The End of an Era - After Almost a Century

[AtomicEraTom]

While what it being said is a part of it, the delivery is what's making it seem rude, to me, at least.

Im sorry you feel that way about me. Though I honestly don't see what's snobby or holier than thou in preferring digital television.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Btw, down here in hurricane land, we still get phone even when all other power is out, so yes, it's a big deal and frankly, we don't care if it's above ground on copper lines or below ground on fiber optics. Btw, folks must have forgot how often above ground lines were down due to storm debris or snow/ice.

It depends. I've been through numerous hurricanes, and have lost power and phone in every one, sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks. Obviously underground lines, such as fiber optic, fare better. But POTS lines go down. Regularly.

 

[HudsonHawk]

While what it being said is a part of it, the delivery is what's making it seem rude, to me, at least.

Again, I'm sorry I come across that way to you. Tone doesn't translate well, and it's certainly not my intention to appear rude. I do state my mind though, which I believe is the whole point here. I'm not afraid of stating disagreement. Perhaps that rubs people the wrong way, but I am what I am.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It depends. I've been through numerous hurricanes, and have lost power and phone in every one, sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks. Obviously underground lines, such as fiber optic, fare better. But POTS lines go down. Regularly.

I don't know about "regularly." I can't remember ever not getting a dial tone, and I'm fifty years old. If it was something that happened regularly, seems in half a century's time I'd have experienced it at least once.

Last Friday night, some toked-up pothead drove her car into a transformer pole up the street from me and knocked out power to this whole end of town for more than three hours. I was sitting in the living room in a blanket eating raw oatmeal (it was 45 degrees in the house by the time the lights came back on) but I had no trouble at all calling down to work to make sure the power was on there.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't know about "regularly." I can't remember ever not getting a dial tone, and I'm fifty years old. If it was something that happened regularly, seems in half a century's time I'd have experienced it at least once.

Last Friday night, some toked-up pothead drove her car into a transformer pole up the street from me and knocked out power to this whole end of town for more than three hours. I was sitting in the living room in a blanket eating raw oatmeal (it was 45 degrees in the house by the time the lights came back on) but I had no trouble at all calling down to work to make sure the power was on there.

Are your phone lines underground? Around here, the pothead would have knocked out both.

On a side note...raw oatmeal? Is that out of necessity or desire?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Are your phone lines underground? Around here, the pothead would have knocked out both.

On a side note...raw oatmeal? Is that out of necessity or desire?

Most in-town phone lines around here have been underground since the 1920s. Ma Bell's old manhole covers are still very common sights.

As for the oatmeal, I usually get groceries on Saturday mornings, and Friday night the larder is usually pretty bare. I have an electric stove, so I couldn't cook any supper, and I had no interest in venturing out in below-zero weather to find a hamburger or something. Thus, raw oatmeal.

I actually *like* raw oatmeal anyway. Always have.

 

[vitanola]

Im sorry you feel that way about me. Though I honestly don't see what's snobby or holier than thou in preferring digital television.

I can certainly understand why one who can receive it would prefer digital television to NTSC. The thing that comes across as unpleasant is your apparent disregard for the minority who lost all service as a result of the change-over. I get it. They are largely poor and rural so they don't count, as their 'plaints, if heard, would merely be a drag on the operation of the Perfect Market.

Now as far as the reliability of your POTS line is concerned, I'd wonder about your operating company. I spent a number of years engineering outside plant for one of the legacy Bell operating companies, and their reliability targets were pretty high indeed. Areas which were subject to regular high winds would have had their subscriber loops buried a couple of decades ago, as long as the water table in those locations was not problematic. Operation of the telephone system during power outages was considered to be of paramount importance, so of course it was unacceptable to rely on the power grid to power pair gain or loop extender equipment. If your telephone service fails with every wind-storm you should be in touch with your state Public Utilities Commission. Frankly, I find your statement about the poor reliability of your service hard to credit, for I've had to deal with state regulators and their reliability targets, which to be sure were pretty lax when compared to the reliability targets which were handed on down on down from 195 Broadway.

I have two concerns about the proposed new network. The first is its reliance on the public power grid, for this system will rely on the grid to power its repeaters, line concentrators and all of its translators, one of which will be placed in each home. This will lead to the aforementioned loss of service during power outages. The more important concern, however, is the abandonment of service to customers at the end of long rural loops which is contemplated in all of the new proposals. Now this loss of service may be considered to be a fine thing in the land of the Imperial Me, but it is not acceptable in the nation of the Kingsbury Commitment.

As a contractor I was involved in the repair of the first large installation of fiber trunkage in the Chicago LATA. The initial installation was disastrous, not due to the inherent qualities of that early equipment, but due to poor training of the installation crews, who did not terminate the individual fiber strands properly. This led to data errors and greatly narrowed transmission bandwidth, but of course this problem was entirely corrected when all cables were re-terminated.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I can certainly understand why one who can receive it would prefer digital television to NTSC. The thing that comes across as unpleasant is your apparent disregard for the minority who lost all service as a result of the change-over. I get it. They are largely poor and rural so they don't count, as their 'plaints, if heard, would merely be a drag on the operation of the Perfect Market.

If you're implying that I've no regard or are insensitive to the "poor rural folk", you are way off base, and I have to wonder if you've ever read what I've wrote on the subject. I grew up one of those folks, often without phone, electricity, water or food, and not because of reliability problems with the network. I never had a TV until I was in high school, and went 10 or so years in my adulthood without one, not because I couldn't afford it, but because I simply didn't care to watch anything. So if you see me as some sort of spoiled techno geek who cannot see how the other half lives, your observations are way off base. And no, I don't think you are suffering some kind of human indignation because you can't get clear television reception without cable or satellite. Your mileage may vary.

Furthermore, my comments on the phone system have only been around the wailing and gnashing of teeth about something that doesn't even exist yet.

as far as the reliability of your POTS line is concerned, I'd wonder about your operating company. I spent a number of years engineering outside plant for one of the legacy Bell operating companies, and their reliability targets were pretty high indeed. Areas which were subject to regular high winds would have had their subscriber loops buried a couple of decades ago, as long as the water table in those locations was not problematic. Operation of the telephone system during power outages was considered to be of paramount importance, so of course it was unacceptable to rely on the power grid to power pair gain or loop extender equipment. If your telephone service fails with every wind-storm you should be in touch with your state Public Utilities Commission.

First, I never had a Bell-legacy operating company until 20 years ago. Secondly, the phone doesn't go out at every wind storm, but it does go out during hurricanes, ice storms or when some stoned yahoo drives into a utility pole or someone with a post-hole digger decides to put his fence post directly on top of the buried line. Furthermore, my point is not to suggest that POTS is inherently unreliable, only that people do occasionally have to operate with telephone service, and it's not the end of the world.

 

[vitanola]

If you're implying that I've no regard or are insensitive to the "poor rural folk", you are way off base, and I have to wonder if you've ever read what I've wrote on the subject. I grew up one of those folks, often without phone, electricity, water or food, and not because of reliability problems with the network. I never had a TV until I was in high school, and went 10 or so years in my adulthood without one, not because I couldn't afford it, but because I simply didn't care to watch anything. So if you see me as some sort of spoiled techno geek who cannot see how the other half lives, your observations are way off base. And no, I don't think you are suffering some kind of human indignation because you can't get clear television reception without cable or satellite. Your mileage may vary.

Furthermore, my comments on the phone system have only been around the wailing and gnashing of teeth about something that doesn't even exist yet.



First, I never had a Bell-legacy operating company until 20 years ago. Secondly, the phone doesn't go out at every wind storm, but it does go out during hurricanes, ice storms or when some stoned yahoo drives into a utility pole or someone with a post-hole digger decides to put his fence post directly on top of the buried line. Furthermore, my point is not to suggest that POTS is inherently unreliable, only that people do occasionally have to operate with telephone service, and it's not the end of the world.

I was not clear in making my point about the limits of market primacy, and was not accusing you personally of cold-heartedness. It is clear that we have different ideas about the concept of "Public Service" Mine is firmly rooted in the Era, yours appears to be quite distinctly up-to-date.

Now, as far as non-Bell operating Companies are concerned, my first telephone job (when I was in college) was as an assistant switchman for a "Farmer's Co-Operative Telephone Company". The outside plant was still about thirty percent open wire in the late 1970's, and the central office switch was an ancient ex-PBX Strowger unit with eleven position first selectors. Themanagement of this firm was absolutely manic about reliability, to the extent of using local battery talking/common battery signalling on their long rural loops in preference to power-line powered repeaters, and the provision of line current to key and PBX system users over a central office loop, so that customer service (even the lights and intercoms on multi-line key systems) would not be interrupted during a power failure. I installed early Digital Subscriber Carrier systems, and say the manifold reliability problems associated with Grid power.

My firm was a pioneer in VOIP in the 'Ninties. I understand this system, and use it myself, though my own system is fitted with a pretty substantial IPS unit, and I am technically savvy enough to make the occasional adjustment. I also know the limitations of the current technology and have read some of the proposals for the national roll-out of this service. All of these proposals suggest strongly that there will be a substantial number of subscribers who would loose their service entirely. This I find to be unacceptable, for I still maintain that these utilities are given their franchises in exchange for the provision of a public service. The "wailing and gnashing of teeth about something that doesn't even exist yet" (sic) is due to our previous experience with the current FCC. They have a history, you know.

I don't know but that my twenty-five years in the industry, and my familiarity with the specifics of the current proposals may possibly be of some interest. This experience gives me an empirical rather than purely theoretical understanding of the situation, although I understand that there are some who exalt the theory over the mere empiricism. The Viennese call this "Wahnsinn", though there are other names for it.

 

[sheeplady]

All of these proposals suggest strongly that there will be a substantial number of subscribers who would loose their service entirely. This I find to be unacceptable, for I still maintain that these utilities are given their franchises in exchange for the provision of a public service. The "wailing and gnashing of teeth about something that doesn't even exist yet" (sic) is due to our previous experience with the current FCC. They have a history, you know.

Agreed. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

 

[Stearmen]

Most in-town phone lines around here have been underground since the 1920s. Ma Bell's old manhole covers are still very common sights.

As for the oatmeal, I usually get groceries on Saturday mornings, and Friday night the larder is usually pretty bare. I have an electric stove, so I couldn't cook any supper, and I had no interest in venturing out in below-zero weather to find a hamburger or something. Thus, raw oatmeal.

I actually *like* raw oatmeal anyway. Always have.

My hats off to you, eating uncooked oat meal. I have had to eat a can of uncooked Chili, but that is Waldorf Astoria fair next to what you had to eat!

 

[nihil]

This isn't replacing telegraph with telephone

I want the telegraph back. What happened to the lovely ritual of going to the nice man at the telegraph office? Now the "so called progress" have made another job redundant. And whats the deal with all those cars? Horses were good enough for 1000s of years, and now suddenly everyone are using this automobile fad. Polluting, noisy, dangerous. We have come sooo far.
Don't even get me started on gas lights...damn electricity.

 

[hatguy1]

This view of the market ignores the fact the much of the country that relies on POTS isn't a big enough of a market for a provider to take interest. There was a time when Americans cared enough about their distant neighors to make sure those in power enacted laws that ensured access.

Most of the proposed plans I've read leave out one percent of the customers. Sucks to live in a rural area of the country I guess. Thank god we don't need people in areas like that for anything like gas, oil, food, or lumber. I mean, baby carrots grow in bags like that if I stick a half eaten one in a sidewalk crack, right?

1%? With due respect, your view of the market isn't really any kind of market at all. What you're dangerously close to advocating is govt-created, govt-funded markets which is not any kind of private enterprise/free market system which gravitates towards its most efficient locations, levels and self-sustaining products etc. If there isn't a sustainable market for something (e.g., a 1% customer base) without government subsidy, then there really isn't a market for it at all.

 

[sheeplady]

1%? With due respect, your view of the market isn't really any kind of market at all. What you're dangerously close to advocating is govt-created, govt-funded markets which is not any kind of private enterprise/free market system which gravitates towards its most efficient locations, levels and self-sustaining products etc. If there isn't a sustainable market for something (e.g., a 1% customer base), then there really isn't a market for it at all.

You are correct in that I support a government regulated market. Ensuring service to those 1% of customers was a golden era value, hence why the Bell system operated as a government-condoned legal monopoly that was heavily regulated.

I make no apologies for not being a free market person.

 

[hatguy1]

You are correct in that I support a government regulated market. Ensuring service to those 1% of customers was a golden era value, hence why the Bell system operated as a government-condoned legal monopoly that was heavily regulated.

Yes, they did. And because they were a monopoly hence went the saying of the time as folks beefed about the conduct of Ma Bell: "Thanks for calling Bell Telephone. We're the only phone company you have available and we sure try to act like it, too."

I make no apologies for not being a free market person.

That's your right, but 1) there's a difference between a regulated market and a subsidized market, and 2) history shows that continued expansion of govt-subsidies to cover more and more "1% markets" is unsustainable.

 

[sheeplady]

Yes, they did. And because they were a monopoly hence went the saying of the time as folks beefed about the conduct of Ma Bell: "Thanks for calling Bell Telephone. We're the only phone company you have available and we sure try to act like it, too."

That's your right, but history shows that continued expansion of govt-subsidies to cover more and more 1% markets is unsustainable.

Government subsidies are an entirely different beast from regulation. This would not be an expansion of government regulation, but a continuation of the regulation we've had for decades upon decades upon decades. So your argument about the expansion of government subsidies doesn't make sense in either light- we're not talking about subsidies and we're not talking about expansion of anything.

 

[hatguy1]

Government subsidies are an entirely different beast from regulation.

My point exactly.

This would not be an expansion of government regulation, but a continuation of the regulation we've had for decades upon decades upon decades. So your argument about the expansion of government subsidies doesn't make sense in either light- we're not talking about subsidies and we're not talking about expansion of anything.

Respectfully, I disagree. Regulation doesn't fund itself. That money has to come from somewhere - i.e., the taxpayer. So tax increases to replace POTS technology with up-to-date technology costs money and who's going to pay for that and how is the problem. Again, if there was a sizeable enough market to make it profitable, private industry would do it. Why? Because they'd make enough money from it to make it worth their while. If it's not sizeable enough to be profitable, then the choices are 1) live without it or 2) leave existing technologies in place (which doesn't sound like is being considered) or 3) find some way to subsidize it, but again our govt is becoming so bloated trying to be all things to all people these days that we've long since run out of money and with every cost increase to business or individuals comes a reduction in ability to spend on other things, increase standard of living and so on (See simple supply and demand curve theory).

Hence, if the current "regulation we've had for decades upon decades upon decades" has the money in its coffers (remember regulation does not create funding) then great. Go for it. However, if it doesn't - and I suspect it doesn't - then only thru a tax increase somewhere is that even possible and see the above and previous where I point out that this continued explosion in govt is unsustainable. As add'l case in point; I was talking to a foreign exchange student from the former USSR recently. He informed me that the current tax rate on all citizens in his Russian state is 150%. Yes, that's right; 150%. Because of the former Soviet model of the govt providing everything to everybody and paying for it thru the common contribution, they've long since run out of money to fund their govt. When I asked him how that works, considering how if you tax 100% of the income at a collection rate that confiscates it all from each and every citizen... he promptly informed me that it DOESN'T work. The only way things get done and goods and services get provided to those who need them from those who have them is from the black market and the Russian mafia. Again, such an out of control govt spending philosophy is unsustainable.

 

[sheeplady]

As add'l case in point; I was talking to a foreign exchange student from the former USSR recently. He informed me that the current tax rate on all citizens in his Russian state is 150%. Yes, that's right; 150%. Because of the former Soviet model of the govt providing everything to everybody and paying for it thru the common contribution, they've long since run out of money to fund their govt. When I asked him how that works, considering how if you tax 100% of the income at a collection rate that confiscates it all from each and every citizen... he promptly informed me that it DOESN'T work. The only way things get done and goods and services get provided to those who need them from those who have them is from the black market and the Russian mafia. Again, such an out of control govt spending philosophy is unsustainable.

Russian income tax rates for individuals are no where near as high as in the United States, so I am not sure exactly what you are talking about. Also, as far as I know, there are no income taxes at the state/local level in Russia- property and car taxes, yes.

 

[sheeplady]

2) leave existing technologies in place

I am totally fine with this being the end point. In these areas, this is likely the best option for everyone given the realities and limitations of the new technology- something which numerous posters have brought up.

 

[vitanola]

My point exactly.



Respectfully, I disagree. Regulation doesn't fund itself. That money has to come from somewhere - i.e., the taxpayer. So tax increases to replace POTS technology with up-to-date technology costs money and who's going to pay for that and how is the problem. Again, if there was a sizeable enough market to make it profitable, private industry would do it. Why? Because they'd make enough money from it to make it worth their while. If it's not sizeable enough to be profitable, then the choices are 1) live without it or 2) leave existing technologies in place (which doesn't sound like is being considered) or 3) find some way to subsidize it, but again our govt is becoming so bloated trying to be all things to all people these days that we've long since run out of money and with every cost increase to business or individuals comes a reduction in ability to spend on other things, increase standard of living and so on (See simple supply and demand curve theory).

Hence, if the current "regulation we've had for decades upon decades upon decades" has the money in its coffers (remember regulation does not create funding) then great. Go for it. However, if it doesn't - and I suspect it doesn't - then only thru a tax increase somewhere is that even possible and see the above and previous where I point out that this continued explosion in govt is unsustainable. As add'l case in point; I was talking to a foreign exchange student from the former USSR recently. He informed me that the current tax rate on all citizens in his Russian state is 150%. Yes, that's right; 150%. Because of the former Soviet model of the govt providing everything to everybody and paying for it thru the common contribution, they've long since run out of money to fund their govt. When I asked him how that works, considering how if you tax 100% of the income at a collection rate that confiscates it all from each and every citizen... he promptly informed me that it DOESN'T work. The only way things get done and goods and services get provided to those who need them from those who have them is from the black market and the Russian mafia. Again, such an out of control govt spending philosophy is unsustainable.

Russia has a highly regressive tax system, a version of the "flat tax" so beloved of many. The highest income corporate tax rates (42.5%) are reserved for the oil and gas industry, but these rates include separation fees and royalties, so the acutal burden on corporate profits is less. The tax burden on the largest corporatons and on the very wealthy is nearly the lightest in the world. The effects of the flat tax system, combined with the Individual Property Tax and the heavy sales tax regimen means that the effective tax burden increased as one moves down in the economic spectrum.

Now as far as telephone service is concerned, well telephone companies have since the beginning of the industry been granted franchises to operate in service of the public. They are and have been privileged to place their facilities on public and private property, and are allowed access to valuable markets in exchange for which they have historically been required to offer service to all potential customers in the geographic area. Now this industry seeks to overturn franchise agreements which have served both the public and the industry well for the last century-and-a-quarter, and abandon thecustomers which they deem to be "uneconomic" whilst retaining the most profitable. I believe that this is call "having one's cake and eating it too". It is a porfoundly radical change, and certainly not a position which would be supported by anyone who would cal themselves conservative.