NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] [BarryDGold@ca.rr.com: Re: AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service]
----- Forwarded message from Barry Gold <BarryDGold@ca.rr.com> -----
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:41:25 -0800
From: Barry Gold <BarryDGold@ca.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone
Service
Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service
>
> http://bit.ly/6HP5r3 (GigaOM)
I would oppose such a move. Although I am reasonably Internet-savvy and
have broadband (and three desktops) in my home, I also have two POTS land
lines. Well, not _quite_ POTS: one of them has voicemail. But that's the
only extra service we have, and I'm thinking of dropping that. I'm
retired, so I don't need to get messages from potential employers. And my
parents and in-laws are dead, so I don't need to worry about getting
messages about their health.
Simply stated: if there is a power outage, the landline phone is supposed
to have backup power for 48 hours. If I were relying on TW's phone
service, loss of power to the house would also mean loss of phone service.
And if I were using a cell phone, I would expect the cell towers to fail
within 1-2 hours at most.
----- End forwarded message -----
[ There are a bunch of issues here. Availability of phone service
in emergency situations is a *big* one. As we've seen, cellular
service is among the first telecom asset to fail during power
failures when microcell batteries run out and other associated
infrastructure fails (this is apart from its very limited
simultaneous call capacity vis-a-vis conventional landlines in
most areas).
Similarly, emergency VoIP use is dependent on every key aspect of
complex IP networks working properly in the face of power or other
failures. So even if we mandated battery backup for the phones,
routers (local and remote) and so on involved, we'd also be
dependent on those batteries actually working when needed (you've
probably learned the hard way how often this isn't the case and
how quickly rechargeable batteries can go bad). The reason that
conventional copper POTS has been so reliable in emergencies is
that traditionally it has been powered by massive arrays of
batteries in central offices (CO battery rooms are *most
impressive* to see.)
Typical cable system topologies may also be more vulnerable to
widespread failures than conventional copper loop POTS
infrastructures. During an extended (several hours) local power
failure here a couple of years ago, I saw a guy in a pickup truck
hook up jumper cables to a nearby pole-mounted cable distribution
panel. When I questioned him, he told me he was with the cable
company and was trying to keep the cable up for phone
service by revving his engine! I found this both amusing and
horrifying at the same time.
There are also *colossal* regulatory (federal vs. state, privacy,
security, etc.) issues associated with such a transition from
conventional POTS, that may make our current crop of net
neutrality controversies seem to pale in comparison. More on this
later.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]