Still love your landline? Phone service providers are getting closer to phasing

[jeffandnicole]

Technologies come and go.  There was once a time when 911 didn't exist and one had to use the local phone book to locate the emergency numbers, which were separate for Fire, Police & Ambulance.

So, yes, since landlines still exist, they're an option.  But we can't hold onto old technologies forever.

The wheel says otherwise.

Still carving your own wooden wheels?  The wheel, just like a phone, remains.  Today's wheels ain't like yesteryear's wheels though.

Why didn't they bring up: "If you can't use your cell phone, use a Payphone".  Or, "Locate an emergency callbox on the street corner".  Or, "Ask a neighbor"?

What is this "pay phone" that you are talking about? I already pay to use my phone. Is this something that you would put quarters into? Can't they use debit or credit cards? It is, after all, the 21st century.

Payphones do exist, but the phone companies have gotten out of the pay phone business leaving them to third party providers. New York City used to have 30,000 payphones, but the last one was removed from service in 2022. I honestly didn't even see a payphone at DFW International or Fourt Lauderdale, but I wasn't looking for one either.

I know of a few in various parking lots in my area.  I haven't picked them up to see if they actually work though.

Why didn't they bring up: "If you can't use your cell phone, use a Payphone".  Or, "Locate an emergency callbox on the street corner".  Or, "Ask a neighbor"?

Are you implying that asking a neighbor is outdated technology?  That's exactly what we've told our boys to do in case of an emergency if using a cell phone isn't an option.

In many cases, it's the unfortunate truth.  Many people are so secluded from the outside world they don't know their neighbors, or have minor issues that they now don't talk to each other.  Then the question also is - why didn't the social media post say - hey, your neighbor may have a different carrier that's unaffected, so try asking them if you don't have access to a landline.

[Scott5114]

I didn't know the names of any of my neighbors in Oklahoma. Couldn't tell you one thing about any of them, other than the lady across the street having a little dog that she took out to use the bathroom in the front yard late at night.

The only reason I know that the guy that lives above me in Nevada is named Josh is because we ran into each other coming and going and he went out of his way to introduce himself.

[bwana39]

There is a yeah but there is more to this story. You will still be able to have a home phone. It would just need to be connected via the internet. Except when the power is off, you could never even notice the difference.

POTS (single line copper wires) may be going by the wayside, but it will not be that complicated. Last year, the folks I worked with went to a more modern (and far less expensive) VOIP system.  The buyer talked about it like it was a dramatic change. We had been on VOIP over a T1 connection since 2001. It just connected through a box in the back room with individual phone wires going to the individual phones as opposed to having a cat5 /6 cable hooked to each phone.

Grandma can keep her house phone as she is familiar with it even after the transition.  It WILL require a more resilient and widespread network of DSL, fiber, and wireless that can provide a reliable high speed internet to the places where it is lacking today.

[epzik8]

There is a yeah but there is more to this story. You will still be able to have a home phone. It would just need to be connected via the internet. Except when the power is off, you could never even notice the difference.

The internet's takeover of the world is nearing completion...

[Ted$8roadFan]

Boston Globe had an article today about  folks who are holding on to their landlines. Many skew older, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) the Northeast tends to have a higher proportion of landline customers. Also unsurprisingly, a few are holding on to landlines to memorialize past generations of relatives (i.e. keeping their parents or grandparents numbers). Kind of like low-number license plates.

[Scott5114]

Boston Glove

[kalvado]

Boston Glove had an article today about  folks who are holding on to their landlines. Many skew older, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) the Northeast tends to have a higher proportion of landline customers. Also unsurprisingly, a few are holding on to landlines to memorialize past generations of relatives (i.e. keeping their parents or grandparents numbers). Kind of like low-number license plates.

I thought you can transfer any number to a cell if you choose so?

[kkt]

I want mobile-only with my phone service back in December, 2003, and when we moved five years ago, my mother imovied to mobile only. Part of the reason why the telcos want to move away from copper lines is because of the costs associated with such a aging infrastruction and the regulations/tariffs associated with traditional phone lines verses providing phone service via a VoIP adapter.

And not at all because telcos can charge more for service every month, and sell you a new phone every few years?

[kalvado]

I want mobile-only with my phone service back in December, 2003, and when we moved five years ago, my mother imovied to mobile only. Part of the reason why the telcos want to move away from copper lines is because of the costs associated with such a aging infrastruction and the regulations/tariffs associated with traditional phone lines verses providing phone service via a VoIP adapter.

And not at all because telcos can charge more for service every month, and sell you a new phone every few years?

Google specifically said they want to move to cloud services to reduce handset turnover.
But I agree, that's why publishers want paper newspapers

[kphoger]

I want mobile-only with my phone service back in December, 2003, and when we moved five years ago, my mother imovied to mobile only. Part of the reason why the telcos want to move away from copper lines is because of the costs associated with such a aging infrastruction and the regulations/tariffs associated with traditional phone lines verses providing phone service via a VoIP adapter.

And not at all because telcos can charge more for service every month, and sell you a new phone every few years?

As someone who works in the telecom industry, let me say...  you may be grossly underestimating the cost of maintaining the infrastructure related to copper wire last-mile telephony—especially when video and internet are already steadily switching to from HFC to PON.

The big MSO here in Wichita had been working toward eliminating all non-digital phone (outdoor or indoor NIU) equipment at least since I moved here, and I've lived here for 16 years now.  They finally upgraded everyone a couple of years ago.  The primary motivation for the change was the fact that such equipment was antique, was expensive to replace, and had a zillion little parts inside that could go wrong.  And, with the Go All Digital switch several years ago, every household was already going to be getting digital signal anyway for their video and internet.  The only possible reason to not use HFC into the home would be a customer's having landline phone but no video or internet service:  an increasingly rare type of customer, and an end result of poorer telephone sound quality.  The number of customers not needing to use coax to carry digital signal for something other than phone is so low as to be trivial, so it makes total sense to use that same POE for phone service as well by means of an eMTA gateway.  With the further march toward fiber, it's only more so.

[ZLoth]

As someone who works in the telecom industry, let me say...  you may be grossly underestimating the cost of maintaining the infrastructure related to copper wire last-mile telephony—especially when video and internet are already steadily switching to from HFC to PON.

The big MSO here in Wichita had been working toward eliminating all non-digital phone (outdoor or indoor NIU) equipment at least since I moved here, and I've lived here for 16 years now.  They finally upgraded everyone a couple of years ago.  The primary motivation for the change was the fact that such equipment was antique, was expensive to replace, and had a zillion little parts inside that could go wrong.  And, with the Go All Digital switch several years ago, every household was already going to be getting digital signal anyway for their video and internet.  The only possible reason to not use HFC into the home would be a customer's having landline phone but no video or internet service:  an increasingly rare type of customer, and an end result of poorer telephone sound quality.  The number of customers not needing to use coax to carry digital signal for something other than phone is so low as to be trivial, so it makes total sense to use that same POE for phone service as well by means of an eMTA gateway.  With the further march toward fiber, it's only more so.

Can you repost your reply in English rather than Acronym?

[kphoger]

As someone who works in the telecom industry, let me say...  you may be grossly underestimating the cost of maintaining the infrastructure related to copper wire last-mile telephony—especially when video and internet are already steadily switching to from HFC to PON.

The big MSO here in Wichita had been working toward eliminating all non-digital phone (outdoor or indoor NIU) equipment at least since I moved here, and I've lived here for 16 years now.  They finally upgraded everyone a couple of years ago.  The primary motivation for the change was the fact that such equipment was antique, was expensive to replace, and had a zillion little parts inside that could go wrong.  And, with the Go All Digital switch several years ago, every household was already going to be getting digital signal anyway for their video and internet.  The only possible reason to not use HFC into the home would be a customer's having landline phone but no video or internet service:  an increasingly rare type of customer, and an end result of poorer telephone sound quality.  The number of customers not needing to use coax to carry digital signal for something other than phone is so low as to be trivial, so it makes total sense to use that same POE for phone service as well by means of an eMTA gateway.  With the further march toward fiber, it's only more so.

Can you repost your reply in English rather than Acronym?

HFC = Hybrid Fiber–Coaxial.  This means that the plant is all fiber, from the headend to your node.  From the node to the tap, it might be fiber or coax.  From the tap to your house, it's coax.

PON = Passive Optical Network.  This means that the last leg from the tap to your house is also fiber, and that your modem is probably an ONT (Optical Network Terminal) that converts the fiber signal into coax signal for your devices to use.

MSO = Multi-System Operator.  So, Cox or Spectrum or AT&T or whatever.

NIU = Network Interface Unit.  This was the junction box between the service drop to your house and the copper phone wires inside.  It put out some electrical current to help push your phone call through, with a current limiter out at the tap.  With digital telephone, this has been replaced with a proper modem.

POE = Point of Entry.  The hole in your wall that the wires come in through.

eMTA = Embedded Multimedia Terminal Adapter.  This is a modem that can handle digital telephone as well as plain internet.  Many of them have a built-in router, but not all do.

[ZLoth]

Update on this topic...

From The Register:

AT&T forbidden from cutting landline services to large parts of California
Telecoms company will remain a carrier of last resort per CPUC ruling

AT&T will have to continue operating landlines in California despite its wish to cut off the less lucrative line of business, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has ruled.

The telecommunications giant is considered a carrier of last resort (COLR) in California, which means that in certain areas, AT&T is legally obligated to provide its telephone services to anyone who asks, including landlines. The COLR designation basically exists to prevent telecoms firms from withdrawing from areas entirely, leaving citizens without any access to phone networks.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

From The Verge:

AT&T is still on the hook for offering landline service in California
With cellular service and VoIP widely available, AT&T argues that the 'last resort' requirements for landline service are no longer necessary.

AT&T can't pull the plug on landline service for customers across California. In a ruling on Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rejected AT&T's request to release it from its obligations as a Carrier of Last Resort (COLR), as reported earlier by Ars Technica and CBS News.

AT&T has had a COLR designation in California since 1996, which ensures everyone in the state has access to affordable and reliable telephone service. Some people in California — especially those who live in remote areas — have come to rely on their landline service, as it allows them to make emergency calls even when the power is out or cellular service isn't available.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

From Ars Technica:

AT&T can't hang up on landline phone customers, California agency rules
State dismisses AT&T application to end Carrier of Last Resort obligation.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) yesterday rejected AT&T's request to end its landline phone obligations. The state agency also urged AT&T to upgrade copper facilities to fiber instead of trying to shut down the outdated portions of its network.

AT&T asked the state to eliminate its Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligation, which requires it to provide landline telephone service to any potential customer in its service territory. A CPUC administrative law judge recommended rejection of the application last month, and the commission voted to dismiss AT&T's application with prejudice on Thursday.

"Our vote to dismiss AT&T's application made clear that we will protect customer access to basic telephone service... Our rules were designed to provide that assurance, and AT&T's application did not follow our rules," Commissioner John Reynolds said in a CPUC announcement.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[kalvado]

Update on this topic...

From The Register:

AT&T forbidden from cutting landline services to large parts of California
Telecoms company will remain a carrier of last resort per CPUC ruling

AT&T will have to continue operating landlines in California despite its wish to cut off the less lucrative line of business, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has ruled.

The telecommunications giant is considered a carrier of last resort (COLR) in California, which means that in certain areas, AT&T is legally obligated to provide its telephone services to anyone who asks, including landlines. The COLR designation basically exists to prevent telecoms firms from withdrawing from areas entirely, leaving citizens without any access to phone networks.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

From The Verge:

AT&T is still on the hook for offering landline service in California
With cellular service and VoIP widely available, AT&T argues that the 'last resort' requirements for landline service are no longer necessary.

AT&T can't pull the plug on landline service for customers across California. In a ruling on Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rejected AT&T's request to release it from its obligations as a Carrier of Last Resort (COLR), as reported earlier by Ars Technica and CBS News.

AT&T has had a COLR designation in California since 1996, which ensures everyone in the state has access to affordable and reliable telephone service. Some people in California — especially those who live in remote areas — have come to rely on their landline service, as it allows them to make emergency calls even when the power is out or cellular service isn't available.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

From Ars Technica:

AT&T can't hang up on landline phone customers, California agency rules
State dismisses AT&T application to end Carrier of Last Resort obligation.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) yesterday rejected AT&T's request to end its landline phone obligations. The state agency also urged AT&T to upgrade copper facilities to fiber instead of trying to shut down the outdated portions of its network.

AT&T asked the state to eliminate its Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligation, which requires it to provide landline telephone service to any potential customer in its service territory. A CPUC administrative law judge recommended rejection of the application last month, and the commission voted to dismiss AT&T's application with prejudice on Thursday.

"Our vote to dismiss AT&T's application made clear that we will protect customer access to basic telephone service... Our rules were designed to provide that assurance, and AT&T's application did not follow our rules," Commissioner John Reynolds said in a CPUC announcement.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Oh, business as usual.
Spin off landline division, bankrupt and liquidate it. Everyone would be worse off. Isn't it what bureaucratic system is about?

[mgk920]

Gotta keep those who make buggy whips busy, whatever it costs!

Mike

[Scott5114]

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave. It would be pretty shitty if you lived there and some pissbaby CEO decided you weren't allowed to have outside contact with the world anymore because his $122.4 billion revenue company wanted to free up some cash for stock buybacks or his ninety-sixth yacht.

[kalvado]

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave. It would be pretty shitty if you lived there and some pissbaby CEO decided you weren't allowed to have outside contact with the world anymore because his $122.4 billion revenue company wanted to free up some cash for stock buybacks or his ninety-sixth yacht.

That has to be tied into conditions of landline removal. Of course, adding any cell towers is yet another uphill battle...

[1995hoo]

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave. It would be pretty shitty if you lived there and some pissbaby CEO decided you weren't allowed to have outside contact with the world anymore because his $122.4 billion revenue company wanted to free up some cash for stock buybacks or his ninety-sixth yacht.

Heck, the cellular signal at my mother's house here in Fairfax County, Virginia, is pretty bad (you basically cannot get a good enough signal from inside the house to use cellular voice or data), and she's in anything but a remote area. It's hardly unusual.

[jeffandnicole]

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave. It would be pretty shitty if you lived there and some pissbaby CEO decided you weren't allowed to have outside contact with the world anymore because his $122.4 billion revenue company wanted to free up some cash for stock buybacks or his ninety-sixth yacht.

Here's the map of where landline service was proposed to be removed: https://www.newsweek.com/att-map-shows-california-areas-that-could-lose-service-1870227#slideshow/2349580

Frankly, there's no guarantee anyone had to have landline service. Landline service exists where it did because it made sense to provide it, because revenue and profit.  If someone built in an area without landline service, it was probably up to them to pay the costs of getting a line to the house.

If landline services were to go away, cell towers would probably be added in those areas to compensate, since there's a profitable reason to install them.

[kalvado]

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave. It would be pretty shitty if you lived there and some pissbaby CEO decided you weren't allowed to have outside contact with the world anymore because his $122.4 billion revenue company wanted to free up some cash for stock buybacks or his ninety-sixth yacht.

Here's the map of where landline service was proposed to be removed: https://www.newsweek.com/att-map-shows-california-areas-that-could-lose-service-1870227#slideshow/2349580

Frankly, there's no guarantee anyone had to have landline service. Landline service exists where it did because it made sense to provide it, because revenue and profit.  If someone built in an area without landline service, it was probably up to them to pay the costs of getting a line to the house.

If landline services were to go away, cell towers would probably be added in those areas to compensate, since there's a profitable reason to install them.

I am pretty sure landline service in rural areas used subsides both from governments and from more profitable urban areas.
And marginal income from rural cell towers is likely low to negative.

[ZLoth]

Spin off landline division, bankrupt and liquidate it. Everyone would be worse off. Isn't it what bureaucratic system is about?

As it is now, the copper infrastructure is decades old and probably in a "rot in place" state.

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave.

Try this third party map and be sure to set "All Carriers" and "All Technologies". Just because California is the most populated state doesn't mean it's the most densely populated state. Death Valley National Park, for instance, has explicit warnings about no cell coverage. While the Interstates and CA-99 have coverage, some of the state highways and portions of US-50 in the Sierra Nevada can have dead zones.

[jeffandnicole]

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave. It would be pretty shitty if you lived there and some pissbaby CEO decided you weren't allowed to have outside contact with the world anymore because his $122.4 billion revenue company wanted to free up some cash for stock buybacks or his ninety-sixth yacht.

Here's the map of where landline service was proposed to be removed: https://www.newsweek.com/att-map-shows-california-areas-that-could-lose-service-1870227#slideshow/2349580

Frankly, there's no guarantee anyone had to have landline service. Landline service exists where it did because it made sense to provide it, because revenue and profit.  If someone built in an area without landline service, it was probably up to them to pay the costs of getting a line to the house.

If landline services were to go away, cell towers would probably be added in those areas to compensate, since there's a profitable reason to install them.

I am pretty sure landline service in rural areas used subsides both from governments and from more profitable urban areas.
And marginal income from rural cell towers is likely low to negative.

Low income is still positive income.

Cell companies fill in gaps of coverage where they can, so this would have provided reasons to do so.

[kalvado]

Is there any guarantee that there's cell signal in every valley in California? Although it is the most populous state, there are still some pretty remote areas in the Mojave. It would be pretty shitty if you lived there and some pissbaby CEO decided you weren't allowed to have outside contact with the world anymore because his $122.4 billion revenue company wanted to free up some cash for stock buybacks or his ninety-sixth yacht.

Here's the map of where landline service was proposed to be removed: https://www.newsweek.com/att-map-shows-california-areas-that-could-lose-service-1870227#slideshow/2349580

Frankly, there's no guarantee anyone had to have landline service. Landline service exists where it did because it made sense to provide it, because revenue and profit.  If someone built in an area without landline service, it was probably up to them to pay the costs of getting a line to the house.

If landline services were to go away, cell towers would probably be added in those areas to compensate, since there's a profitable reason to install them.

I am pretty sure landline service in rural areas used subsides both from governments and from more profitable urban areas.
And marginal income from rural cell towers is likely low to negative.

Low income is still positive income.

Cell companies fill in gaps of coverage where they can, so this would have provided reasons to do so.

Both reasons and money if landline maintenance is no longer required. Now both landlines and cell service may be too much to ask.

[SP Cook]

Discussions of cell towers versus land lines and VOIP and aspersions to "buggy whips" and whatnot, miss the point.  Almost any habitable place in the country, at one point, has POTS.  This was, more than anything, a governmental decision.  Given the choice, AT&T 1.0 and its imitators (Contel, Centel, Frontier, GTE, United, etc.) would have "cherry picked" towns and cities, and left remote people to do without. 

Fact is the roll out of cell phones, and the roll out of internet or "good internet" has not been the same.  There are 100s of 1000s of places, and thus millions of people who cannot get a cell phone signal and never will.  It does not make economic sense to provide service there, because the return on investment is not going to happen. 

If, as I do, you accept that just telling rural people "too bad" and "figure it out" is a moral, if not political, non-starter, then the question is does government require POTS to stick around, require/subsidize cell service and or internet where it makes no economic sense, and fund it how.  Taxes, or sticking it to AT&T 2.0 and Verizon?

[ZLoth]

Fact is the roll out of cell phones, and the roll out of internet or "good internet" has not been the same.  There are 100s of 1000s of places, and thus millions of people who cannot get a cell phone signal and never will.  It does not make economic sense to provide service there, because the return on investment is not going to happen.

This is more of an issue with the western half of the United States where about 20% of the population lives, but then again, there are pockets in the eastern half of the United States as well. I would also argue that good high-speed access is a necessity in order to conduct business, and no, DSL doesn't count anymore.

When I take a look at my mobile bill, I see the following charges:
TX State 911 Fee
TX Equalization
TX State Sales Tax-Telco
TX State Sales Tax
Richardson Sales Tax-Telecom
Dallas Mta Tax-Telecom
Richardson City Sales Tax
Dallas Mta Tax
Fed Universal Service Charge
Regulatory Charge
Admin & Telco Recovery Charge
TX Margin Surchg

Isn't that "Universal Service Charge" supposed to help offset the costs of providing service to rural areas?