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

191–200 of 217 posts

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

#191

Post by jandrewrogers »

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.

Most food is produced in rural areas with infrastructure, not remote areas. Farmers frequently live in town. Agricultural production costs are sensitive to logistics, so doing any kind of intensive agriculture in genuinely remote areas is expensive. You don't want to be too far from a rail spur if you are a farmer.

The only agriculture on remote land at scale is cattle ranching, which has the advantage that cattle can move themselves.

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

#192

Post by crote »

Faaak wrote: post #50
markild wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To be pedantic: the cell phone is required to have this capability - the network just doesn't have to accept it.

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

#193

Post by crote »

Faaak wrote: post #48
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

The issue is that a lot of countries didn't install their telephone cables in conduits, but put them directly into the dirt. Adding fiber to it requires digging up the entire run, which is of course quite expensive.

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

#194

Post by crote »

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…

Keep in mind that many gas lines require electricity to operate. There are plenty of pumps and control stations along the line, after all.

If you want to have electricity during a multi-day regional power outage, your best bet is a generator fueled by a propane tank, or some kind of long-life gasoline.

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

#195

Post by zaptrem »

the_arun wrote: post #128
wddkcs wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ATT and Sonic both have extensive fiber networks in SF.

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

#196

Post by piperswe »

FireBeyond wrote: post #172
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>will be the sole option. I mean this sincerely: you could move. In 2012, I left the Castro Valley part of sfEastBay and moved to a small Southern town with fiber optic 10gbps available at every electric-supplied address (I lived 8 years inside a rustic national forest with a fiber/copper jack on my ramshackle cabin's powermeter).

> In 2012, I left the Castro Valley part of sfEastBay and moved to a small Southern town Apropos of anything else, I can't imagine the culture shift from the Castro in SF to a small southern town...

Castro Valley != The Castro. Castro Valley is just north of Hayward.

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

#197

Post by FireBeyond »

piperswe wrote: post #196
FireBeyond wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2012, I left the Castro Valley part of sfEastBay and moved to a small Southern town Apropos of anything else, I can't imagine the culture shift from the Castro in SF to a small southern town...

Castro Valley != The Castro. Castro Valley is just north of Hayward.

Ahh, I stand corrected!

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

#198

Post by callalex »

asadotzler wrote: post #166
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.

That seems like an unsustainable place to live because of fire risk as well.

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

#199

Post by callalex »

FireBeyond wrote: post #172
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>will be the sole option. I mean this sincerely: you could move. In 2012, I left the Castro Valley part of sfEastBay and moved to a small Southern town with fiber optic 10gbps available at every electric-supplied address (I lived 8 years inside a rustic national forest with a fiber/copper jack on my ramshackle cabin's powermeter).

> In 2012, I left the Castro Valley part of sfEastBay and moved to a small Southern town Apropos of anything else, I can't imagine the culture shift from the Castro in SF to a small southern town...

Castro Valley and Livermore are culturally “the south” of the Bay Area. You can find trucks with Trump flags and stuff.

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

#200

Post by callalex »

asadotzler wrote: post #167
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are born not knowing anything. If you know something, it is your responsibility to share that knowledge. Remember that you were also born not knowing about the nature of subsidies and state granted infrastructure monopolies. There’s no need to be an ass while sharing your knowledge in the same way that whoever taught you wasn’t an ass to you.
Post reply on HN