

AT&T: landline phone service must die; only question is when - tshtf
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/12/att-landline-phone-service-must-die-only-question-is-when.ars

======
bmj
So does this mean AT&T will provide better cell coverage? As someone who
builds data transfer tools for handheld products, there are people who cannot
use GSM/GPRS solutions because they don't have coverage at their homes.
Accommodating POTS modems is painful at times, but it means a larger majority
of our users can actually transfer data when necessary.

~~~
kscaldef
That's very much my thought. Even though I live in an urban area, I get
sketchy cell coverage in most of my house. If I want to have a reliable
conversation on my cell phone, I can't leave my living room.

Moreover, I appreciate having the competition in internet access methods.
Since I don't have a TV, it's cheaper for me to have DSL than a cable modem.
If DSL service goes away, I would have no choice.

Maybe landlines will truly be obsolete at some point, but we're not there yet.

~~~
gvb
Not only is cell coverage incomplete, but DSL reach is very limited compared
to POTS <http://www.dslreports.com/faq/4676> (I cannot get DSL and I'm only
three miles from my CO - apparently they don't support longer distance
versions of DSL). There are _vast swaths_ of the US that are not served by
cable. The remaining option would be satellite, which is expensive.

------
cpr
I don't think we can rely on mobile services for emergency uses yet.

I'd much rather depend on a copper wire to a central office with a multi-day
battery backup system than on both a flakey cell phone and a flakey cell tower
that will both quickly lose power.

~~~
grogers
While your cell phone battery might be weak, why do you think that your
wireless network doesn't have battery backups on all critical infrastructure?
Uptime is just as big of a deal for wireless networks as it is for wired
networks.

~~~
cpr
But what's the use of a robust cell tower infrastructure if my cell batteries
run out?

Only if I think ahead and have alternative charging methods for my cell phone
(e.g., car charging, assuming my gas supply doesn't run out) does this make
any sense.

------
HeyLaughingBoy
What does this do to DSL? My local provider told me they could provide a dry
line so I could have DSL without dialtone, but I've heard a lot of local
telcos can't do this.

In any case, AT&T needs to improve their service before this happens. I live
out in the country and I can drop a cell signal (AT&T is my provider!) by
simply walking across my living room. Cellular service is spotty at best in
many locations on my small property.

~~~
jonknee
DSL is being replaced by FTTP--all the major phone companies are switching to
fiber. Verizon has FiOS, AT&T has U-Verse and Qwest has what they are calling
"fiber optic" DSL but which isn't really DSL.

It will take a while, but fiber is the future.

~~~
bugs
Fiber is most definitely not the immediate future, I live in a semi-rural part
of my state and dsl is available (though it is relatively slow and costs close
to 50 dollars). I would be lucky to get 2Mbit internet in the next 10 years.

Laying fiber is expensive, fixing and branching old phone lines... not so
much.

~~~
Retric
Last I checked, it was profitable to replace mid sized bundles of copper wire
with fiber and sell the copper. I don't think it works with a single strand,
but it's less expensive to roll out above ground fiber than you might think.

~~~
bugs
Most of the people around here have underground power and phone lines with the
land that their homes are on being from 4 to 20 acres.

~~~
Retric
Yes, digging up the ground is expensive but I was responding to: _I live in a
semi-rural part of my state_ and that's less expensive than you might think.

PS: I live in a 22 story high rise and we don't have FIOS because the building
management made some deal with comcast, but that's a side issue.

------
robotrout
I'm not comfortable with this. If something's going to die, than let it die,
but don't get the government involved, legislating it's death.

AT&T has every right, I suppose, to attempt to maximize their profit by trying
to get the FCC to use the power of government to change the playing field. I
would hope the FCC isn't foolish enough to agree to it, however.

Unfortunately, government likes power. The FCC, having recently orchestrated
the death of analog television, is probably feeling a bit cocky, that they
have the duty to kill all the old technologies. The two cases are different
though.

Analog television was not something that people's lives depended upon. It also
was very obviously taking up bandwidth that was in finite supply. These things
are not true for POTS. It's time will certainly come, but we're trying to move
too quickly, for no reason, on the very flimsy premise that "more people could
get broadband faster",

~~~
ars
You have it backwards. The government is _preventing_ POTS from dying.

AT&T wants the government to relax the rules so POTS can die or not die based
on market forces.

~~~
gvb
The cynic in me says AT&T wants to do DSL/fiber to the high density, high
value markets and get out from under the requirement to also provide POTS to
the low density, low profitability rural markets, currently subsidized by the
high value markets.

See: <http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/>

* Advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas

So, if AT&T drops POTS, what are they going to do to cover rural areas that
cannot be covered by copper based DSL and are unlikely to be covered by fiber
due to cost?

------
Groxx
Interesting how AT&T is saying we need to kill landlines... mayhaps they have
a side-goal of getting more people onto their (expensive, like all other
options) cell networks?

I have no landline, but until we get nearly 100% cell coverage (far from it,
currently), better networks, and better _prices_ , no killing landlines. Oh,
and significantly better upload rates on DSL, as VoIP will eat it up.

------
nfnaaron
"AT&T says it's time for POTS to die, and it wants the Federal Communications
Commission to schedule its funeral."

And then what will I do with my fax and answering machines?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5orss3fAEU>

------
rick_2047
I am surprised that a company would like to phase out a product which is still
giving it some revenue. I am no expert but even after cutting the maintenance
cost and other invisible overheads, Ma Bell's networks are still giving profit
to AT&T.

~~~
jherdman
VOIP margines must be high enough that urging such a move is even more
profitable. It's likely, as mentioned in the article, the AT&T will push for
legislative changes to improve their market position and control.

------
vaksel
what the FCC should do is tell them...ok you no longer have to maintain the
lines.

But you can't remove them either, let the cables atrophy and die, but until
they do, let the people have free phone service.

