Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 217 posts

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#41

Post by h_tbob »

josh2600 wrote: post #30

I'm fine with AT&T no longer supporting landlines if they start supporting fiber to every household. US broadband is a joke compared to many other parts of the world.

I wonder if that's because the USA is that stupid, or if it's just not as population dense as other countries with faster speeds? According to this statistic, it's not very dense, meaning it's super expensive to build broadband. Because it's pretty much a question of physical area covered, not number of people serviced. This stat says the USA is on the lower end of density

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=U...

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#42

Post by arcticbull »

h_tbob wrote: post #41
josh2600 wrote: post #30

I'm fine with AT&T no longer supporting landlines if they start supporting fiber to every household. US broadband is a joke compared to many other parts of the world.

I wonder if that's because the USA is that stupid, or if it's just not as population dense as other countries with faster speeds? According to this statistic, it's not very dense, meaning it's super expensive to build broadband. Because it's pretty much a question of physical area covered, not number of people serviced. This stat says the USA is on the lower end of density https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.…

> This stat says the USA is on the lower end of density

Yes, but America's population isn't evenly distributed across the entire dry surface area. The population is clustered tightly in cities like it is in many other countries, it's just that the cities are further apart from each other. [1]

The better metric, IMO, is the percentage of people who live in urban vs rural areas. [2] The US is 85.8% urban, which is right in line with other developed countries. Spain is 81.5%. France is 88%.

With this in mind, the expensive part would be the trunk line but America has that. [3] It's missing the last mile, especially in urban areas.

[edit] For the record I don't think it's stupidity, I think deregulation, a lack of competition and a laissez-faire policy attitude allowed a few large players to chronically under-invest in infrastructure. And of course the perennial regulatory capture, with some 16 states literally banning municipal ISPs or making it difficult to set up. Good, cheap fiber to the home is available in Chattanooga, for example, thanks to a city-run utility. They sell city-wide 25Gbit FTTH (!!). [4] That model is illegal in states like Missouri, which itself ranks 43rd in broadband coverage.

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/geo/popul...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/urban-vs-rural-majority

[3] https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/15/166239/first-det...

[4] https://epb.com

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#43

Post by h_tbob »

istillwritecode wrote: post #28

My wife keeps a land line because of superior voice quality for calls to her family. I find it handy because I can give a number to businesses when they demand one. We never answer that phone (it has been silenced from ringing). AT&T has no broadband service in my area - they offer only DSL and I live in a fairly rich area of silicon valley. The problem is that my utilities were put underground when the house was bui…

Facetime audio has super high quality. It's noticeable. If you use voip you can get "hd audio". If they turn it off... have her try that! Not trying to argue, just offering a solution.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#44

Post by verve_rat »

h_tbob wrote: post #41
josh2600 wrote: post #30

I'm fine with AT&T no longer supporting landlines if they start supporting fiber to every household. US broadband is a joke compared to many other parts of the world.

I wonder if that's because the USA is that stupid, or if it's just not as population dense as other countries with faster speeds? According to this statistic, it's not very dense, meaning it's super expensive to build broadband. Because it's pretty much a question of physical area covered, not number of people serviced. This stat says the USA is on the lower end of density https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.…

Across the whole US, sure. But what's the density of the top 50 cities in the US and what is their internet like?

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#45

Post by mchannon »

Animats wrote: post #4

That's going to be hard for people on criminal home confinement. Those anklets connect to a base station that connects only to an analog land line. Most of those things are obsolete technology.

As the former wearer of such an appliance (also married to another former wearer of a different such appliance) I can confirm this is no longer the case.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#46

Post by coryrc »

pkaye wrote: post #3

If someone wants to remove the old lines from the pole to the house, who would do that now? I don't use my landline anymore and trying to cleanup the clutter of old lines.

In Seattle area there's https://wirefreesky.com I saved $250 by just using wire cutters.

Previously the power company removed the cable line for me, because their cherry picker was too tall and just drove into it and it snapped. Luckily I was using DSL.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#47

Post by Mountain_Skies »

fmajid wrote: post #26

The companies that used to make phone switches (Nortel, Lucent) went out of business over 2 decades ago and they are unmaintainable. Building modernized VoIP-based landlines that still offer the 48V analog POTS interface would be phenomenally expensive, and the market of Luddite little old ladies like Pereira who cling to landlines is just not large enough to make it financially viable, unlike the market for broadban…

Frontier, Windstream, and Lumen are all really odd companies that are holding the bag on providing POTS and DSL to rural areas. From what I've heard from people in those companies, the universal service fund is the lifeblood of the companies. Much like Google, they're trying to find new revenue sources, and unlike Google, are having some success in their diversification efforts, but that universal service fund money really would be difficult to do without. With Starlink maturing and competing services in at least the planning stages, I wonder how much longer the government will keep the basis for rural copper going.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#48

Post by Faaak »

istillwritecode wrote: post #28

My wife keeps a land line because of superior voice quality for calls to her family. I find it handy because I can give a number to businesses when they demand one. We never answer that phone (it has been silenced from ringing). AT&T has no broadband service in my area - they offer only DSL and I live in a fairly rich area of silicon valley. The problem is that my utilities were put underground when the house was bui…

Dumb question, but it's the same in France and Switzerland, and year the fiber optic coverage is quite good. They just use the existing conduit. Fiber creates no interference and usually they run alongside telephone cables

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#49

Post by bcook »

The telephone companies seem to actively push for you to get rid of your land line. My monthly bill recently dropped $75 ($50 for local-only phone service + fees like 911), when I canceled my land line.

My 100mbit VDSL2 bonded internet line is $75, so it was a very noticeable monthly decrease. My ISP/Telco is Windstream in the eastern USA.

Re: AT&T applies to end obligation to service landlines in California

#50

Post by Faaak »

markild wrote: post #16
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #13

Related, I am not sure how to teach a toddler to call 911. My cell is locked and I'm not giving them the pin or face. Without a land line I am considering an exterior alarm wired to an inside panic button. In the evert I collapse from choking on a banana slug what does my toddler do? So far the I instructions are to ring the trusted neighbors.

Absolutely every cell phone has the ability to call emergency numbers from a locked device. Even without Sim card.

> Even without Sim card.

Depends on the countries though. A sim card (whether expired or not) is needed in France to call 112

Post reply on HN