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

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> Date: December 30, 2009 5:10:51 PM EST
> To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
> Subject: [ 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 ]



-------------------------------------------
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