# AT&T asks FCC to set date to scrap old phone system



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

As someone who has watched "the new" AT&T make no effort to provide DSL in our area, I see this proposal as AT&T potentially abandoning unprofitable areas leaving us with no phone service of any kind.

While DSL service is available at high cost through an independent company using the AT&T system, cell phone service is non-existent at our house. It's purely an accident that Comcast is stuck with a cable system here that provides ISP, but it can't carry their phone service or much HD.

I know I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to screw me over.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Here, in rural East Kentucky, we are lucky enough to have a local CDMA cell company that has towers everywhere. Coverage is actually good, and AT&T has been renting space on some of the local company's towers to provide their service as well.

However, the AT&T is not 3G here and may never be. It's a lot faster than dialup but nowhere near DSL speed. I wouldn't call it "broadband" but AT&T probably does.

AT&T wants FCC to categorize its EDGE wireless service as broadband so it can claim that it already covers a large proportion of the country with broadband, and that's just not true. AT&T cell service wouldn't even be available at my house if it were not for the local compeititor installing the tower a mile from me and the state Public Service Comission requiring the local to rent space to AT&T.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

phrelin said:


> As someone who has watched "the new" AT&T make no effort to provide DSL in our area, I see this proposal as AT&T potentially abandoning unprofitable areas leaving us with no phone service of any kind.
> 
> While DSL service is available at high cost through an independent company using the AT&T system, cell phone service is non-existent at our house. It's purely an accident that Comcast is stuck with a cable system here that provides ISP, but it can't carry their phone service or much HD.
> 
> I know I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to screw me over.


I think what the end game to that is 100% U-verse roll out. How I read that is they don't want to sustain a dyin business model and would rather throw all of that money into rolling out high speed internet. While they could throw dsl out in places it would be easier for them to throw cell towers up and roll out U-verse exclusively.

Companies have already been selling off their land line business's and I think it's just going to continue unless the FCC says that the system is no longer needed. I'm also sure that the FCC would not allow people to go without a phone system in place. Meaning that even if they didn't roll out something in your area they would be required to mantain it until they had whatever new system the FCC approved.


----------



## JcT21 (Nov 30, 2004)

paulman182 said:


> Here, in rural East Kentucky, we are lucky enough to have a local CDMA cell company that has towers everywhere.


yeah we are... the att coverage here is spotty at best but the app wireless, which i currently have, has signal nearly everywhere, even in a lot of the "out there" rural areas except for brushy 

i recently had my landline worked on and the att technician told me that in about 5-7 yrs they want u-verse in this area.


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

:nono2:Looks like it's back to the old pony express.:nono2:

Verizon has won.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

That is interesting...not so much for home users, who usually have several choices, but say for businesses who have multiple roll over lines. How would that be accomplished using wireless or broadband technology?


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> That is interesting...not so much for home users, who usually have several choices, but say for businesses who have multiple roll over lines. How would that be accomplished using wireless or broadband technology?


Simple... use VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol). Many now have it, and long term, the cellular phones will use it instead of the current GSM/CDMA technology. There are many digital switchboards that can handle multi-line configurations...

While I'm for them allowing AT&T to dump the analog phone system, they should be required to replace it with something at the same or lower cost for those who just want a telephone...


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I'm in a house which is like a Faraday cage - cell service doesn't work very well. It MIGHT work better with a repeater inside or using the femtocell technology over my DSL service.

My phone company / DSL service is through CenturyLink, which used to be Embarq, which used to be Sprint. Haven't heard about what they might want to do. Time Warner Cable is available (but not installed here right now).

I think this falls into the "can't do anything about it, don't worry " until we hear something concrete.


----------



## JmC (Jun 10, 2005)

I sure hope they do replace the "Plain Old Telephone Service" with something before they scrap it. POTS is all we've got. No DSL (to far from the CO), besides DSL would be provided over the POTS lines. No cable providers in the area. Cell service is pretty much nonexistent.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Somehow I think they'll dismantle the Interstate highway system first.


----------



## JmC (Jun 10, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> Somehow I think they'll dismantle the Interstate highway system first.


In Michigan the highway system dismantles itself.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

scooper said:


> My phone company / DSL service is through CenturyLink, which used to be Embarq, which used to be Sprint. Haven't heard about what they might want to do. Time Warner Cable is available (but not installed here right now).
> 
> I think this falls into the "can't do anything about it, don't worry " until we hear something concrete.


I have CenturyLink as well. Overall a pretty awesome company IMO. Very reliable service around here and reasonable prices. I like not having to deal with the big annoying ones like ATT, Qwest, Verizon, etc. for my home services (though FiOS would not be bad  )


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

phrelin said:


> ... I know I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to screw me over.


If you can't trust the phone company, who can you trust??? 

John


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

JM Anthony said:


> If you can't trust the phone company, who can you trust???
> 
> John


Hmm, maybe you should ask Ernestine......


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

My feeling is that this is a spiteful move by AT&T, as in, they don't want to comply with some other mandate and they are telling the government they can't comply with any new mandate and maintain the copper lines as well. 

I know that here in verizon territory they are moving as quickly as possible to transition to 100% fiber, presumably as a long-term cost saver. 

Either way though, I wouldn't expect POTS service to go anywhere soon.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Beware of the phone police!


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 24, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> Somehow I think they'll dismantle the Interstate highway system first.


Based on the bridge collapse last year, I think it already has started!!!


----------

