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

121–130 of 217 posts

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

#121

Post by dangus »

hiddencost wrote: post #31

My mom told me she was worried her cell phone might run out of battery and then she'd be unable to call 911. It's funny how used to charging our phones we've become.

An amusing but generally harmless boomerism. Obviously, an apples to apples comparison would be a cell phone that is plugged in, since a land line has to be plugged to a power source (the phone line).

(To me, it doesn’t matter if the phone line is more reliable than mains power, because it’s probably not more reliable than a charged phone with a “backup battery.” Then you’ve got Apple shipping satellite SOS-equipped phones which must count for something.)

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

#122

Post by dangus »

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.

Besides all the people who are telling you that you can call 911 on a locked phone, I will also point out that voice assistants are a good way to go as well.

E.g., “Hey Siri, call 911”

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

#123

Post by nkingsy »

dgfitz wrote: post #90
arcticbull wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 righ…

> For the record I don't think it's stupidity, I think deregulation Corrupt legislation is 100% the problem. You have it completely and hopelessly backwards https://baltimorebrew.com/2016/10/18/city-set-to-approve-10-...

Yes. It is a strangely regulated deregulation/privatization through corrupt legislation. Seems we all agree here and your comment is needlessly insulting.

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

#124

Post by grecy »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #102
rconti wrote: post #85

I'm lucky that I am in Sonic's service area and get 10Gbps symmetric fiber service for $50/mo. It exposes the lie of the incumbents slow-walking new tech and bandwidth increases. They _just don't want to_ because they _don't have to_ compete with anyone, and they'd rather print cash for their shareholders. They have the capital to build these networks far faster than a small regional ISP can. Multi-gig speeds, FTTP a…

They won capitalism. The prize is you don't have to compete anymore, you don't have to innovate, and you get to charge more and deliver less. Getting companies to this position is foundational to the incentive structure of our economic system. Once they win, that's it. They get to stay there forever.

I worked in IT for a large telco for four years that has a monopoly on an extremely large part of Canada.

After years there, learning the insides, working closely with marketing and sales and all the rest…..I agree with you 100%.

They literally have guaranteed teed profits in the form of VERY large government subsides. Of course they chase them, so instead of FTTH or other interesting initiatives they were hell bent on installing fax lines and copper because they had enormous subsidies.

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

#125

Post by jmspring »

thelastgallon wrote: post #120
jmspring wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not want PG&E (northern CA power company) in charge of any more infrastructure in California. They already have shown incompetence by shifting maintenance funds into bonuses instead of actual infrastructure maintenance.

Thats why the city should own lines. PG&E needs competition. There was a recent post, some small utilities are providing electricity a lot cheaper than PG&E.

That assumes cities are competent. The coop that provides power and fiber where my cabin is in Plumas County (far north eastern CA) is great. They even have redundant electrical feeds PG&E as well as from Nevada.

That said, after many years of living in Santa Cruz, CA - there is no way in heck the city here could manage any of that competently.

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

#127

Post by xhkkffbf »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #102
rconti wrote: post #85

I'm lucky that I am in Sonic's service area and get 10Gbps symmetric fiber service for $50/mo. It exposes the lie of the incumbents slow-walking new tech and bandwidth increases. They _just don't want to_ because they _don't have to_ compete with anyone, and they'd rather print cash for their shareholders. They have the capital to build these networks far faster than a small regional ISP can. Multi-gig speeds, FTTP a…

They won capitalism. The prize is you don't have to compete anymore, you don't have to innovate, and you get to charge more and deliver less. Getting companies to this position is foundational to the incentive structure of our economic system. Once they win, that's it. They get to stay there forever.

They won capitalism? The government regulations are entirely responsible for the lack of competition.

As it stands, competition found away around the wired line regulations. The wireless devices came along. And soon the satellite networks will give the cellphone carriers a real kick in the pants.

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

#128

Post by the_arun »

wddkcs wrote: post #81
reaperducer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did it before for electricity and telephone. Not completely. There are still tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of Americans who never got electric, telephone, or even water service available in their homes. Every six months or so there's an article in the Navajo Times about the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority managing to hook up another couple of dozen homes to electricity, but there are still many thousands to…

It's not a silicon valley canard to overwhelmingly expect electricity and running water in the US. The difficulties faced by the Navajo are not representative of the country at large. The major service providers have preferred to put in place regional monopolies, rather than extend their fiber capabilities, that is the root of the issue.

I did research in Silicon Valley, there is no optic fiber. We have expensive comcast, or ATT or now Starlink.. or now 5G. I wish we had more options(high speed internet) for end users.

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

#129

Post by zeroonetwothree »

josh2600 wrote: post #111
ben_w wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not completely. There are still tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of Americans who never got electric, telephone, or even water service available in their homes. … > Tens of thousands of American homes have no running water. I've visited many in Texas, West Virginia, New Mexico, and even California. > Time to get out of the Silicon Valley bubble. Only 10e4-10e5? Even writing as a Brit who chose Berlin over Silicon…

I'll never forget the story of Paul Bunyan telecom out in I believe it was Montana who used federal funds to build to cabins at a cost of like $10,000+ per cabin to lay copper (back when that was a lot of money) under the right to service clauses of the FCC. It turns out that servicing 100% of the population isn't practical when people choose to live in very remote areas. I agree that it would be onerous for carriers…

83% of the population lives in urban areas and it’s only increasing (projected to hit 90% around 2050).

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

#130

Post by zeroonetwothree »

arcticbull wrote: post #42
h_tbob wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

US “urban” areas are much less dense than many other countries. Imagine servicing a building with 100 apartments vs 100 detached homes spread out over a square mile.
Post reply on HN