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

161–170 of 217 posts

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

#161

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

reaperducer wrote: post #146
josh2600 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It turns out that servicing 100% of the population isn't practical when people choose to live in very remote areas. Mostly correct. However, not everyone chooses to live in a remote area. The Navajo, referenced above, are among the people who were forced to settle in a particular area, at the point of a government gun. Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food.

> Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food.

We need to be careful with the words here.

Not much in the way of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "remote" areas.

Lots of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "rural" areas.

We can and should and must provide improved communications services to rural areas - I think we have a moral imperative to do so. The remote areas, however, are a different story. If they happen to end up being serviced by e.g. Starlink then great, but I don't think we have the same moral imperative there.

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

#162

Post by dragonwriter »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #127
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Capitalism isn't the absence of government regulations, you seem to have confused it with anarchism.

Capitalism is the name applied by critiics to a real world economic system existing at the time it was described based on particular structures of properry rights and the resulting class system. Government regulations systematically benefitting the dominant class is... very much one of the features widely observed to result from that system.

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

#163

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

reaperducer wrote: post #147
SoftTalker wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way higher than thousands, at least for water. Millions of people in the US have their own wells for water and septic systems for waste water.

That's still running water. I'm talking about homes with zero options for water. Not even a well. And sometimes (like in New Mexico), thousands of homes are cut off from water infrastructure because some rich guy doesn't want a pipe running under his golf course.

Where has this happened in New Mexico?

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

#164

Post by asadotzler »

solfox wrote: post #126

I wonder about low income households and if cell phone or internet providers have the same obligation to provide baseline service as do landline? If not, this seems like an important hurdle to cross before dropping these customers…

I live in a rural area not far from silicon valley and there is no cell coverage here and there is no broadband. The trees are too tall for satellite (redwood forest) and so when AT&T pulls out, we, and our little neighborhood of about 50, half of whom are fixed income seniors, will have no connection to the outside. A couple neighbors on the hillside can get satellite but the latency's too much for wifi calling so that doesn't work. Fortunately we have a ham radio operator who can reach the sheriff if something catastrophic happens.

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

#165

Post by asadotzler »

thelastgallon wrote: post #113

The best thing to do is for the city to own both fiber and electricity, and let providers compete for both. With Virtual Power Plants, the grid can be reimagined and it will happen faster if competing ideas/companies battle it out in the marketplace for consumers. Second best is for electric utility to offer fiber, like EPB of Chattanooga, TN.

There are millions who don't live in a city.

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

#166

Post by asadotzler »

greendave wrote: post #87

I live less than. a mile from a mid-sized town (15k peopl), 25 miles from the heart of Silicon Valley. The only reliable internet access available is 8mbit DSL using copper and satellite (HughesNet). No cable, no fiber, dodgy cell service, and at last try Starlink was not remotely reliable. Last big rainstorm we lost service for 5 days. I’d love to be able to ditch copper, but if AT&T is allowed to pull the plug, it…

Similar but no DSL because we're about 6 miles from the nearest town. We're literally screwed here. The redwoods are too tall for satellite so there's just no other option.

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

#167

Post by asadotzler »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #131
greendave wrote: post #87

I live less than. a mile from a mid-sized town (15k peopl), 25 miles from the heart of Silicon Valley. The only reliable internet access available is 8mbit DSL using copper and satellite (HughesNet). No cable, no fiber, dodgy cell service, and at last try Starlink was not remotely reliable. Last big rainstorm we lost service for 5 days. I’d love to be able to ditch copper, but if AT&T is allowed to pull the plug, it…

I mean it sounds like you don’t live in a town? I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect service providers to string an extra mile of cable just for one customer. There’s always going to be trade offs in living location.

Then you'd be wrong. Those service providers got their monopolies by promising the state they'd serve the rural customers. That you don't understand these basics disqualifies you from this entire topic.

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

#168

Post by voidwtf »

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…

“superior voice quality”

Superior to what? With VoLTE the only calls I make these days that sound bad are people on POTS lines.

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

#169

Post by voidwtf »

thyrsus wrote: post #23

A decade or so ago, we had an ice storm take out power for much of the town for five days. Because the copper pair was still intact and powered by the central office, we never lost phone service. This week, after heavy rain, the copper lines, which one technician said had cheap paper insulation, stopped working. A different technician got outgoing calls working again, but incoming calls (the higher voltage ring signa…

Enshittification?

The original delivery mechanism, copper, was convenient to carry electricity over. However, copper has high maintenance costs due to moisture intrusion, breakages, and signal degradation. It also has theoretical upper bound on bandwidth. In many locations the copper may never even make it to the CO anymore and may be served by a pedestal with fiber and a small battery backup.

Is replacing the deteriorating, limited, copper infrastructure really enshitification? I expect telecommunications, not power deliver, personally.

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

#170

Post by FireBeyond »

notwhereyouare wrote: post #110
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'm fine with AT&T no longer supporting landlines if they start supporting fiber to every household. that actually did happen with dad. He was working and off a sudden his internet stopped working, put up a screen saying he was on "vacation hold" and to call in and remove it. He called in, got it removed. Next day, he can a call from AT&T retention telling him he needed to upgrade to the fiber and they were discont…

What is "hilarious" is that elsewhere, AT&T sells outdated DSL, still. But they lobby to have DSL speeds and customers removed from broadband surveys and requirements because they are "obsolete and outdated".

They still sell them. In some cases, your only option. But they don't count for dragging down AT&T's broadband 'scores' and 'speeds' because ... it's inconvenient and reasons...

Post reply on HN