NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service]
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:20:40 -0500 From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Re: [BarryDGold@ca.rr.com: Re: AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service] Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Bob Frankston <bob2-39@bobf.frankston.com> > Date: December 31, 2009 7:48:01 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net, 'ip' <ip@v2.listbox.com> > Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Subject: RE: [IP] Re: [BarryDGold@ca.rr.com: Re: AT&T Asks FCC to Kill > Conventional (POTS) Phone Service] > > I’m confused – the PSTN failed spectacularly on 9/11 and it took hordes > of splicers a full week to open up the New York Stock Exchange! It’s a > brittle expense dinosaur. > > > > If there are perceived problems with using IP then fix them—let’s not > maintain myths about the security of the PSTN (even if 2400hz has been > patched) or that it even exists as much of the traffic is over IP or > other transports. And do you really mean POTS – analog telephony > unencrypted via exposed wires through exposed patch panels? How could it > be less secure than encrypted VoIP? > > > > If anything we should welcome the opportunity to get back the raw > copper so we can use it as infrastructure instead of 19th century > telephone lines. > > > > From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 18:19 > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Re: [BarryDGold@ca.rr.com: Re: AT&T Asks FCC to Kill > Conventional (POTS) Phone Service] > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Joe Baptista <baptista@publicroot.org> > Date: December 31, 2009 4:27:25 PM EST > To: Bob Poortinga <nnsquad@k9sql.us> > Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: [BarryDGold@ca.rr.com: Re: AT&T Asks FCC to > Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service] > > POTS is more secure then IP. Getting rid of POTS puts the government of > the United States in a very vulnerable position with respect to > national security. POTS is the only reliable service for national > emergencies. > > This scenario makes a perfect movie script. FCC and USG give in to AT&T > pressure. United States goes from POTS to IP. Then China cripples the IP > infrastructure in a cyberwar attack and invades the US of A and builds > condos to solve overpopulation problem in China. > > People - the Internet was an interesting experiment - but we should not > have to be dependent on Internet infrastructure which governments barely > understand nor are any of those same governments in a position to > protect IP infrastructure. This would be a security nightmare if it > every happened. I'm sure some expert inside or outside government will > figure this out and take appropriate action to make sure it does not > happen. > > cheers > joe baptista > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Bob Poortinga <nnsquad@k9sql.us> > wrote: > > >> AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service > >> > >> http://bit.ly/6HP5r3 (GigaOM) > > I would just like to point that there are millions of devices out > there which depend on POTS service to work properly. Items such as > security systems, postage meters, remote sensors, and, yes, even FAX > machines either work poorly or do no work at all on VOIP (even G.711) > systems. Replacing all these devices with VOIP compatible workalikes > (if they are even available) would be costly and time consuming. > > My employer uses an unregulated VOIP service from AT&T (IP Flexible > Reach which uses G.729) in some of our offices, but we still have to > maintain POTS lines for our FAX machines, security systems, and > STU-III phones <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STU-III>. > > [ Converter boxes to handle the basic interface issues would likely > be available, but how cost effective these would be for most > consumer POTS equipment (vs. buying all new phones, etc.) is > another matter. As the underlying backbone voice networks move > toward VoIP (whether on the public Internet or private telco > intranets), issues like FAX compatibility may get more complex -- > even if you have an analog access line. I frequently hear > complaints about FAX being unusable over some existng VoIP > systems. I can certainly imagine that STU-III in its current > form might also have similar issues. I can't test that though, > since I don't have an STU-III handy -- I'm still stuck with > (FO-F-I-P) AUTOVON. That's a joke, son, a joke! > > -- Lauren Weinstein > NNSquad Moderator ] > > > > > -- > Bob Poortinga K9SQL > Bloomington, IN US > > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, > Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/ > > Archives > > > > ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message -----