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

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

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: 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