes out. Not forever -- but until your phone battery dies or the cellular gizmo dies.

      Again, the power loss issue is really an edge case at best.

    18. Re:Not entirely true by Jhon · · Score: 1

      And they would continue to work with a cellular gizmo -- at least until the battery died on it.

      Like I said -- the power issue is an 'edge' case.

    19. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 1

      They have to see if it's available first? You don't say. All in TFA. The point stands that unless it is absolutely ruled out, they are switching people off of copper and any tech that doesn't cooperate with that is subject to being fired.

    20. Re:Not entirely true by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

      Re-read the article.

      First the customer has to be pre-qualified, which means ONLY phone over copper. Then they have to have wireless coverage. Then they have to go through a qualifying checklist, which includes determining if the customer has any disqualifying requirements (fax, medical, etc).

      The disciplinary action is not failing to move the customer, but failing to follow a company SOP....nothing new. The SOP does cover when they should repair, and when they should migrate. I fail to see how this is earth shattering news.

      A non-FIOS eligible customer which ONLY has phone over copper and has ZERO needs for a traditional copper phone (fax, medical, alarm, etc) is likely far and few between.

    21. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 1

      I did. Now you re-read it, it doesn't seem to say what you think it does.

    22. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Europe a couple of years back they replaced most of the copper wiring in the network if not all. Between switching stations they switched from copper to fiber. In neighborhoods from copper to aluminum.

      People still steal manhole covers though.

    23. Re:Not entirely true by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Depending on how widespread and long lasting a power outage is, it could knock out POTS service too...
      An outage in your area could cause power to be lost to the exchange, and while it's likely to have some form of power backup nothing is infallible.
      Similarly an outage which damages power lines could just as easily affect the data/voice lines.

      Being usable during a power outage is actually a valid use case for cellular, you could be within range of multiple cell towers which may be on different power sources and therefore a higher chance of one being online, and most cellular handsets contain batteries.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    24. Re:Not entirely true by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

      Document:
      1) Determine if customer is pre-qualified
      2) Determine if customer is actually qualified
      3) Migrate to VoiceLink if they are qualified

      From Verizon:
      "Verizon said it does not use VoiceLink when a customer has alarms or other systems that depend on a wired phone connection."

      That means they are disqualified if they have alarms or other systems, thus copper gets repaired.

      "failure to follow this directive may result in disciplinary action...". It does NOT say "failure to migrate the customer may result in disciplinary action". All it says is failure to follow this SOP (again, not migrate) will have disciplinary action.

    25. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 1

      You do realize there is nothing there even vaguely relevant to the question at hand, right? In fact, it reads like the slimy sorts of weaseling done by sales and marketing. Apparently, they can also be fired if they fix the copper line when according to the document you're so proud of, they could have been switched to wireless. Conveniently for Verizon, the wireless is less regulated. Unfortunately for the customer, wireless is less reliable and limits their options if they later have a need that would like to install an alarm or develop a need for the medical equipment.

    26. Re:Not entirely true by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Agreed. And thx for your input here.
      Seems like a move away from copper is a good and progressive thing, as long as it is viable to do so.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    27. Re:Not entirely true by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Being usable during a brief local outage is a valid use case for cellular. During every reported widespead outage cell phones have immediately stopped working. They didn't bother to give the cell towers backup power supplies. This could obviously easily be fixed, but it won't be if they don't have to, because it costs more.

      POTS service generally has lasted during widespread blackouts that lasted over a day, if not for several days. I don't know if that's still true, because they may have been allowed to slack on maintenance.

      OTOH, only one telephone in my house will work without external electrical power, but the rest have battery backup that's good for about an hour of infrequent use. (Manufacturer's spec, I've never tested, and my memory is probably being conservative over what was promised.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    28. Re:Not entirely true by mtmra70 · · Score: 1

      It's corporate America. Every large company has a clause to fire someone for doing some stupid act that no one agrees with. This shouldn't shock you and this document is nothing more than a SOP that is turned into click bait by main stream media. I don't like Verizon, but it's not like Verizon is on a witch hunt firing hundreds of techs for fixing something.

    29. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are truly determined to miss the point, aren't you? The air force should apply your point evasion technology against missiles. Our planes will be invincible!

  6. Your cable TV provider? by drnb · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure your cable TV provider could provide you with a land line. Hmm ... maybe you need to become more tolerant of douche bags? ;-)

    1. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES!!! All tolerate people are voting for Trump right? /me ducks

    2. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, yes. It's far better than voting for Clinton who supports the violent racist BLM.

    3. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh yes the vote between the lesser of two evils. Been there done that no thank you sir.

    4. Re:Your cable TV provider? by swalve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A voip line from a cable company isn't a land line. A land line is a hunk of copper that doesn't go dead when the power goes out. I am 40 years old, and I have NEVER had a landline outage.

    5. Re:Your cable TV provider? by swalve · · Score: 2

      You can vote for the lesser of two evils, or you can risk thew worser of two evils getting power. Get your head out of the sand.

    6. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Vote Cthulhu for President, why vote for the lesser of two evils?

    7. Re:Your cable TV provider? by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have, but I live on a dead end street and the outage involved a car and the pole that fed my street... I'll give them a pass on that.

      As to this issue:
      call in for "broken" Cu line (really just a yanked wire) and verify that the tech put on the wireless solution.
      have your house robbed and the alarm fail because it's not a land line.
      claim on your insurance and inform them why the alarm didn't work.
      Let your insurance company act as a force multiplier in the ensuing sueball against Verizon.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    8. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to your head up your ass? Puhlease ... regardless of who gets elected, those of us with our head on straight are hoping for a 4 year term.

    9. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather risk the worse of the two evils. I will have a clear conscience voting for Jill Stein, where as I would not voting for the other two. I live in a swing state too. Honestly if Trump wins it can only drive home my and others like me point that the DNC needs to stop playing kingmaker with substandard candidates. The nomination was gifted to Hillary and stolen from Bernie. Give me someone I don't have to hold my nose to vote for.

    10. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      I have, but it was 12 hours into a hurricane-induced power outage.

      Regardless, the whole "gov't mandated safety-critical reliability" crap is the only reason, IMHO, to actually have a land line these days. If you don't get that bit, then why even bother in the first place?

    11. Re:Your cable TV provider? by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

      Me too, someone crashed into the box for the neighborhood. BUT, they put what was left of the box on some 2x4's and had it functional again in about 6 hours. I know everyone hates AT&T, but kudos to the line guys. It was a crappy day that day but they still got it going fast.

    12. Re:Your cable TV provider? by drnb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A voip line from a cable company isn't a land line. A land line is a hunk of copper that doesn't go dead when the power goes out. I am 40 years old, and I have NEVER had a landline outage.

      My cable provider's modem has an optional battery so that e911 functionality is still available during power outages.

      If I did replace my current copper connection I might just plug the modem into a UPS I have layout around.

      FWIW I used to work in telecommunications and spent some time in phone company central offices. They battery room was impressive and scary.

    13. Re:Your cable TV provider? by drnb · · Score: 1

      Vote Cthulhu for President, why vote for the lesser of two evils?

      The problem is it is hard to tell which mainstream candidate is being inhabited by Cthulhu. :-)

    14. Re: Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll fuckin blow the lesser of the 2 evils at this point. And Hillary doesn't have a dick .... as far as I know, uh ... anyway.

    15. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both. The left tentacle didn't let the right tentacle know what it was doing.

    16. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes. It's far better than voting for Clinton who supports the violent racist BLM.

      Wait... when did the Bureau of Land Management become violently racist? I know that some red neck ranchers out west had issues, but... really?

    17. Re:Your cable TV provider? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the murderers of unarmed men?
      Whine me a river.

    18. Re:Your cable TV provider? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      If letting Trump take over the U.S. gives you a clear conscience...


      You don't HAVE ONE!!!

    19. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Linux+Torvalds · · Score: 1

      substandard candidates... voting for Jill Stein

      Candidates don't get much more "substandard" than a medical doctor who thinks vaccines cause autism and that nuclear power plants are WMDs.

      What this country needs is a vaccine against nuclear-grade stupidity.

    20. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

      None. The Great Cthulhu has complained about how he's no longer evil enough for the modern Republican party. While some may rightly point out that the Dems are working hard at catching up with the evil of the Repubs, they aren't there yet.

      http://whatwouldjackdo.net/ima...

      --
      When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    21. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Chromium_One · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's the Blue Lives Matter crowd that are the violent racists - they keep killing unarmed blacks who are fully cooperating with their requests.

      --
      When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    22. Re:Your cable TV provider? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      No copper thieves where you are I guess. Here it seems to be monthly and the phone company (Telus) is as slow as shit. Last time it was over 8 hours before they started working on it, this for an area with no cell coverage or cable coverage so no emergency service. Yay for privatization and deregulation.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    23. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bernie? Why not Elizabeth Warren? The only reasons why she got pushed out of the way and never even put her hat in the ring were:

      a). Clinton owns too much of the DNC
      b). She was seen as being too liberal to win the general election

      Now Hillary is trending nearly to the left of Warren herself, negating b). If Clinton had the decency to get out of the race, Warren could easily fill in and beat Trump in the general election.

    24. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      A UPS for cable might run 3-12 hours, depending on load... After that, they would need to deploy a generator at each UPS.

      Not sure what the capacity of the telecom system is like. Also not sure what the coverage area is like when the two are compared.

    25. Re:Your cable TV provider? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      I agree! (see sig)

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    26. Re:Your cable TV provider? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Batteries? Your voip line will not go out if there is a power failure if you have a UPS. The reason why your current land line does not go out during a power failure is because your telephone company is supplying the UPS.

    27. Re: Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bureau of land management?? What the fuck are you smoking

    28. Re: Your cable TV provider? by MarkeJohnston · · Score: 2

      No They just deny your claim because you did not maintain your side of the contractual obligation.

    29. Re:Your cable TV provider? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      A few times, but my coppers so old it probly counts as "archeology" by now.

      I'd rather fibre.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    30. Re: Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Your voip line will not go out if you have a UPS AND no network device between you and the provider is also experiencing a power outage. Those devices have UPSs on them too and when one of them runs out, you're done.

      So you're not only vulnerable to a power outage at your home or business, you're vulnerable to a power failure anywhere in your immediate vicinity until you reach a point on the network where there's some redundancy.

      See, properly designed infrastructure actually takes some engineering and planning. It has contingency plans and is designed to minimize impact of failure.

      We already see the impact of the engineering skills of the Facebook generation and the management skills of our brilliant crop of MBAs on the phone system, which now practically guarantees communications will be cut off to massive amounts of people even in minor emergencies. Just because something actually works when you try it once doesn't mean it's ready to be critical infrastructure. That is part of the problem of course. The reason these Verizon weasels don't want to provide copper lines is that those are regilated critical infrastructure and are also recognized as a somewhat price controlled natural monipoly. MBAs hate both of those things. They'd rather sell you something more costly with less features that really matter with no price regulation because profits.

      It was one thing when a cell phone and cable tv were add ons-things we used for convenience as add ons to critical infrastructure. Now that we in too many cases rely on them AS critical infrastructure we need to start treating them as such, and that means removing amateur engineering and imposing reliability standards like we had when this country was actually somewhat run for the benefit of its people.

      It's the differenxe between why when NASA has a failure they can tell you exactly what went wrong and how to fix the root cause vs. Elon Musk scratching his head and taking to Twitter when his happy path hardware blows up.

    31. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The vaccine thing seems to be arguable, but you're right about the whole Green party and their anti-nuclear hysteria.

      However, she still seems very preferable compared to Johnson, who just seems to be a burned-out pothead who believes in a bunch of extremist libertarian lunacy.

      Worse yet, both of these two clowns are far preferable to the two mainstream candidates, one being a complete loon and the other being a corporate whore and war-hawk.

    32. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Either Bernie or Warren could easily beat Trump, I think. There's so much dislike of Trump all around, even from within the GOP itself; the only reason he has a shot at all is because Hillary is so disliked. Almost anyone who's seen as somewhat reasonable, and not plagued with scandals, would easily win against him.

      I still think Bernie would have the election in the bag if Hillary dropped out; one big reason a lot of people on the right keep voting GOP against all self-interest is the gun issue, and that's one thing where Bernie isn't that bad on (if you're pro-gun), and was attacked a lot by Hillary for. He can genuinely claim he has the interests of rural Vermont voters at heart there, as he has for years; Hillary can't.

    33. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call it crap - I want a high reliability link during a disaster.

      Then there's the fact that, in general, a line of copper is less likely to go down than a cell network.

      And there's no ADC/DAC until the exchange, which uses a way better quality codec than GSM.

      IOW the argument is the other way - there is no reason to use a cellphone unless you're not within reach of a landline.

    34. Re:Your cable TV provider? by kriston · · Score: 1

      The telephone land line you get from traditional cable companies like Cox and Comcast *is not* VoIP. It is digital telephony over dedicated cable TV channels. This is similar to how cable modems move data over multiple cable TV channels.

      So, unless you specifically subscribed to VoIP service, you are using digital telephony, and that's not internet.

      The land line still requires power and a backup battery at your premises, but it does not use the internet, and it works *perfectly* with security systems, fax machines, TTY for the deaf, and just about everything else that uses copper phone lines.

      --

      Kriston

    35. Re:Your cable TV provider? by kriston · · Score: 1

      And, for that matter, Verizon FiOS telephone service is a very similar concept, except it's sent over a dedicated fiber optic mode (for multi-mode fiber service areas) or over a dedicated fiber optic line (for single-mode fiber service areas). It likewise doesn't use VoIP. Like cable telephony, FiOS telephone service also works perfectly with security systems, fax, etc.

      --

      Kriston

    36. Re:Your cable TV provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am 73 years old. I am so ancient that I can remember when my telephone number (in the late 1940s) was only three digits (447) and you were able to call long-distance only by going through the operator. And I, too, have never had a telephone land line outage.

    37. Re:Your cable TV provider? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Right, but the difference is that the telco is responsible for keeping the batteries charged, not me. Also, as good as my cable company is at maintaining uptime, it's still several, several nines away from the reliability of the telco. I would be VERY surprised if the cable company's digital telephony isn't some kind of voip, even if it isn't travelling across the internet. They would be dumb not to.

    38. Re:Your cable TV provider? by swalve · · Score: 1

      VOIP doesn't necessarily have to use the internet.

    39. Re:Your cable TV provider? by kriston · · Score: 1

      And, yes, the battery backup power supply is required and included for the service to work.

      Now I do have some corrections for my post. Today, FiOS uses a dedicated VoIP network on its own fiber line for regular phone service and it uses QoS and a very high bandwidth codec so fax machines, modems, etc. work just fine. They can do this with their extremely high bandwidth and low latency. In many areas it's on its own fiber cable and in others it's one of the three modes on multimode fiber. In both cases it's separate from the TV and data networks. Verizon formerly sold VoiceWing which was a true VoIP service and it was unreliable. It was terminated when FiOS was deployed.

      Depending on the area, hybrid fiber copper cable companies like Cox and Comcast offer Digital Telephone using either the old DOCSIS or the newer PacketCable. This is a newer technology that adapts traditional digital telephony to use IP networks instead of DOCSIS. It has some practical problems if the underlying IP network does not honor QoS the same way cable telephony already does. It's "sort of" VoIP but works more like traditional telephone system. The advantage is you can use your IP network for your voice traffic. The disadvantage is higher bandwidth and overhead which, like FiOS, can be handled with higher speed networks and dedicated "channels" for the data. In my area, Cox doesn't use IP yet, but FiOS always has. Comcast depends on the area.

      In conclusion, the FiOS, Comcast, and Cox solutions all work even when the internet is not working. They all need power and a battery and fully support 911 and all traditional calling features. The underlying transport may be be ViOP, PacketCable over IP, or straight digital telephony over DOCSIS.

      --

      Kriston

  7. Forcing customer to non regulated service by Bugler412 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Basically, not only is Verizon abandoning the copper cable plant that they built and were expected to maintain because they accepted government money to build it and maintain it in the first place, but they are also involuntarily switching customers from a Public Utility Commission regulated utility to an unregulated one that lacks features of the land line service. I'm absolutely sure that the obvious illegality of this has been appropriately muted by well applied lobbying and campaign dollars to the appropriate local and state politicians right?

    1. Re:Forcing customer to non regulated service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly! Of course it's against regulations (don't say 'illegal') but the amount of money Verizon will make/save on switching customers to the unregulated service will be far more than the government will bother to fine them.
      Jeeze! It's like no one around here remembers the banking fiasco, or the Deep Water Horizon fiasco, or any other time a segment of the US businesses decided regulations are for customers.

    2. Re:Forcing customer to non regulated service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but they are also involuntarily switching customers from a Public Utility Commission regulated utility to an unregulated one that lacks features of the land line service.

      I don't know about other parts of the country, but in Massachusetts if they switch your phone from copper to fiber it still qualifies as a regulated service.

      But if you switch to FiOS and FiOS digital voice service, it doesn't.

      Go figure.

    3. Re:Forcing customer to non regulated service by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regulation risk is a good thing. If you can follow regulation for $50,000,000 or skip it for $2,000,000, you break a few rules. That's good. It's efficient, and prevents regulation from breaking everything.

      Regulation risk is a good thing. If you keep flaunting regulations and breaking the rules because you can, the regulators can and should start raising criminal conspiracy charges, holding expensive investigations, and otherwise bringing actual threats to your business. That's good. It's efficient. It keeps businesses from fucking around too much, because the judiciaries and regulatory bodies will eventually express their complete lack of amusement if you keep doing this horse shit.

      Regulation risk is a good thing. If our regulations can't keep businesses in line, we need to re-examine if our regulations are behind the current technology. Maybe it's time we lifted some restrictions; maybe we re-define some of the proscribed behaviors to exclude valid and beneficial behaviors; and maybe we didn't make ourselves clear the first time, and need to write more-stringent regulations to put these miscreants back in their pen. The situations change and the rules must adjust, either to allow what should no longer be contraband or to correct for a new method of achieving an unacceptable state without violating existing regulations.

      Remember: Congress can and has investigated businesses in expensive ways for not following the rules. Disney made promises a few years ago about regulatory changes, and then did exactly what they said they wouldn't; Congress, having passed new rules allowing them to do what they did, cost Disney quite a lot of money having a Congressional Hearing to allow Disney to explain themselves. They've done it to Microsoft. They've done it to Exxon. Enron had executives walked out in chains, because if you keep doing shit like that, the cost of coming to wet yourself in front of Congress will be the least of your eventual worries.

      By all means, try to cherry tap the boundaries a bit. Hopefully you learn quickly that fire is hot, or maybe you get someone's attention and they redraw the lines. Error correction is an important part of a stable system.

    4. Re:Forcing customer to non regulated service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, not only is Verizon abandoning the copper cable plant that they built and were expected to maintain because they accepted government money to build it and maintain it in the first place, but they are also involuntarily switching customers from a Public Utility Commission regulated utility to an unregulated one that lacks features of the land line service. I'm absolutely sure that the obvious illegality of this has been appropriately muted by well applied lobbying and campaign dollars to the appropriate local and state politicians right?

      In the case of state PUC versus FCC regulations, I think the courts will side with FCC regulations over state PUC mandates.

      Yes, it's a matter of "states rights versus federal rights", but the US Congress passed the law that created the FCC, most likely under the legal arguments of fostering interstate commerce and for the betterment of the society. If the states objected at that time, or object now, there is a process in the US Constitution, the Amendment process, that would allow the states to strike down laws (anyone remember Prohibition in the USA?).

      One could argue that such an Amendment banning the FCC (and maybe taking back some power from the Feds to the States?) might be contrary to other sections of the US Constitution, but that document was intended to be "flexible" so it could change with the times.

      So there you go. There's your solution to this problem. Good luck with it!

    5. Re:Forcing customer to non regulated service by Altrag · · Score: 1

      If you can follow regulation for $50,000,000 or skip it for $2,000,000, you break a few rules

      That right there is a problem. If breaking a regulation only costs 4% of your returns, its effectively meaningless because its not "you" breaking a few rules, its "everyone" breaking ALL such rules.

      That's like saying instead of jailing thieves, we'll fine them $1000. That might be great for preventing low-income theft but its going to coincide with a marked increase in theft in rich neighborhoods where you can make off with $10000 worth of goods and only have to return 10% of your earnings -- IF you get caught. So adjusted for risk it would be even less than that.

      the regulators can and should start raising criminal conspiracy charges

      They should, but they rarely do. Yes there's been the odd high-profile case as you mentioned later but there's no cumulative effect here so the vast majority of the time the company will just pay their fine, clean up their act for a few weeks until the pressure's off and continue on until the next time they're caught. Corporate fuckarounds don't have a three strikes law.

      If our regulations can't keep businesses in line, we need to re-examine if our regulations are behind the current technology

      Its not a question of whether the regulations can keep businesses in line. Its a question of whether the regulators can enforce the regulations that exist. I agree that regulations need to be updated and revised as technology and culture changes, but an unenforced regulation is useless regardless of whether its good or bad (also: to whom?)

      There definitely should be a method in place to detect (likely the hardest part,) re-evaluate and revoke bad regulations, but simply letting companies ignore them isn't the best solution since they'll happily ignore good regulations as well if they can get away with it. Companies base all of their judgement on their bottom line with little or no regard to the environment, public safety or other desirable metrics.

      The job of the regulators is to ensure that damage to those metrics is encoded in corporate bottom lines to ensure those companies do the right thing, and if the regulations are weak or the penalties ineffective then the regulators aren't going to be successful.

  8. This is about power, control, and greed... by fallen1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Greed: Don't fix the copper wire infrastructure we get paid to maintain.

    Control: If you're moved off of copper wire POTS, then in an emergency or power outage you cannot effectively call for help. Wireless systems get overrun with numbers of calls if the emergency is large enough (hurricane, tornado, flood, etc) and your call will not get through. Or you won't have power (wireless), whereas copper is designed to (almost) always have power and JUST WORK.

    Power: See above. Put on your tin foil hat, but this is one step in a wave to disrupt and control communication when a "state of emergency" or "martial law" is declared. Just wait.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

    1. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      In all likelyhood if things are so bad your wireless won't get through, the emergency service will be overwhelmed so your call is pointless. They are doing you a favor.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because wireless services never fail... I would hate to have a heart attack when the wireless services all fail. There was no disaster. Ambulances would be able to respond assuming you could send them a smoke signal. https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

    3. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by ADRA · · Score: 2

      Maintainance.. yeah, copper is a pain in the ass. Better software reduces the costs, but doesn't eliminate them. That said, I'm not sure if the wire 'drop wire' from the access point to the household would constitute part of the protected network. There are many circumstances that would prevent service tech's from maintaining infrastructure on private property.

      "one step in a wave to disrupt and control communication"
      All telco services are centrally managed anyways, so there's 0 increase to centralized censorship here. If I wanted to shut off a person's access, I'd go to switch/trunk management software and hit a disconnect button.

      "Wireless systems get overrun with numbers of calls if the emergency is large enough" all technically true, but do we know if their RF frequencies these devices are using are actually sharing with traditional cell frequencies or are they using specially reserved spectrum for the task? E911 is definitely broken in this scheme through, since I doubt there's any sort of blackout UPS on the subscriber's line to keep that device alive. Normally all (UPS backed) power is driven by the central office.

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In all likelyhood if things are so bad your wireless won't get through, the emergency service will be overwhelmed so your call is pointless.

      Yes, but the call to your family outside the disaster area may not be, and it is not pointless to be able to call and let them know you are ok. or pointless to be able to call around town to locate family members who aren't at home to check on their safety.

      Now, it is possible that the wireline CO is overloaded and your call won't go through. But with everyone switching to wireless because a wired phone is "useless", it is more likely that my wired call with get through and theirs won't. So thank you to them.

    5. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Occam's Razor: "Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate" (Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity)
      Layman's translation: "The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."
      I don't think you need to look further than the Four Horsemen of Screw-ups: Greed, Arrogance, Ignorance and Sloth to see the true cause of this. No need for conspiracies.

    6. Re: This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always call a family member or friend out side of the event. Then someone out side of the event would know your situation.

    7. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Won't stingray devices affect the service too if they happen to roll through your area?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Wireless fails before emergency services and emergency services fails long before POTS. Every hurricane season these facts are proven.

    9. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually a way to monitor all phone communication easily and without detection.

    10. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      And your local NOC the POTS go over could be out too. I will take my chances without one. My sister lived right down the street from the WTC and right after the planes hit them on 911 gave her a call. The phones were jammed and we couldnt get through yet we all somehow survived....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    11. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Yeah that pots phone on the table or wall won't do you much good if you are incapacitated. Rather have the cell phone in my pocket and take my chances.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    12. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      So on average if wireless is unavailable so are emergency services, just like I said.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    13. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're incapacitated the phone in your pocket won't do you any good, either.

    14. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Correction: The devices have about 36 hours of battery power with reusable batteries that the household can replace (hypothetically), so E911 could 'probably' work, but they certainly have less reliability guarantee than traditional full-copper lines.

      --
      Bye!
    15. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greed: Don't fix the copper wire infrastructure we get paid to maintain.

      The majority of the money for maintaining copper outside plant used to come from the ratepayers (the customers), but that was in the day when everybody was a "ratepayer" and had no other choice unless they used a radio or "tin cans & string".

      Nowadays there are fewer and fewer ratepayers, the same amount of copper outside plant (or even more), so the income to maintain the infrastructure is decreasing. These incumbent landline carriers are having a hard time just turning a profit on their "traditional landline" service. As we have all seen, these incumbent carriers have diversified into many different services. Sometimes there is 'funny money" exchanged behind the scenes that you don't see that actually helps pay for the old "traditional wireline" service & it's maintenance.

      Everyone on /. ignorantly thinks these carriers get subsidies to maintain copper lines. Actually they don't. The States set the prices the ratepayers get and the carriers have to figure out to spend the meager amount of money that they do get from ratepayers. Did you drop you landline for just a cell phone? Then you are part of the problem of removing revenue from landline services.

      It is correct to say that incumbent wireline carriers received subsidies to originally build these networks. That money came from a federally-administered fund that every ratepayer paid into as part of their monthly bill. Seriously, I am that old to remember it. So let's get that fact right ONCE AND FOR ALL. Yes, some governments still do give "tax breaks" to carriers to build out fiber networks, not copper networks. Verizon got "help" as part of their effort to wire up NYC for FIOS.

      Control: If you're moved off of copper wire POTS, then in an emergency or power outage you cannot effectively call for help. Wireless systems get overrun with numbers of calls if the emergency is large enough (hurricane, tornado, flood, etc) and your call will not get through. Or you won't have power (wireless), whereas copper is designed to (almost) always have power and JUST WORK.

      That statement is a mixture of facts and lies. All carriers, wireless and wireless, are subject to "network control during times of emergency" when ordered by the State or Federal government. That power comes as part of the regulatory control those governments have over those carriers. Have you ever been in SoCal when a major earthquake it and cell phones did not exist? I was. The wireline network was "locked out" int he areas hardest hit by the quake so as to preserve network access for emergency services. That's right, I had a landline and could not make a call due to the "network lockout", but being a telephone company employee at the time I knew what was happening and most of all, WHY it was happening.

      Wireless carriers are subject to similar rules from the FCC. They will "apparently lock out" cell service to subscribers that are not "provisioned" to have "emergency service access" to the network. So JoeBob's cell phone might not work, but the emergency services can still function. So what should JoeBob do if his house catches on fire or someone gets seriously injured? Get out of there and start walking. What if JoeBob is alone? Well then it "sucks to be him" in that situation.

      No telecommunications network can provide "expected service levels" during an emergency because building a network to that level of "non-blocking" infrastructure in costly to build, costly to maintain, and rarely needed. So an acceptable tradeoff is made. If you are not part of "emergency services", then you get "locked out" until such a time that's "wise" to restore the network to "normal service".

      Yeah, but I want my Internet? How do I Facebook, Twitter, Pintrest, Snapchat, etc. on a "locked out network" when a major disaster strikes? Seriously dude, you got bigger problems than that and you seem to just refuse to deal with t

    16. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Greed I agree with but your arguments for control and power? What possible benefit would Verizon get out of fucking people over in a disaster situation? Not to mention POTS systems used to get overrun in those same scenarios before everyone switched to flooding the cell networks -- there's only so many circuits available.

      Similarly, why on earth would they want to disrupt control communication? If anything they'd want states of emergency resolved as quickly as possible -- people running for their lives generally don't stop to pay their telephone bill on the way. Especially for a phone service that's currently sitting under 12 feet of water in a collapsed house.

      I think your tin foil has is already on and perhaps its a tad tight. Might want to loosen that a bit.

      This is purely about greed. Nothing else. Its simply cheaper for them to maintain a handful of cell towers than it is to maintain dozens of roadside boxes and last mile copper (or fiber if it was already there.)

    17. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Not if they can help it. Maybe get a lower bandwidth since its almost certain that a tiny stingray box can't handle the throughput of a real tower, but the whole idea is that you can't tell if you're being snooped so they do everything in their power to maintain effective service while operating.

    18. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      > Power: See above. Put on your tin foil hat, but this is one step in a wave to disrupt and control communication when a "state of emergency" or "martial law" is declared. Just wait.

      As I understand it, the US discovered it is WAY easier to control people when they are sedentary (obese due to force feeding them subsidized surplus corn), uneducated (US ranks among the lowest in public education), and easily entertained (reality TV, 24-hour newscrap cycles).

      With that in mind: failing to provide communication mechanisms cause panic. Panic is hard to manage. If I was a government intent on controlling the population, I wouldn't do things to disrupt their internet feed or make them feel like they need to "prep". I would keep them week and as dependent on infrastructure as possible. Not maintaining phone lines would work against that.

      Plus, the government --already-- controls communication. Everything we transmit is capture, logged, mined and correlated. So there's really nothing to be had from the gov't angle in my mind. I agree with your Greed and Control 1e6% however. Its another way cell companies make billions in the US. Every country I've been to from Europe to SE Asia has better, cheaper, more reliable wireless.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    19. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you love martial law conspiracy theories doesn't mean the phone company gives a shit about them.

    20. Re:This is about power, control, and greed... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      I've been affected by stingray deployments before..... they were investigating someone near my kid's preschool. It only impacted a small area, but at the edges of the stingray coverage it caused weird disruptions of cell service, hopping back and forth between full bars and one or two bars while sitting still, dropped calls, other oddities. And the data connection was crap - which kept frustrating me while I was sitting in the car line waiting for pickup.

      I think it was probably mostly a multipath interference problem at the edge of the coverage that was forcing the phone back and forth between the real and fake tower. Still, it was quite annoying and went on for a few weeks. 15 or 20 years ago you never would have noticed it, but cell service has gotten so good that this sort of thing really stands out.

  9. POTS is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it's not powered by the central office, then it's not telephone service, and the frauds at Verizon should be completely liable for all problems incurred by their false advertising.

    1. Re:POTS is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To all the shit head phone companies, .. POTS is important !
      This is a true story.
      My area was hit hard by hurricane Sandy.
      Cell service died after several hours, battery backup exhusted.
      Gas to run generators was short supply most gas stations had no backup for pumps.
      Internet service stopped, perhaps no power at ISP's.
      With no voip service, no cell, no net, no texting we were cut-off.
      But... that POTS line... it stil had a dial tone !
      That was the only communication link we had from the area for over a week.
      If they changed the POTS line to cell before storm then nothing would have worked.

  10. Re:Capitalism = death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simmer down and address the topic.

  11. Oh no! by sunking2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    We must all freak out even though the article itself says there is an exception form to fill out if the copper line is required. For 99% of people who are out of a FIOS area this is a good thing as it gets their foot in the door for providing some form of wireless internet that will far exceed what they can offer via DSL. The
    The vast majority of customers could care less about copper or wireless or whether they are getting money to maintain copper. Presumably the wireless system has a battery ups like cable to maintain service during short outages. Does everyone here have parents that work in a copper mine or something?

    1. Re:Oh no! by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      No we don't have family in copper mines. But we can spot telco shills from far away.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Oh no! by anegg · · Score: 5, Informative

      One problem I can foresee is that although there is a process in place *now* for keeping the copper in place (it it can be justified), once the FIOS or wireless solution is in place, that premise will probably never be "qualified" to have a copper line hooked back up, so a future need for the copper line cannot be met. The other is that the Verizon "battery backup" is ridiculous - my FIOS backup battery lasts for 8 hours from the time that the power goes out (not 8 hours of call time) and it needs to be replaced every 1 to 2 years. When I had copper service, and we had a house power outage of a week or so in duration (happens roughly 1/year), I could still make phone calls. Now... tough luck. And this means that the E-911 system/service that I've been paying for years to build and maintain won't be there for me if my emergency happens when the power is out.

      Dismantling the copper telephony infrastructure should be a public utility decision, not something the phone company does by subterfuge and one-on-one interactions with home owners who don't understand the ultimate ramifications.

    3. Re:Oh no! by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      The power outage for phone argument is over used. Yes it happens, and you can easily argue that a single more robust wireless solution in some cases would be better as the electrical and phone are going over the same poles.

      The reality is in most cases copper costs more and takes longer to upgrade services. Yes they get money to maintain, both from customers and the government. But I could really care less if they can offer something better with the money I'm spending today and in the future. For most people, most of the time, wireless can offer a better service. Most people don't consider their phone service married to copper, its just what it happens to use at the moment. Offer them better service on a different medium and they'll jump at it.

      The point being this isn't necessarily some nefarious plot. The union doesn't like it because fixing wires keeps people in a job. But the end customer for the most part could care less and is currently being held back by copper.

    4. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While technically true, let's be honest... a wireless infrastructure would be cheaper. That's it. It's no better, it's not more reliable, it's not safer or more clean in transmission- it's just cheaper over distance and less to maintain. And of course 'new-shiny' things are for some reason is always considered better. (Which is why we'll be abandoning the wheel in 2018 and going anti-grav. Because it's better, no physical tread to repair. See?).

    5. Re:Oh no! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      you can easily argue that a single more robust wireless solution in some cases would be better as the electrical and phone are going over the same poles

      And you can just as easily be wrong. The only instance in which wireless would potentially be more reliable is if a tree falls on the wires feeding your street or house, or someone takes out one of the poles carrying such wires. Both of those are very localized problems, easily solved by walking one block over and asking a neighbor to use their phone; and neither are problems in areas with underground wiring.

      A "disaster-level" power outage will not involve distribution poles, it will involve high-tension lines, transformers, and/or generators (e.g. power plants). Basically, the situations in which loss of electrical power will overlap with a life-or-death need for access to a phone all involve electrical generation or distribution equipment that is nowhere near phone lines.

      The mandate that every effort be made to keep POTS service up and running means they have battery backups for the immediate outage, with natural gas generators on site for extended outages, and diesel or gasoline generators on the ready in case gas service is disrupted. None of this is mandated for wireless, VoIP, or internet; and, as a result, those are the first services to go down when there is a loss of power.

      During the Northeast blackout of 2003, I was the only of my coworkers with AT&T (Cingular at the time) wireless, with the rest being a mix of Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. They all lost service immediately when power went out; I had service for 3 hours, until AT&T's towers lost power. My POTS line was up for the duration of the multi-day outage.

      The last half-dozen or so places I've lived where I've had both DSL and cable internet simultaneously, I've consistently observed that my modest UPS outlives the cable plant during an outage, while my DSL line stays up until the UPS dies, at which point I still have a working POTS line and can make and receive calls, while the VoIP service I use for my business died with the cable plant.

      <sarc>But yes, POTS is less reliable than wireless or VoIP by literal miles.</sarc>

      Dumbass.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re:Oh no! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The power outage for phone argument is over used.

      I'm guessing you've never lived too far outside of an urban setting. Power outages are super common in even semi-rural areas. Basically any area that only has one main line coming in from the larger grid, especially if they also happen to be in a high-wind area (tree branches falling on the lines was a very common issue when I lived in such a place.)

      And when I say super common, there was a while when I first moved there that during the winter months, multi-hour outages were pretty much a weekly occurrence and multi-day outages happened at least once a year. Its improved a lot since then (and I've since moved as well) but I have little doubt that there's plenty of places Verizon services that are still subject to frequent and long-lasting power disruptions (to make matters worse.. those also tend to be the places where its most expensive to maintain the copper -- long runs and low population really drive up the per-customer costs quickly.)

  12. It ain't what it used to be by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

    I'm an old guy, and for most of my life, POTS was iron-reliable. I picked up my phone, and it worked through rain, snow, sleet, hail, and even when the power was out.

    Lately, my mom was having trouble with her landline. It started going out everytime it rained. I think it went out once when it just got humid! AT&T did "fix" it, but they must have just done a quick patch, because it started doing it again soon. They sent someone again, and did a better job of fixing it, but who knows when it will go out again.

    The good thing is, it did encourage her to get a cellphone, which I'd been trying to nudge her to for awhile.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:It ain't what it used to be by PRMan · · Score: 1

      They probably ALREADY switched her to wireless without telling her.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:It ain't what it used to be by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, in a major disaster cellphones are nearly guaranteed to stop working for an indefinite period of time. Land lines have been a lot more durable.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:It ain't what it used to be by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Lately, my mom was having trouble with her landline. It started going out everytime it rained. I think it went out once when it just got humid! AT&T did "fix" it, but they must have just done a quick patch, because it started doing it again soon. They sent someone again, and did a better job of fixing it, but who knows when it will go out again.

      I only know what the situation is like in the west, and I don't know where your mom is (insert mom joke here). In the west, Pacific Bell never really bothered to maintain their copper, and were known nationwide for having the worst. Then they were bought out by SWB, which really never maintained anything. Which was then bought by AT&T, which is continuing the tradition. The copper in my neighborhood has been spliced to hell and back dozens of times and it is way past the point at which it is reasonably maintainable, but they keep splicing it because I think they assume that someone else will buy that business from them eventually and they can just pass the buck again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. How are the customers being billed by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    When I switch from POTS service to a VOIP service, My bill when from $50 a month down to $25 a month. And the VOIP service included things like unlimited long distance, voicemail, and a few other features that weren't included in my POTS service, because they would have made the bill even more expensive. Are Verizon dropping the rates for any customer affected by changing over to a VOIP system? Because if they are continuing to charge people as if they are using a POTS system, then the customers are truly being fleeced.

    A lot of people stay with POTS because they assume that land lines are more reliable and better quality. If they are no longer getting an actual copper connection, they shouldn't be paying the same amount, because then they could go with any other VOIP provider and save a lot of money.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:How are the customers being billed by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Read the article. Its still POTS service, but it includes a wireless hop from the customer's phone drop to the poll servicing that drop wire.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:How are the customers being billed by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      The main advantage of POTS lines is that they will work even if the power is out.

      Your VoIP equipment has a battery in it to accomplish a similar thing, but it can wear down in an extended outage. Also... as with any digital service, it is relying on layers upon layers upon layers of technology working correctly whereas a POTS line is dead simple analog signals.

      Simplicity and reliability go hand-in-hand...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:How are the customers being billed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      POTS over wireless - the gold standard in reliability.

  14. And yet by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When asked about raising the data limits on wireless, they cry about how overloaded their wireless is.

    1. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /thread

    2. Re:And yet by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And voice has what to do with data again? This seems like fairly standard practice when there's a major break in copper infrastructure. Send a tech over to patch a wireless backhaul in while you fix the copper. I was on wireless PSTN for 3 weeks while our local utility had to dig up the street because they couldn't pull a new cable through the damaged conduit.

    3. Re:And yet by sjames · · Score: 1

      These days voice is data. It's all packets of digital data. It all takes up bandwidth.

      You probably didn't notice in TFA, but when they switch someone over to wireless, they don't ever switch them back.

    4. Re:And yet by tepples · · Score: 1

      These days voice is data. It's all packets of digital data. It all takes up bandwidth.

      But not nearly as much bandwidth as a session of HTML document viewing or video streaming. Depending on how congested your network is, it could be 0.006 to 0.012 Mbps each way.

    5. Re:And yet by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, voice is less bandwidth, but it is bandwidth and they insist on adding it even as they cry that their network is overloaded.

  15. in related news by matushorvath · · Score: 1

    The Stable Workers of America (SWA) union asked the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to put a stop to the forced horse-to-car conversions. The motorized transportation service is not a proper replacement for horse transport because it does not work with grass and water. In addition, it cannot be bred at home and instead has to be bought in dealerships, which gives the dealerships too much power over human transportation.

    1. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd be pretty upset if I called my vet to come see why my horse is sick and they simply shot my horse and gave me a bicycle.

  16. I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Really- I got a FT-7900R/E VHF/UHF DUAL BAND FM TRANSCEIVER, Baofeng 5 & 8 WATT radios for on the go, antennas for both my vehicles, and utilize a channel with a repeater for activists in my community. We get reception pretty much all over town and I can be easily reached on my radio. I had fiber installed by a local ISP. None of this was cheap or free, but in Keene, New Hampshire there are a lot of activists who want to reduce and preferably eliminate government. If you are serious about getting rid of your dependence on government and shitty corporations come join us.

    The people here are against government interference in our lives. We want liberty and freedom. We don't want government welfare (from government schools to corporate welfare, though many people support charity when it's not forced via government violence), taxes, social security, vehicular registration, drug criminalization laws, drivers licenses, government involvement in private relations ie marriage, copy"right", and so on. If there is no violence, actual threat, coercion, or fraud there should be no crime.

    Check out the Free State Project www.freestateproject.org , www.shiresociety.com , www.freetalklive.com , www.freekeene.com

    There are multiple different groups throughout New Hampshire and we're all here as part of a migration movement to create a free state and so far 10% of 20,000 people have migrated for that purpose. We're getting a lot accomplished and seeing new people move in regularly. It's been a long time in the making, but the project is really coming to life and we're having a positive influence on politics and life that can't be seen anywhere else. In Keene, New Hampshire for example we have the highest rate of BitCoin acceptance anywhere.

    1. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The native New Hampshire people want you to fucking quit polluting their state with stupid.

    2. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      So you liberretardians are squatting, imposing yourself on the natives

    3. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by swalve · · Score: 2

      What problem does the giant walkie talkie setup solve?

    4. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be careful not to try and conduct any business transactions over that radio link.

    5. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...liberretardians...

      That's a pretty desperate stretch.

    6. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      The people here are against government interference in our lives. We want liberty and freedom. We don't want government welfare (from government schools to corporate welfare, though many people support charity when it's not forced via government violence), taxes, social security, vehicular registration, drug criminalization laws, drivers licenses, government involvement in private relations ie marriage, copy"right", and so on. If there is no violence, actual threat, coercion, or fraud there should be no crime.

      You don't really want that. If you did, you would move to any number of countries with no effective government. Somalia, for example.

      What you are asking for is to be fucked over by the wealthy, with no government to protect you. Good luck!

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. I forgot what a great job that the government was doing. You know... with all the billionaires and such who own everything.

      I'm not completely against some government, but if you look closely at it, the bigger the government gets, the more friendly it gets with the other things its size. Like big corporations, and big money.

      Sure if we had zero police and zero coordination, there could be some serious problems, but look at the world today. Government has been increasing in size for centuries. Has this reduced the wealth of those at the top? Or has that wealth simply grown as the government pretends to protect people, but in the end, merely creates bureaucracy that people with lots of money are simply better at working around than most average people.

    8. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're against government interfence in our lives. Yet posting on Slashdot ... the Internet was created via taxes (via all the work that started with DARPA in the 60s, and creating TCP/IP in the 70s). Fact remains is this, you are using tech that that was paid for via federal taxes to develop and then whine about the government. Get out of here.

    9. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      Somalia is just a collection of weak, ineffective governments on top of each other. It's not quite an anarchy, but it's interestingly done much better since the collapse of the government (as of 2009), suggesting that in markets where the free market has been able to enter, life has improved. It's not a great place to live by any standards but has done relatively well compared to its neighbors. Of course, it looks like people are trying to ruin it by strengthening the state.

      On a side note, the government is not here to "protect you" from the wealthy. It's here to extract resources from you to stay in power. If pretending to be against the wealthy (while transferring money to them through lucrative contracts and favors) helps achieve that end, it will be done.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    10. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      As fun as your radio setup is, it lacks scalability. What happens when every house has one? Total congested chaos. You can't hope to handle thousands of people all wanting to make a phone call that way.

      Perhaps I might make a suggestion? You have radio comms experts. Pair up with some computer networking experts. Look into promising technologies - BATMAN mesh, perhaps something like distributed caching to conserve scarce physical transmission capacity (Might be able to adapt IPFS). With network engineers and radio hobbyists working in conjunction, you can probably achieve a bit more than either alone. You'll probably have to move away from amateur radio though, as the FCC has a rule against sending anything encrypted.

      Also, solar. Look into solar. Not for the eco-stuff or anything like that, but for the independence. You install it and pretty much forget about it for the next thirty years, no longer beholden to any energy company and needing nothing more than occasional parts or fresh batteries, and the technology is basic enough that anyone with a hobbyist level of electronics knowledge can easily learn to maintain it. You don't get much more independent than that.

    11. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      They are making use of open borders and a lack of legal protection to protect the dominance of the local population to migrate there, legally.

    12. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Altrag · · Score: 2

      If there is no violence, actual threat, coercion, or fraud there should be no crime

      If there is no crime, there should be no crime. Excellent tautology there.

      Unfortunately history has shown repeatedly over and over that there's always someone out to benefit themselves by hurting others. You want to be rid of government _and_ shitty corporations. How do you expect that's going to work? Do you think the next Standard Oil just say to themselves "you know, we're too big and concentrating too much power lets break ourselves up let competition reduce our profit margins!" That's not a choice any company ever has made. Maybe you just think you can get the entire country to boycott such practices? Stop driving and heating their homes for several months or years out of pure libertarian idealism while their children freeze around them?

      You say you have the highest rate of BitCoin acceptance anywhere. Well good for you. What are you going to do about it in your magic world where neither large governments nor large companies exist? You might get someone to start a local ISP and roll out cabling to the richest parts of your town, but who would you convince to drop hundreds of millions of dollars to link up with England or Brazil or India? Or even the tens of millions of dollars to link to the next county? And if there is an entity large enough to spend that kind of money, would they not then fall into your "shitty corporation" category? Not to mention someone to generate all the electricity to run your computers and the ISP and everything else. Or do you have a cool billion sitting around to build your own power plant? And the land to build it on? And where's the motivation to keep your plant from polluting the environment? After all the crap you pump in the river only affects the town downstream you and your friends a perfectly fine! And what's your motivation to provide timely and cheap access to your electricity? Competition? How many power plants do you think the population (never mind the environment) could sustain? And just building lots of smaller plants doesn't really work either since bigger is just flat out better in almost all power plant designs (in terms of lower cost per watt.) Perhaps just assume everyone will go solar? That's at least space and environmentally efficient. Who's going to spend the time and money on research to improve solar technology is another question though (and there's definitely no reason to believe we've reached the peak of solar yet! Unless we stop trying.) Maybe get a lucky tinkerer in his back yard have a eureka moment eventually but dedicated research also costs huge amounts of money -- the scale of which is usually only available to governments and large corporations.

      The problem with all these libertarian dreams is that they only work if a majority of people don't follow them, at least if you scale them up past the size of a small town or so where people are close enough to have significant and direct influence on each other. Beyond that, it almost always breaks down into "we want everything the world has to offer but don't want to accept responsibility for our part in it." Its just not a winning formula.

      Government exists for a reason. Sure they have a habit of stepping into areas they really shouldn't be (marriage is a good example) but what you need is checks against that, not complete elimination. And even the libertarians who grudgingly accept a small government still don't want to pay taxes as if governments can magically pull money out of thin air (well technically they can just print it, but that only leads to mass inflation. So yay you get to keep your $1000 this year but its only worth $10 in next year's money and pennies the year after. Savings! Then again a lot of you want to return to the gold standard so back to pulling money out of thin air.)

      Ok so I've definitely ranted far too long already but the TL;DR is this: Libertarian idealism is simply impractical on any sort of large

    13. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he said.

      Being "free from government interference" doesn't necessarily mean anarchy. We had a government in the US in 1890. It didn't try to control even 10% of what your current government tries to control in your life.

      Oh, and "local warlord" is a form of government. (as seen in Somalia) It is pretty much the first in the lineage of forms of government. This lineage also includes the Mafia. And trade unions coming together as a collective. And representative republics.

      Why is it that in whatever form the government takes, it eventually involves people using violence and the threat of violence to force other people to live in ways they do not want to live, pay money to people they do not want to pay, and submit to intrusions to which they do not want to submit?

    14. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that in whatever form the government takes, it eventually involves people using violence and the threat of violence to force other people to live in ways they do not want to live, pay money to people they do not want to pay, and submit to intrusions to which they do not want to submit?

      For those who don't think this applies in a democracy like the US or Europe, I'll point you to Jim Crow laws. In the US there were laws that forced people to segregate by race. Most people didn't want to live this way - but enough who had political power did, and they used the power of government to force everyone else to live that way too. Or drug laws - like outlawing the possession of a plant like cannabis. And take a look at sodomy laws. And the US Civil Rights Act.

      Wait, what? Why would I say that? Civil; rights are a good thing. How can such a law be anything but good? Well, freedom of association is a fundamental freedom. And forcing someone to be separated from the person they love is evil (like sodomy laws or preventing gay marriages). And so is forcing people to associate with folks they don't want to associate with. Like forcing some devout Mormon lady to provide wedding cakes for a gay wedding. That's evil. If she doesn't want to be a party to it, the state has no legitimate authority to force her to do so.

      The US and Europe are replete with examples of well-intentioned evil. Like Europe's "right to be forgotten". Holy crap, is that a massive violation of every freedom we have. I don't care how many guns you have, you don't have a right to tell me that I cannot remember some fact of public record. Or recount that fact to friends and acquaintances. This is thought-crime at its worst.

      Lots and lots of evil has been perpetrated by governments in the name of doing good.

      Better to let individuals make their own choices and leave the use of force out of it. Even if it means that some folks will be assholes.

    15. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of states for you to go to, CA and NY are good examples. I'm sure they share your values.

    16. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not remotely a tautology.

      Drug "crime" does not fit that definition.

      Nor does prostitution.

      Nor does the simple possession of a gun.

      Nor does giving some guy a ride to the airport for 50 bucks without a Taxi medallion.

      Or how about braiding hair without a license?

      And your examples? Jeez..... Who would pay to link to the next country? Who do you think pays now? Transoceanic cables are not government owned, by and large. They are laid by companies like Level 3, Vodafone, etc.

      Really, don't chide folks for not understanding something when you so very clearly don't have the slightest concept of what you are attempting to ridicule. Libertarian and anarchist are not the same thing, by the way.

    17. Re:I'm having a really big antenna installed today by Altrag · · Score: 1

      It is not remotely a tautology.

      Yes, I was glibly taking the example to its extreme. Obviously feeding a troll here but come on. Read between the lines.

      Who do you think pays now?

      The big "shitty" corporations, which the OP grouped in with government as things he wanted to see reduced or eliminated. Though I'd be a bit surprised if they didn't have some sort of government subsidy mixed in there.

      Libertarian and anarchist are not the same thing, by the way.

      I'm aware. Anarchists want no government. Libertarians want a magic government that does exactly and only the things they want, exactly and only at the time they want them, for free, and disappears as soon as the task is complete.

      Both are unworkable in the real world, but the anarchist vision at least would be plausible if humans didn't have such a strong desire for leadership.

  17. Sounds right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... They get a monopoly that is federally funded, then they force a substandard service ... 'Merica... Fuck Yeah!!!!

  18. I knew at&t gave up on copper in my city. by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    There was a running joke in my hometown, people like me that had a TON of fax machines to service, that one of the main trunk cables running down one of our major streets, would flake out every time it rained. It got so bad, they PERMANENTLY attached a large tank of liquid nitrogen to freeze out the water. In the summer, you could see frost on that cable for about 3 blocks. In the last 6 months they have removed it and you can see a brand spanking new digital box sitting at the base of the pole. If thieves knew most of the copper lines weren't being used, they'd be ripping them down in droves!

  19. Emergency calls over copper POTS by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 1

    Wait, so this means copper POTS lines might go over cell service? Um, what about emergency service calls? (a) will they get automagically located quickly/easily/correctly like traditional land line calls and (b) how long until somebody sues because their sick relative died because the signal to the paramedics that went over copper (woops, not actually copper, and the cell service was down) didn't go through?

    1. Re:Emergency calls over copper POTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'adapter' presents a POTS interface and typically has GPS built in, and presents a landline CLI. To all intents of purposes it's identical to a landline so far as the responders are concerned. This is a non-issue.

    2. Re:Emergency calls over copper POTS by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The 'adapter' presents a POTS interface and typically has GPS built in, and presents a landline CLI. To all intents of purposes it's identical to a landline so far as the responders are concerned. This is a non-issue unless it's a real emergency, and the power is out.

      N.B.: The copper lines also needed electricity, but they operated on batteries that the newer systems don't bother with, because it's cheaper not to, and nobody's making them care. There's really nothing inherently better about copper, though the electrical conductivity makes it easier to power remote devices, but mainly it's design. The older devices were required to be reliable in case of disaster, the new ones not...and it's cheaper not to care.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Emergency calls over copper POTS by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Hardline copper is more resistant to outside interference.

      Hardline copper is not used as a broadcast medium, so you're not sharing bandwidth with everyone in the neighborhood.

      I'd hardly say that there's nothing inherently better about copper.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    4. Re:Emergency calls over copper POTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that a landline is required by regulation to have a set amount of bandwidth and a set amount of voice compression, which has decades of data transfer protocols developed to work with it.

      Verizon cellular compresses voice down much more and so nothing above a 300 baud modem can complete handshake properly over it.

      This means any data device like a modern modem or a fax machine will function over it.

  20. "This is a general discussion to formally notify" by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 2

    I don't think Verizon knows what the word discussion really means. No matter how hard that tech yells at that paper, at no point is it going to consider saying anything other than what is printed on it. >_>

  21. Didn't V.92 solve the compatibility problem? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    > because it doesn't work with security alarms, fax machines, medical devices such as pacemakers that require
    > telephone monitoring, and other services, the union said.

    I firmly believe that Verizon should be forced to either maintain its wireline network, sell it to someone who will at a fair price, or upgrade it to common-carrier fiber available for use by all on vendor-neutral terms.

    That said... I swear I remember reading about a final extension to the v.92 standard for use primarily by FAX machines & credit card terminals that modulated 2.4kbps of data with a shit-ton of forward error correction to make it LOOK like 9600 baud to a wireless (or VoIP) codec. The general idea was that the codec would think it was dealing with a nearly-uncompressable complex waveform, mangle it anyway, but mangle it in a way that preserved its ability to convey 2400 baud data anyway.

    The main issue I remember was that most/all NEW fax machines made after ~2000 supported it, but by that point fax was a fading legacy use, and few people cared enough to actually buy a new one after ~2000. However, the rise of multifunction printers/scanners/fax machines after ~2008 (since adding fax capabilities to a device that already has printing and scanning capabilities costs almost nothing) should have mostly solved THAT problem by now.

    From what I recall, legacy 2400kbps didn't work, because the codec would either try to treat it like audio suitable for even lower bitrates, or would just plain mangle it so badly that the modem at the receiving end couldn't make sense of it.

  22. Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon is worse than them all. I feel bad for you.

  23. Re: I'm having a really big antenna installed toda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I bet you have lots and lots of guns too, don't you?

  24. Fiber everywhere by rfengr · · Score: 1

    Why can't fiber just be run everywhere? Rural Electrification brought electricity everywhere (big ,thick metal cables). Copper phone lines are available to all households. Why the hell can't the same be done with fiber. Do it right and it should be good for 100 years.

    1. Re:Fiber everywhere by somenickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because corporations are more sophisticated now. They realize they can take government subsidies for rolling out internet infrastructure and, when they don't actually deliver, there are no consequences.

    2. Re:Fiber everywhere by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Money, basically.

      Running cables means putting up poles, which is expensive. In urban and most suburban areas it also means digging trenches in the road, putting cable down and filling them in - which is horrifically expensive. That's why wired telecommunications is a natural monopoly. Rural electrification and universal telephone were only possible because the government run a subsidy program - they paid for the installation of cables out of tax money to cover those areas where it would otherwise not be economical.

      Verizon wants everyone to go wireless because it's a lot cheaper to both install and maintain. If there's a fault you can just send an engineer to pull a unit from a rack and stick a new one in - you never need to close down a road for half a day and dig it up to find an underground fault, or trace through five different junction boxes from exchange to customer to figure out where the cable has corroded through.

    3. Re:Fiber everywhere by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The first company to do that will take all the risk and cost. Then they will have to share. A wise competitor will just sit back, demand the gov give them total access and have a new network to sell services on.
      Why build a brand new US wide network to just give away access to your competitors just after completion?
      The other part is monopoly and cartel networks peering to keep out new entrants.
      A new network might have new equal access laws. Better to keep the old laws on old networks for a few more decades.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Fiber everywhere by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Because someone has to pay for it and nobody likes paying for things anymore. Companies don't like investing when it negatively affects the next quarterly report, even if they'd see a return in 5 years. And homeowners aren't going to pay for a line that does exactly what their current line does (if they could even afford it in the first place.)

      I mean none of that should be taken as absolutes -- obviously companies occasionally manage to think beyond 3 months and there's obviously some homeowners who get enough benefit from fiber over copper to drop the cash on it when their phone company refuses to do so, but neither of those are the common case.

      Back in the day when the copper was being deployed originally, this was of course still true but the government stepped in and made sure the wires were run, either directly or through major incentives to local providers.

      There was some effort to do that again with fiber but the government also doesn't want to spend anything anymore and we're culturally super against corporate oversight these days to boot leading to more than one fiasco where companies took the incentives and then just didn't bother following through (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240.shtml.) That puts a fast damper on the attempts to incentivize companies and we're all left in a world where widespread fiber is a far-future, if ever, dream instead of a modern reality.

    5. Re:Fiber everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we could go back to the days of torching their houses, dragging the bastards out through the streets and hanging their entire families...

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by drnb · · Score: 3, Informative

    A vote for Hillary, well any Democrats on the ballot, is rewarding the tactics of the DNC. They don't care if people bitch and moan. They only care if people vote Democrat. Bitching and moaning and then voting Dem makes all your complaints irrelevant. Things will not change, a party will not reform, until they lose the votes of otherwise loyal voters. Your only power is your vote, not a letter nor an email nor a text nor a post nor a tweet.

    1. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Your only power is your vote, not a letter nor an email nor a text nor a post nor a tweet.

      You really live up to your username ("dumb"), don't you! Do you think that any politician cares about people who don't vote? The people who don't vote are the sheep of the sheeple.

      Instead, vote for a third party, or write in a name of a politician that you respect. It sends a message; perhaps a small message, but better than none.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      The party won't reform....because post-Trump there won't BE an America to vote IN!!!

    3. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By all means, make Trump the first into our Emperor by refusing to do what is necessary
      Pretty much your choice is Do for Hillary, or do TO America

    4. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by drnb · · Score: 2

      Your only power is your vote, not a letter nor an email nor a text nor a post nor a tweet.

      You really live up to your username ("dumb"), don't you!

      Perhaps the person who confuses "RN" for "UM" is not qualified to make assessments as to who is dumb?

      Do you think that any politician cares about people who don't vote?

      Your confusion seems to extend from letters to concepts. I was speaking specifically about voters, not non-voters. Did "A vote for Hillary ... They only care if people vote Democrat" confuse you? Assess even more seriously your qualification to label people dumb.

    5. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by drnb · · Score: 2, Funny

      The party won't reform....because post-Trump there won't BE an America to vote IN!!!

      Later when you get to high school you will have to take a US Government class. When you take that class you will learn that our government is organized into three separate branches that can stalemate each other. That no one branch, and more importantly no one person - even the President, can get much done without the cooperation of the other branches.

      I think the class will also mention that the military and law enforcement also swears their loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, not the temporary occupant of the White House and are taught to disobey illegal and unconstitutional orders. I'm not 100% sure this is covered in class, my familiarity with this may be due to having sworn such an oath.

    6. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Altrag · · Score: 2

      And voting for Republicans rewards the tactics of the Republicans. That's kind of the point. GOP also doesn't care how much you bitch and moan once they're in office. Its called politics. You win and then can stop thinking about it for 3 years.

      As for your vote being power. Well it is. You have ~1/350million of a country's worth of power. Yippie. That you can use to choose between all of two options once every four years. If you happen to consider a specific issue to be of particular important, your vote is completely worthless unless it just happens to be something one of the two parties decide to talk about once every 4 years (or every two years if you want to include midterms.) If your favorite issue doesn't fall into that narrow category then even your tiny amount of voting power won't help you.

      Letters and emails are actually super helpful (well-written ones at least. A giant ball of flame is less so.) That doesn't mean every single one will be responded to (or even read, though most of them will at least see the eyeballs of an aid.) And it definitely doesn't mean your politician is going to agree with you and start pushing whatever issue is up your rear that day. But the fact that you sat down and wrote an email means you're more involved in the political process than 80-90% of the country and that doesn't go unnoticed.

      If you really want to make change though, petitions are the way to go right now. I know it seems silly but the internet has taken something that used to help convince a small town mayor and scaled it up so that it has at least the potentially to be effective on a national scale.

      Everyone, including politicians, know the downsides, in-grouping and system gaming potential of anything on the internet but if you can get 100,000 virtual signatures and can prove that a good majority of them are legitimate (ie: you didn't just randomly generate 100k email addresses or hire a Chinese labor farm to fake 100k signatures or something like that) then news agencies and politicians and other such people start to take notice.

      100k is a hell of a lot of folk who are all saying the same thing and even if it doesn't cost any individual much effort to click "I agree," the fact that so many of them DO agree can start making real change possible.

    7. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by drnb · · Score: 1

      By all means, make Trump the first into our Emperor by refusing to do what is necessary Pretty much your choice is Do for Hillary, or do TO America

      Your knowledge of our government's organization and the power of one specific person in government seems to be even more deficient than Trump's.

      The DNC is more dangerous than Trump to our Democracy. The DNC is directly involved in getting their chosen people into two of the three branches of government. Since you seem interested in Emperors go read up on the Praetorian Guard, that may help you better understand the point.

    8. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Looks like a combination of my:
      1. Imperfect eyesight (mine).
      2. Reading too quickly and stupidly misreading.

      My apologies.

      However, to clarify, I didn't misread "RN" as "UM". I misread "rn" as "m" and added in the missing vowel. I can't believe that I am the first person to misread "rn" as "m".

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by lgw · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the person who confuses "RN" for "UM" is not qualified to make assessments as to who is dumb?

      To be fair, with default fonts Slashdot has a keming problem.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by drnb · · Score: 1

      I am often guilty of (1) and (2) myself. Plus I have another problem: (3) Thinking one word but the fingers type something else. Combined with terrible proofreading (hey, its just an online post not a thesis submission) I've had more than my share of silliness.

    11. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      write in a name of a politician that you respect.

      404 file not found

      --

      Enigma

    12. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      To be fair, with default fonts Slashdot has a keming problem.

      Congratulations sir you win the internet.

      You used their stupid k e r n i n g to make me read it correctly when you intentionally wrote k e m i n g.

      And you used the word kerning. There is insufficient use of the word kerning in everyone's lives.

    13. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans will always run blithering douchebags anyway, because that's what their supporters like. Meanwhile, we've got a Republican running as the Democrat presidential candidate and unless we vote Trump, nothing will ever change and the party leadership will continue shoving Clintons up our assholes until the end of time.

    14. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Campaign promises are all bullshit no matter who you support. Yet here we are with 40% of the populace supporting someone whose ridiculous outsize claims and outlandish promises and off-the-cuff flat-out made-up bullshit are way beyond rationality. People say they hate politicians for not keeping their promises, but they're still voting for them based on those BS promises anyway. Idiots.

      Why not vote based on competence instead.

    15. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not vote based on competence instead.

      Well Hillary was competent in finding a man whose coattails she could ride. In her so-called relevant experience she certainly had impressive sounding job titles but her job performance was rather abysmal. She has been a failure. She is also a terribly incompetent politician, losing to a nobody with no relevant experience in '08. Possibly losing to Trump in '16, at best barely defeating him.

      Both mainstream candidates make the 3rd party candidates look like the competent ones.

    16. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that username looks like "dmb" (that's "D M B" since Slashdot text is so unreadable) to me.

      That said, I'm completely in shock that the poster offered his apologies. This is the internet: we don't do that kind of thing here!!

    17. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Both mainstream candidates make the 3rd party candidates look like the competent ones.

      Which is really bad considering one is a brain-fried pothead and the other appears to either be a quack doctor who's an anti-vaxxer or at least panders to that crowd.

      I really wish we could have someone who's both an outsider and reasonably competent, like Ralph Nader.

    18. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the part about how you are supposed to obey and uphold the LAWFUL ORDERS of those appointed above you, meaning you do not get to decide if you like the order, only if (in your mind) it is a legal or an illegal order. If you decide it is an illegal order, and it is agreed to by lawyers that it isn't, then you get to go to Ft Leavenworth and make little rocks out of big ones.

      But you swear to more than just the constitution. I took that oath to. Amazing how many people forget about that part where they are swearing to obey those appointed above them.

      Link:

      https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

    19. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      By all means, make Trump the first into our Emperor by refusing to do what is necessary Pretty much your choice is Do for Hillary, or do TO America

      Lose the war to win the battle, eh? Good plan.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    20. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What's your problem with DNC tactics, and why is it worth sacrificing the welfare of the country to object to?

      I hate to break it to you, but the DNC is a political organization, which means it deals with politics and gets political. It isn't an absolutely neutral arbiter of opinion. It has a vested interest in getting someone electable nominated, and Sanders is a lot less electable than Clinton. You'll find much the same stuff in the RNC, if you care to hack in.

      Also, if you dislike how the DNC operates, the correct thing to do is to join the party and work within it to make the changes you want. That has a chance of being effective. Refusing to vote Democrat because you don't like the DNC will do absolutely nothing to reform the DNC. The connection is too tenuous.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The DNC is directly involved in getting their chosen people into two of the three branches of government.

      Um, yes. If you haven't noticed, the Democrats are a political party, and the DNC wants to get Democrats elected wherever it can. This includes discouraging candidates who are less likely to be elected sometimes. You may also be unaware that private emails were intended to be private, and no matter where they're from often contain things that don't look good in public.

      The DNC is nothing like the Praetorian Guard either. It does not accept bribes to assassinate sitting Presidents, and does not determine who will be the next chief executive.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      More specifically, the Republicans have been taken over by a coalition of highly ideological people who want their candidates to be ideologically pure much more than they want them electable. This happened to the Democrats roughly around 1970, but they recovered faster (and made changes to the process to try to prevent another McGovern).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Lets Mark Rich, FBI 10 most wanted pardoned after wife makes 1 million dollar donation to Clinton Foundation.
      Hillary Sold Access to the state dept for donations to Clinton Foundation.
      Bill 16 million/year to sit on a board of a for profit international college, while his wife is secretary of state.
      Clinton Staffers registering 45,000 fraudulent voters in Indiana.
      Then I hear something is up where she conspired to deprive the government of its property and violate national secrets laws by using a rogue email server.

      Yep there's that DO TO AMERICA

    24. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      False as always.Comey said NO crime in the Email non-scandal, as in "this was never even close".
      Likewise, Marc Rich's wife did not donate to the Clinton Foundation THERE WASN'T ONE in 1998
      Finally, other than Newsmax, what do you read?

    25. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      False as always.Comey said NO crime in the Email non-scandal, as in "this was never even close".

      Oh really ?

      Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case
      -- James Comey

      Now what FBI Agents had to say

      “Each month for 27 years, I received oral and computer admonishments concerning the proper protocol for handling top secret and other classified material, and was informed of the harsh penalties, to include prosecution and incarceration,” for mishandling such material, he pointed out. “Had myself or my colleagues engaged in behavior of the magnitude of Hillary Clinton, as described by Comey, we would be serving time in Leavenworth.”

      Likewise, Marc Rich's wife did not donate to the Clinton Foundation THERE WASN'T ONE in 1998

      My bad Clinton Library, of course you were trying to imply that there was no donation at all weren't you ?

      The Indiana voter fraud is now up to 56 counties
      http://www.indystar.com/story/...

      That's USA Today btw. What are your news sources, Democratic Underground and Media Matters ?

    26. Re:A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DNC by drnb · · Score: 1

      the Democrats are a political party, and the DNC wants to get Democrats elected wherever it can.

      Hillary being the party insider's choice proves otherwise. She is a terrible candidate. so bad she is running neck and neck with Trump. When there is a significant chance that Trump can defeat you then you are a weak failure of a candidate. The only reason Hillary is the candidate is because of the political machine that Bill built.

      This includes discouraging candidates who are less likely to be elected sometimes.

      If true then Hillary would have been discouraged. And more viable Democrats not discouraged from running this year. She was virtually unopposed by mainstream Democrats, one token candidate that was deferential to her. In a year with no incumbent there should have been more mainstream candidates. But the machine discouraged them.

      The DNC is nothing like the Praetorian Guard either

      Other than picking the next leader behind the scenes.

  29. how long does the battery last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if you don't have power for an entire week, like after a hurricane, the battery is pretty much useless...

    1. Re:how long does the battery last? by drnb · · Score: 1

      Because if you don't have power for an entire week, like after a hurricane, the battery is pretty much useless...

      So is the phone company's.

    2. Re: how long does the battery last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks to be you. My car has a power outlet so I can still charge batteries in the event of a long power outage.

    3. Re:how long does the battery last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because if you don't have power for an entire week, like after a hurricane, the battery is pretty much useless...

      So is the phone company's.

      The difference is that the telephone company has contingency plans. You know, like backup generators, contracted fuel deliveries, etc. Yeah, you might have an emergency plan, but the telephone company's is better.

      Also, who do you think the electric company is going to send repairmen to first? John Q. Public or the telephone company?

    4. Re:how long does the battery last? by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      You know, like backup generators, contracted fuel deliveries, etc.

      For their "switching" offices. Not for the neighborhood "hubs". Once it's battery runs down, my secondary, non-POTS, phone service is off line no matter how much back-up power I still have. The only time my primary, POTS, phone service went off line was when a tree branch fell and took down the line from the pole to my house. Otherwise, it has always worked - even during the "Big Blackout" of 2003.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    5. Re:how long does the battery last? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      My phone company (Telus) updated the switch down the road. Now when the power goes out we get 8 hours before the phone dies due to it having one battery. This in a place that is low on the list for electricity getting restored, often 3 days and no other options such as cell phone coverage.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:how long does the battery last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you don't have power for an entire week, like after a hurricane, the battery is pretty much useless...

      So is the phone company's.

      I do own a couple small generators. Neither is fancy, but there is one for my house and one for my moms. I have had to use the one a couple times for several days. They are handy, though it is sort of an insurance policy, if one not likely to be used too many times. TIP: drain the gas out when done using them then run it till it stops running. Don't let gas sit in them. I suppose fuel stabilizer might help as well. I think my generator would run something like a refrigerator, a window air conditioner (small), and a tv/computer, and a couple lights.

      With just a regular car in the driveway, a bit away from the house, a long cord, and an inverter you could probably manage a laptop for quite awhile. It would be a pain since you would have to figure out how often you needed to start and run your car, though if you have a second car and can make sure you can charge ones battery from the other car, you can kind of get around that, to a point.

      More realistically, if you don't have a way to charge your cell phone in your car, get one. They are trivially cheap. My normal house phone is using ooma these days, so that would require at least powering the cable modem and router, well as well as the cordless phone base. Most likely, if I was out of power, I'd not bother unless it was longer. Keep the refrigerator closed, and or put some ice in there, use the access point mode on the phone and a tablet for internet. If it goes on longer, you could leave the phone out in a car plugged into the car charger.. Better yet, put the ice in the refrigerator and either go to work or back to sleep.

      Of course if you must keep stuff from freezing that is harder. Still, if you can shutoff the water where it comes in your house, then drain as much water out of your lines as you can easily do, you will reduce the risk. You won't eliminate it unless you actually purge the lines fully.. The newer PEX water lines are not easily damaged by freezing. If you have a gas hot water heater, you might be able to fill a tub with hot water, let it cool a bit, then fill it again. Obviously you can repeat that for sinks and such.... It probably won't keep a house at a toasty 75F, but avoiding freezing may be doable.

      -Robert

    7. Re:how long does the battery last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you don't have power for an entire week, like after a hurricane, the battery is pretty much useless...

      So is the phone company's.

      The difference is that the telephone company has contingency plans. You know, like backup generators, contracted fuel deliveries, etc. Yeah, you might have an emergency plan, but the telephone company's is better.

      Actually, no. Its a plan that barely and superficially meets government regulations. And such regulations are placebos for the public. If the emergency is days rather than hours service disruption is likely. I've worked in phone company central offices.

    8. Re:how long does the battery last? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, when we had the derecho event on the east coast a few years ago, the power was out for a week at my WV place. The phone worked - but only for local calls. They had the backup batteries. No long distance or cell service worked.

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. I HAVE VERIZON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon Fiber. It has a battery. The machine beeps, every few minutes, 24x7x365 UNLESS I PAY to replace the battery every couple months. I'd rather not keep throwing out perfectly good batteries and paying Verizon for new ones! Even putting it on my own UPS, it beeps 24x7x365!

    Be careful what you wish for!

  32. Re:Capitalism = death by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

    You are right, this is not Captialism = death
    Bohpal, however...

  33. Just a heads up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the major telecoms are planning on dropping their copper plant as soon as they can. Fewer folks use landlines any longer and it costs more to maintain than the revenue it brings in.

    They would much rather sell you a wireless device with all the data plans, and costs that go along with it.

    Dunno who they'll sell it to, but rest assured, it's happening.

  34. Not all wireline companies are the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work for a competitor of Verizon and they can be brutally difficult to work with. It is a corporate culture thing - we saw it all the time. (We sometimes buy circuits from them)

    We ordered service to a location once, and, on the day the Verizon tech was scheduled to install, they called us and said they 'couldn't find the building'. I got so pissed off that I left the office, drove out to the location, saw the 4-foot-tall numbers on the side of the building spelling out the address and called them from a line at that building. They found it the second time.

    I'm sure some accountants pointed out to them the financial benefits (long-term) of minimizing service. After all, service is not a profit center.

  35. That again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... forced copper-to-wireless conversions ...

    This is the last mile problem again: On one hand, Corporate America owns the copper lines, which are highly regulated and subsidized by the taxpayer. On the other hand, they own radio spectrum, which isn't regulated and can be monetized without limit.

  36. Petitions a scam to collect emails for politicians by drnb · · Score: 1

    And voting for Republicans rewards the tactics of the Republicans.

    Actually the Republican party and the Republican establishment do not want Trump. Trump will have no loyal base of support, not in Congress, probably not even in his own Cabinet. We might get see a Cabinet invoke the 25th amendment and declare the President disabled. Then again Trump's twitter account will be taken from him so it might be more difficult to recognize when he is having an "episode".

    But the fact that you sat down and wrote an email means you're more involved in the political process than 80-90% of the country and that doesn't go unnoticed.

    Actually no, letters are so evaluated. Electronic media including emails is considered greatly inferior. And still even a letter is vastly inferior to a vote. The letter is just a sort of polling that gives them a heads up.

    If you really want to make change though, petitions are the way to go right now. I know it seems silly but the internet has taken something that used to help convince a small town mayor and scaled it up so that it has at least the potentially to be effective on a national scale.

    Again, digital, largely considered to be of little value. Actually going out and collecting paper and ink signatures is far more meaningful. Yet, still inferior to votes, just a sort of polling.

    Look at the White House's online petition system. Perhaps action when some cause matches what they want to do anyway. Otherwise a cause is blown off and ignored if its not something they want to do anyway. Their online petition system is just a PR gimmick. Actually its likely just a scam to collect email addresses for political purposes. They require an email to create an account and your petition signing strongly indicates your political leanings.

  37. Stein Anti-Vax by Chromium_One · · Score: 4, Informative

    This again? Stein supports vaccination, but has a problem with the way business is conducted by the FDA.
    http://www.snopes.com/is-green...

    For the nuke comments, sadly, I have to give you that one.
    https://twitter.com/DrJillStei...

    Think I'm doing a write-in for my cat this term.

    --
    When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
  38. MVNO by williamyf · · Score: 1

    Now I'm with Verizon. Who do I go to next when they start pulling this type of shit on me?

    Same networks, less douchebagery.

    Just get one Whose T&Cs and coverage suit your needs

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
  39. I'M FROM THE PHONEY COMPANY AND I'M HERE TO HELP by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    "It's all connected. You're seeing the fish flopping, it's the fish flopping. I'm telling you weird stuff like this happens just before the tsunami. When rivers run backwards that should be a warning sign. Next birds will fly backwards and people will just grunt at it, if tomorrows a decent down day, look out next week. I got a tingly feeling here, tingly like as in people are turning in expectations, this could get ugly..."

    I had some relevant tech comment in mind but it just dissolved into disgusted anger and an anxious concern for the future. So I just pasted the above paragraph, which I paste on those WTF occasions. PLEASE, let's just do this first in California and give it a few years, see how it all works out. Roll it all out in California! Point to point Gigabit Internet to every home, cell phone tattoos, IoT tooth fillings and rubber duck antennas protruding from every skull. Those wireless electric meters are old-fashioned, let's replace them with newer models that yell at passers-by! Well hell, how about electricity by wireless? Hail Tesla! I can hardly wait until the whole state becomes a cluster-fuck electromagnetic shit-storm that glows at night. We'll be able to read by it.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  40. WTF is a land line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is a land line? Is that like a phone that can't be moved around?
    Or is it something that uses expensive wires to send an analog signal?

    I'll tell you what, for the first time in my life I'm agreeing with Verizon on this one.

    Other than that, they're crooks.

    1. Re:WTF is a land line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a phone that stays up for a week after the power goes out.

  41. Re: A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you suggesting the DNC (and to be fair, RNC) doing what it's alwaysbdone for the past 100 or so years is more dangerous than a man with the nuclear codes and a really really short but spiteful temper?

    It's the American dream according to the RNC, if you think about it. The RNC and DNC are just corporations with competing products. The RNC wants less regulations ("government interference") for the corporations. This wouldn't be the first anticompetive hated corporation everyone has to buy because what else are they going to do? Go to another company that's equally bad?

    Here it is! Can't blame anyone else for where you are now.

  42. Governments prefer faxed documents by tepples · · Score: 2

    Because, as the article states, fax transmission fails on cellular networks. My home state's means testing process for health insurance assistance requires applicants to mail or fax documents supporting my eligibility, including the applicant's birth certificate, most recent tax return, and the last 30 days of pay stubs. The instructions specifically state that a fax is more likely to be received by the deadline than mailed printed documents.

  43. Verizon Workers Can Now Be Fired If They Fix Coppe by rickyslashdot · · Score: 1

    Here is the REAL issue - they want the copper wire cannibalized from ALL of their customer's connections - - - copper is getting expensive, and VALUABLE! For a single client, or even a cluster, this isn't much, but factored over the NATION . . . it's a SH1T_L0AD of money (copper-to-cash-salvage-sales). HOWEVER, the issue for the poor end-user is that they LOSE the ability to access the telephone system when local power-drops occur, and do not have the safety-net provided by the 'local loop' copper line that is - basically - ALWAYS ON, and that can provide life-saving access to emergency services (ambulance, police, fire, etc.) that are NOT available over wireless systems when the local power grid goes tits-up! THAT is the reason I pay a penalty / premium for my services - just so I can have access to emergency services during power outages - and being totally disabled under Social Security, and a disabled veteran, this issue can very well mean the difference between a writhing death on the floor - and the life-saving services of an ambulance from my local emergency medical facility. I have a 10 mBit DSL service that gives me decent internet access, over a COPPER-LINE telephone link - - - that my 30-year old 'princess' phone can access when the lights go out - and provides me with the security and reliability of communications to emergency services when the area goes dark from local power-loss issues ! ! ! Bottom line - in my opinion - any company that removes the copper line link and replaces it with a wireless link - without explicit authorization - should be liable for aggravated manslaughter charges if anyone dies due to the inability to access medical services - especially during the very high stress periods of power outages !.

    --
    redneck geek
  44. who owns the lines? by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    I live deep in the woods in central Oregon. My phone line has ~35 repair tube things on it (big pringles-sized black cans) between the main pole and the 5 miles to my house. Falling trees break it almost every year. Verizon and AT&T provide land line access, and CenturyLink provides my 0.6MBps DSL (I know, ugh).

    Who -owns- the line? And wouldn't switching to a cell access point fuck everyone's DSL? I know so little about phone lines....

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  45. Re: A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you seem to believe the President quite literally has his "finger on the button". When that's not the case at all. There are multiple players in the line up to and including the people that actually have the button. While the President could order a strike a while bunch of shit has to happen before that and even after would have to be supported by the Generals and others in the line of command who wound have to 100% agree with the action.

    The President has no "unilateral action" to use a nuke.

  46. Re: A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the DN by drnb · · Score: 1

    ... more dangerous than a man with the nuclear codes and a really really short but spiteful temper?

    Red herring. His codes allow him to authenticate communications with a chain of command. The chain of command still has to accept the orders as lawful and constitutional. Crazy orders will be disobeyed. They will also likely cause the Cabinet to invoke the 25 amendment and declare him sick and unable to carried out his duties. Trump is alone. He's an outsider, railing against the establishment, the people who will form his cabinet and the Republican component of Congress. He can easily be removed if he starts the sort of crazy talk you suggest.

  47. What is illegal about a nuke first strike to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is illegal about a nuke first strike to stop a (purported) terrorist nuclear attack?

    Given current authorization to use force the executive has:
    NOTHING.

    Our only hope is the Secretary of Defense. That confirmation becomes key when Trump wins.

  48. Re: A vote for Dem validates the tactics of the D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spiteful temper? Like Hillary asking if Assange might be "droned?"

  49. Home voice service is $1.62/mo of data by tepples · · Score: 1

    Yes, voice is less bandwidth, but it is bandwidth

    Let's start with these assumptions:

    • Voice is an upstream averaging 0.006 Mbps and a downstream averaging 0.006 Mbps.
    • A home phone is off hook for an average of one hour per day.
    • Cellular data transfer allowance is sold in "gigs" of 8000 Mbit each for $10.

    This means one minute of voice is (0.006 + 0.006) * 60 = 0.72 Mbit, and 30 hours total 0.72 * 60 * 30 = 1296 Mbit, costing 1296 / 8000 * 10 = $1.62.

    If your point is that $1.62 is greater than zero, then congratulations on being "the best kind of correct". My point is that $1.62 per customer per month is a tiny cost compared to (say) the $8.00 per month that telcos charge for having Caller ID on a POTS line. And that's assuming retail pricing; Verizon's home phone division probably gets a wholesale discount on the use of Verizon Wireless's cellular network.

  50. Do you have to go somewhere else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just leave Verizon and not join anyone else? Are you their customer or a consumer of the product? Remember, the product is not necessary to continued life. Internet access at your local library is very easy.

  51. Re:Petitions a scam to collect emails for politici by Altrag · · Score: 1

    Actually the Republican party and the Republican establishment do not want Trump.

    So? The party (and the resulting government) is more than one person.. though with the amount of party line voting that goes on its sometimes hard to remember that.

    Electronic media including emails is considered greatly inferior.

    I think you need to join the 21st century. Email is no longer the unloved stepchild of communications. Most people treat it as a legitimate form of communications (and many companies don't even bother reading paper letters/resumes/etc anymore.. which I know isn't the same as the government but it definitely indicates a broader trend.)

    And still even a letter is vastly inferior to a vote

    No, no it isn't. For exactly the reason I mentioned: One vote gives you 1/350millionth of a say in government, applied to a broad range of issues, once every 4 years. Letters can be written whenever you want and can be specific to an issue that's important to you -- and you can even send it if the elected official isn't the one you voted for!

    Trouble with letters isn't that they are useless. The trouble is that people assume if they send a letter that the politician will magically agree with everything they say and implement their ideas immediately. Which is not how things work. Just because you want something and even just because you spent the time drafting a letter, doesn't mean they'll listen to you. But then again they might so its always worth a try if your opinion is that strong.

    Again, digital, largely considered to be of little value.

    20 years ago perhaps. Maybe even 10 years ago. But that's no longer the case. People have realized that just because I use a keyboard instead of a pen doesn't make my thoughts less relevant, and similarly with online petitions -- just because the "signatures" are in the form of email addresses doesn't mean they aren't just as valid as a written one.

    And the online petitions have scale on their side. If you go out canvassing you might get a few hundred signatures. That might be enough to get your local city government to install a new stop light but spread across the hundreds of millions of people in the entire country, 100 signatures from one tiny little area isn't even worth looking at.

    100,000 "signatures" with representation from every state on the union on the other hand.. that's hard to ignore. Even if you allow a little fudge room for fakes and duplicates, that's a hell of a lot of people as I said. Even if the politicians ignore it, the media sure as hell won't and once they get involved politics kind of has to keep up.

    Of course just like a real petition, you can't just collect signatures and sit on them. There still has to be someone running the operation who's willing and able to take the results to the politicians and/or media. But I'd just assumed that was obvious.

    Look at the White House's online petition system

    I'd rather not. The whitehouse running their own petition system would be like letting a criminal be the judge at his own trial -- you'd never get a guilty verdict.

    Groups like the EFF and OpenMedia.ca as well as many similar groups internationally.. those are the ones you want to go to. I of course tend to focus on internet issues but you can find organizations setting up these kind of petitions for environmental issues and I'm sure many others.

    Just keep in mind that the petition is only one step along the way. Someone has to first raise the issue, then raise awareness of the issue, then start and operate the petition, then take the results to someone who will listen and has the power to do something about it. Just like a door-to-door petition process. The petition itself is only one step along the way but its the most important one since its adding the voice of the people to the issue. In recent years, these online

  52. Re:Petitions a scam to collect emails for politici by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    And still even a letter is vastly inferior to a vote.

    Not in influencing sitting Congressional representatives. Far fewer people write than vote, and their letters are taken to be indicative of how people are likely to vote, and they can address a particular issue.

    Consider the TPP, which according to one of my Senators might get voted on after the election. You can, if you like, note if anyone who represents you favors the TPP and vote against them at the next election, but that does exactly no good if the vote is before the next election (neither of my Senators are up for re-election this year), and fails completely to influence your Senators. If they know that some of their constituents are against the TPP, they may take that into account. If you privately decide to vote against a Senator who backs the TPP, your Senator will never find out that the TPP had any influence on his or her reelection.

    Seriously, you vote for President once every four years, and your vote matters a lot less if you're not in a swing state. You vote for each Senator once every six years, and Representatives once every two, and a lot of other people are going to vote at the same time. If you bother to send a letter now and then, you are exerting some influence, in a timely manner, on the issues you particularly care about. It's a cheap and easy way to add to your impact on the country.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  53. Tempest in a tea pot... by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    Verizon has set a corporate policy that copper lines will not be repaired, they will be replaced with fiber. Period. Any employee caught violating corporate policy faces penalties up to and including termination. Is it really newsworthy that Verizon expects employees to follow corporate polices, and that failure to abide by corporate polices may result in termination? Can't an employer terminate workers that fail to follow instructions?

    1. Re:Tempest in a tea pot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't an employer terminate workers that fail to follow instructions?

      Not when the company is breaking the law. In the USA, this means complying with federal, state, and local law passed by the various legislative branches, plus complying with the highest law in the land: the Bill of Rights. This last includes abiding by any rights the people may choose to assert as being "retained by" them (9th Amendment) or "reserved to" them (10th Amendment).

      There are a whole host of basic rights that it appears Verizon is violating here. Taking people off the land lines - which have a really good track record - and forcing them to use wireless - which is inferior in many ways - could and likely will result in deaths in medical emergencies (especially in a big regional disaster, of which we have had many in the past decades). That's grounds for a massive suit, which Verizon will lose, and since the Bill of Rights is involved, the attorney for the plaintiff will doubtless argue that any lessor law that would protect from liability the persons responsible is null and void (meaning both the individual executives AND the corporation would be liable, and possibly even the board of directors).

      Since most corporations are already doing lots of unethical stuff - and the right to ethics in business is certainly a fundamental right "retained by" the people, this makes corporations extremely vulnerable when something bad happens: juries tend to not look kindly on that kind of thing.

      Systemic arrogance is a major part of US corporate culture, especially among the executive class, and has been for decades. These people - many of whom seem to be sociopaths - think they can get away with anything that advances their careers or makes them rich - and often they are right. Unfortunately, the lobbying aka campaign contribution aka political bribery system in the USA has protected many executives from the consequences of their illegal decisions over the past few decades. But once somebody dies, this kind of protection tends to evaporate pretty quickly.

    2. Re: Tempest in a tea pot... by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      What, now twisted pair phone service is a basic human right, ensured by the constitution? I wonder if millenials are aware that their wide-spread choice to forgo landline phone service at home puts their very lives in danger?!?!?!

  54. Re: Capitalibsm = death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As gbh

  55. Roseanne Barr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's on the ballot this year as well as last, actually wants us financially disentangled from Israel and otherwise seems pretty moderate in her views compared to Trump/Clinton.

    I mean hey if our presidency is a joke anyways, why not vote for a comedian, amirite?

  56. Priced me out by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    I'm over 35,000' to the CO. So no DSL for me. Years ago they started to increase the cost for the POTS line. I had been paying about $10/month, for decades. Next thing I know it's $30, then $50, I terminated it then. I still have the copper to my house, I have no idea if it goes all the way back to the CO or they ripped part or all of it out.

    So it's cable or cell.

    Same thing with my 56K line that I had years ago. I think I used to pay $30/month for that. Then they decided I think around 1997 that they didn't want them anymore and the price would go up every month. I bailed when that hit $80/month and I called and said - WTF are you doing! They said they'd keep increasing the cost until I get rid of it.

  57. Verizon harrasment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon has been trying to force everyone to switch to FIOS fiber optics. We have been tormented by them for years and they put static noise on our lines and knock on our door several times a day for a while, at night, call, etc. Rinse and Repeat. I believe they've changed things so they don't have to fix the lines, and we're locked into whatever junk service. We tried to take a useless service off and they scheduled us for FIOS installation. They also camp out at walmart and terrorize people to switch to verizon.

  58. BLM by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

    Mod me down for this?
    How many more incidents do we need on video where J. Random Citizen is complying and gets shot anyway before we admit there's a problem?
    ou gonna claim something off-camera required THAT action in every one of them?
    Seriously, fuck you for continuing to exist if all you're gonna do is mod me down for expressing a view you don't like. Get bent, then remove yourself.

    --
    When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
  59. The sun sets on Verizon by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Our land line would crap out for days whenever there was a heavy rain. By the time the tech came out to fix it, it had dried out again and worked sorta OK again. Rinse (rain) and repeat. All this for $83 a month with no frills.

    I finally convinced my spouse that we could get our number (that we've had for 42 years) ported to VoIP, with 911 service and all the goodies, for $5 a month. It was a happy day when I took out my Western Electric dikes and went SNIP.

    Now I have to get her off her Verizon cell phone. I pay Ting $15 a month (cheap GSM Blu phone), I don't wanna look at her bill.

  60. Desperately need political filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was interested in TFA and discussion of it, but it seems we have people who actually like Donald Trump and his plans for government shitting all over the discussion. Congratulations on having piss poor taste in politicians.

  61. Hillary a terrible candidate, barely beats Trump by drnb · · Score: 1

    What's your problem with DNC tactics

    They directed the sleazy tactics at Democratic voters, their own people.

    Sanders is a lot less electable than Clinton.

    That is quite debatable. And if they really cared about electability then Hillary would not have been the choice. She may not even be able to beat Trump, that is how terrible a candidate she is. Hillary was selected because of the power and influence of Bill and his friends and their money.

    Refusing to vote Democrat because you don't like the DNC will do absolutely nothing to reform the DNC.

    That is a historically ignorant statement. Losing elections is a prime reason for a shakeup in party leadership, and a change in party direction.

  62. Re:Petitions a scam to collect emails for politici by drnb · · Score: 1

    Actually the Republican party and the Republican establishment do not want Trump.

    >So?

    The point is that effective Presidents, Presidents that get what they want, need to have many allies and supporters in Congress. Trump will not even have many such supporters from his own party. This will be the most obstructionist do nothing Congress ever iff Trump wins.

    Electronic media including emails is considered greatly inferior.

    I think you need to join the 21st century.

    You confuse the user's perspective with the politician's perspective. From the politician's perspective the easier the communication medium the less value it has. 100 handwritten letters is viewed as far more valuable that 100 emails. Plus emails often tend to be not-so-original, and/or more a momentary and passing emotion, not much more that a tweet.

    And still even a letter is vastly inferior to a vote

    No, no it isn't. For exactly the reason I mentioned: One vote gives you 1/350millionth of a say in government, applied to a broad range of issues, once every 4 years. Letters can be written whenever you want and can be specific to an issue that's important to you

    Sharing your opinion in a letter/email/etc removes no politician from office, so they are largely irrelevant to politicians. The only thing that matters to a politician is votes. People can share their opinions all they want and politicians know it is meaningly, most will loyally vote for their party, so their party already had their vote or the other party could not obtain their vote; the majority of the remaining will be convinced to vote one way or the other by something that is said or done close to the election.

    Letters/emails/etc are just a survey mechanism, an unscientific one at that. All they do, if anything, is give a politician heads up on an issue they need to manage opinion on, or distract from, when the election season comes around. They really are nothing more than a transient unscientific sort of poll.

  63. Re:Petitions a scam to collect emails for politici by drnb · · Score: 1

    And still even a letter is vastly inferior to a vote.

    Not in influencing sitting Congressional representatives. Far fewer people write than vote, and their letters are taken to be indicative of how people are likely to vote, and they can address a particular issue.

    Only in extremely rare circumstances, such as when the person is an NRA member. In nearly all circumstances letters are a transient unscientific poll that gives a politician a heads up about a topic they might need to manage around election time, but usually the issue is irrelevant by that time. Keep in mind that most people are loyal party voters so their opinions are irrelevant, their party already has their vote and the other party can not obtain their vote; as for the remaining they are overwhelmingly swayed one way or the other by something that occurs or is said very close to the election.

  64. Re:Petitions a scam to collect emails for politici by Altrag · · Score: 1

    This will be the most obstructionist do nothing Congress ever iff Trump wins.

    Agreed. Which is why I hope he wins. I have a feeling Clinton will get stuff done, and a lot of it won't be for the good. An ineffective government is still (slightly) better than an aggressively evil one IMO.

    100 handwritten letters is viewed as far more valuable that 100 emails

    Sure, but its not necessarily more valuable than 10,000 emails. Or 100,000. Scale is important.

    Sharing your opinion in a letter/email/etc removes no politician from office, so they are largely irrelevant to politicians

    That's an extremely pessimistic view. That assumes that politicians do absolutely nothing beyond sit on their thumbs for 3 out of 4 years. The issues that won't get them removed from office are actually more likely to get noticed during non-election years as its far less likely to bite them in the ass down the road than hot topics.

    politicians know it is meaningly

    A decent politician knows that they're representing all of the people in their jurisdiction, not just the ones that voted for them. Obviously when they're gearing up for an election they're going to target their core audience but again, for the rest of the time they actually have a job to do and its pretty pessimistic to assume they just aren't bothering to do it.

    All they do, if anything, is give a politician heads up on an issue they need to manage opinion on, or distract from

    Or you know, take action on. Write up a bill. Request a more scientific survey. Whatever else might be needed.

    I don't know what world you're living it but you seem to think that the government does nothing at all other than run election campaigns. That's just not reality. These people have a job to do and sure, they might not always do it the way you want them to but they ARE doing it for at least 2 and often closer to 3 out of every 4 years.

    Sure if your letter comes stapled to a $1000 check it will likely get a bit more consideration, but normal letters get read too. Every politician will have an aid (or 2 or 3 or 10) that does nothing but read letters all day and while they're certainly not bringing every single one up to the attention of the politician, if they start seeing the same issue being discussed over and over again by multiple letter writers, it will get noticed and perhaps at least discussed even if nothing comes of it in the long run.

    Think of it like a log file. If you see one Russian IP address some day, you'll think nothing of it. If you see 100 that day you might raise an eyebrow. If you see 100000 you're simply going to have to take action, even if that action is "ehhh they tried but it didn't work so whatever" -- you at least looked into it enough to make the decision that no further action was required.

    Voting is essentially meaningless these days on a national scale. There's just far too many people (making individual votes almost insignificant) and you have to cover far too many issues with a single 2-option choice for it to have any significant impact on the country (both of which are practically identical these days, and half the claims they make fall through anyway even when they aren't outright lies.)

    Its during the non-election times where we should be focusing our efforts if we want to see real change on specific issues. When politicians are doing politics rather than glorified sales pitches.