[ NNSquad ] Re: [BarryDGold@ca.rr.com: Re: AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service]

[Rahul Tongia <tongia@cmu.edu>]

Lauren,

I will mention that cell cites in developing regions are designed to
work not hours but sometimes days without grid power.

Reliability isn't the only issue at hand.  There is something subtle
that needs thinking through in terms of regulated, unrelated, and
in-between services. The COPPER of voice lines is the reason DSL came
to be, and the biggest cost in fiber is not the fiber itself but
getting it laid.  We (consumers) paid for the copper via our regulated
voice services. For any carrier to put in advanced infrastructure,
will anything be left that is regulated (or that we *wish* to
regulate)?  Advanced infrastructure costs more, esp. if we consider it
an overlay. They would thus require advanced services to be bought.
Can we see AT&T or any other carrier saying the "end POTS" if the only
service they had to offer was plain old voice (with voice-value adds
like voicemail)?

The other thing I keep thinking about but don't have full data for is
how termination fees are handled. From in-state vs. out-of-state to
rural vs. urban, there were many games/distortions in the system.
What is to say the new system won't have (or need, to get started or
be viable) such cross-subsidies?

Rahul

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> wrote:
>
> ----- 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 ]
>
>
>
>
>
>