Cord Blomquist

The Land Line Phone is Dead

Do land line telephones have a future? Yes. . .but not a long one. Cell phones, VOIP, and Device Based Telephony are quickly making copper phone lines an anachronism. Eli Lehrer, a colleague of mine at CEI, discusses how deregulation may help to keep copper online a little longer and urges government to get out of the way of emerging telephony technologies in a new paper entitled “Keeping the Voices Alive.”

I don’t think the government should act in anyway to prop-up the endangered and soon-to-be extinct copper cable phone system, but there is no reason for government to act to hasten its death and squander resources in the process–the exact point Eli makes. Eli also points out the ill effects of E-911 and universal service participation on new voice technologies.

It’s a quick read that makes a very salient point about the transition from copper to fiber and how the static regulatory system has a chance to reform and improve in the face of the dynamic telecommunications market.

September 10, 2007 | Comments |

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This strikes me as a very narrow view coming from the mouth of a very privlaged person. Yeah, it seems like we're all leaving land lines behind in favor of our cell phones and VOIP, but that's because we are all very rich.

    Many, many people in this country can not afford an Internet connection, a computer or a cell phone plan. For them, the only way option is a land line and in some cases, even that line needs to be subsidized so that they can have basic local service and access to 911 in an emergency.

    Seeing the end of copper is nice and all, but it leaves a massive part of our nation unconnected to anything which will create more and more poverty.

    Sorry, but until an Internet connection in the home is an affordable reality for everyone (it becomes a utility like a telephone or electricity), copper wire should be supported.
    • ^
    • v
    How many homes can't afford an internet connection? 1.5%, 5%, 15%? I'd like to see numbers and research attached to this claim.

    But also, how does preserving copper help to hook-up poor households? As copper is phased out of the system, it will become more and more expensive to maintain as it becomes increasingly rare.

    Also, we have to question whether subsidies really benefit the poor. Have subsidies created distortions in the economy that have deprived the poor of better technologies by making the use of older, inferior technologies more lucrative?

    The developing world, where the poor really are poor, hasn't been stringing copper about in the name of equality. Instead, cell phones have been deployed because the infrastructure is much cheaper and providers can turn a profit and create a sustainable, growing market for communications technologies. Why don't we apply this logic here?

    On the issue of cell phones, As of 2006 76% of the U.S. subscribed to wireless service. The other 24% are likely not just the unprivileged few, but also children and other people uninterested in cell phones. I'd like to see a breakdown of the numbers into those who want a cell phone but find price to be a barrier.

    That data aside, the important facts are looking at who doesn't have a basic voice service, why not, and how best to solve that problem. My guess is that when the facts are known it will become apparent that some regulations need to be reformed.
    • ^
    • v
    Paul Kouroupas at the Global Crossing blog raised the issue of Verizon's stranded copper network back in July.
    • ^
    • v
    According to this annual survey, 14% of American homes cite cost as the reason that they do not have Internet access. This is data from 2006 when the U.S. Census bureau reported that for the first time in a decade, the poverty rate in the nation declined (from 12.6 percent to 12.3 percent.


    About 9.8 percent (7.7 million) of the nation’s families were in poverty in 2006. Married-couple families had a poverty rate of 4.9 percent (2.9 million), compared with 28.3 percent (4.1 million) for female-householder, no-husband-present families and 13.2 percent (671,000) for those with a male householder and no wife present. The poverty rate for these types of families in poverty showed no statistically significant change between 2005 and 2006.

    FWIW, in 2006, the poverty line was


    $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294.

    The question in this case, IMO, is not how keeping copper will help the poor, but, if as you say, getting rid of copper is unavoidable, then what are we going to do to assure the availability of what has become a basic service for everyone?

    It's all well and good that developing countries are awash in free cell phones, but do you see that happening here? Honestly. When it comes down to it, the government needs to make sure that poor people here have access to basic services.

    They're not doing it as technology changes, and they should be. But since they're not (and you seem to be calling for the death of copper), you tell all those poor people (12.8 million of whom are children under the age of 18) that they can't have a phone to call the doctor or the police in an emergency anymore because copper is outdated.

    Until the government forces cell phone companies to provide subsidized service, makes sure every household has a computer, and makes it standard for municipalities to provide free wireless connectivity, copper is necessary.

    I think we actually agree that the government is not doing enough, but you can NOT say that copper is dead until something viable is in place to replace it for all Americans. To do so is reckless.

    (BTW, you go tell a family of four living at the poverty line in the U.S. that they're not the "poor who are really poor" because they live in the US)

    • ^
    • v
    People in the 3rd world are really, really poor. Poor in the United States, as you cite, can mean $10,294 a year income. That's very low, but what does poor mean on the international scale? It means 1% of that income.

    I don't think we need to have a who's poorer than who contest here, but poor in the United States rarely means facing starvation or death from disease on a daily basis. A lack of internet connectivity just doesn't strike me as quite the same level of crisis.

    While cell phones are still not reaching the world's poorest people, who have many other institutional obstacles between them and long-term financial success, they are reaching those who make only a few hundred dollars a year.

    If copper is an old, antiquated technology that costs more than cell phones, then we should abandon it in favor of new tech. Providing service to the poor would be much cheaper this way and would do everyone the favor of saving more money for other services.
    • ^
    • v
    You're missing my point.


    If copper is an old, antiquated technology that costs more than cell phones, then we should abandon it in favor of new tech. Providing service to the poor would be much cheaper this way and would do everyone the favor of saving more money for other services.


    Very true. But the government is NOT doing that and the cellphone/Internet companies are not about to step up out of the goodness of their hearts.

    You're right, not having Internet access is hardly a problem compared with not being able to eat or having no health insurance. But not being able to contact the police when there's a need to, or to call an ambulance when your child is desperately ill or injured is a major issue. People NEED to have that communication service (not to mention the fact that if someone is poor and trying to get a job so they are no longer poor, not having a phone is a pretty major impediment to that goal).

    Do you have evidence that cell phones are reaching those in the US who have "a few hundred dollars a year?" I'd like to see that.

    Do you agree that having some sort of phone connectivity (not Internet mind you) is a pretty basic requirement these days? If so, then what do we do to make that possible? Do you even want to make it possible?
    • ^
    • v
    Zapraszam do zapoznania się z moją stroną http://serwisybukmacherskie.com poruszającą tematykę bukmacherską. Znajdziesz tam opisy bukmacherów, porady jak typować, darmowe typy, informacje o aktualnych promocjach i wiele innych ciekawych rzeczy
    • ^
    • v
    Wake up folks. Not everyone lives in the metro area where there is a cell phone tower every few blocks. Many people live in areas where there (can you believe this) is no cellular service, and no Cable Tv or wireless internet. So what do they use for internet or calling?

    Also, what causes the cell phone towers to work? I am sure that technology will change over time, but for now most of the cell phone towers work because of that copper pair going to them (and electricity).

    Sure there are some towers that are microwaved from one tower to the other. But eventually there is a circuit/high speed connection feeding them.

    As for the folks that can't afford hi-speed/cell phones, well a lot of them use pre-paid, but supplement it's use with the land-line.

    Not to mention the older generation that refuses to convert to the new fangled contraption called the cell phone. Hey, a lot of them won't even use a cordless.

    In the 1970's the banking industry was saying that by the 1980's the check would be obsolete. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
    • ^
    • v
    Mobile phones are useful in emergencies outside the house, no doubt, but most users just spend mobile time yakking away their allotted minutes to the annoyance of people near them. The simple Bell Systems old 2500 push button phone sets are extremely durable and the audio quality is excellent. They work when the electricity goes out. Yeah, they aren't mobile, and yeah they must remain tethered to a land line for use, but it's so nice to have a phone that doesn't need a battery charged, or need a base connected to an AC outlet. Perhaps cell phones are perfectly safe, but as has been pointed out many times - there is not a long enough history to know beyond a doubt just how safe over decades of regular use.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus