FCC sets rules for copper phaseout

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

supersuds

supersuds

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
1,844
Location
Knoxville, Tenn.
The bell tolls for Ma Bell's copper phone lines:

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission set new ground rules for carriers seeking to replace their old copper telephone networks. Approved by a 3-2 vote at an open meeting yesterday, the rules require carriers to notify customers in advance and to seek FCC approval before reducing services.

Home landline service has dropped dramatically with the spread of mobile phones. In 2000, almost every U.S. household had a landline phone. Since then, many have dropped landline service, and nearly 50 million of the remaining lines have switched to Voice over IP, which sends voice calls in the user's broadband data stream rather than over traditional telephony’s copper wire pairs. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler and others have been pushing to shift telephone traffic to fiber optics and the Internet.

*****

The FCC ruling requires that carriers notify retail customers at least three months before shutting down a copper network, and provide six-months notice to interconnecting carriers using the old lines. (Clyburn complained that that's much less time than the FCC gave before shutting down analog broadcast television, but voted for the measure anyway.) Carriers also must seek FCC approval if the telephone changeover would "discontinue, reduce or impair" service. Details remain to be worked out, but key issues are voice quality and support for 911 emergency calls, alarms, and medical monitors, sw well as assistive technology for the disabled.

 
We knew this was coming, but I didn't think it would happen quite so soon. 

 

There will never be a communications system so supremely reliable as a switched network over copper, and I predict there will someday be widespread regret over this decision, not unlike the loss of interurban rail systems that were ripped out by co-conspirators GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil.

 

Currently, our local exchange carrier doesn't provide fiber or any hopped up high speed service beyond DSL in our neighborhood so we might remain on copper for a while, but I guess I better look into buying a Rot-a-Tone device before there's a major run on them.
 
I switched to cable a couple years ago for internet, and a year of so ago I dropped the land line and got Ooma for VoIP. It works very well, except for sending faxes, but I understand that's typical of fax vs. IP packets.

 

AT&T/PacBell/SBC was completely unable to provide any decent DSL service to this location. The last time I had it, they promised 3 MBPS but it was more like 1. Horrible. Recently I got fed up with Comcast jacking up its rates but Uverse isn't much cheaper, and I don't trust the phone company to do Uverse right either.This town has a fiber optic loop and free wi-fi downtown, but I'm not close enough for either. It pisses me off; I understand in most other developed nations high speed internet service is relatively inexpensive.
 
Before the breakup of Ma Bell they were just starting to plan the future of copper and it's phaseout - and that involved replacing the network starting from the core and in phases working it's way to the home, with fiber. Obviously once the breakup happened that was all out the window and it became about competing and milking every last penny out of the copper networks.

If things went like they should've there would've been fiber everywhere by the late 90s - early 2000s and nobody would be mourning the loss of copper POTS because it would've been completely replaced with something better by now.

What upsets me and everyone else is that our alternatives are just not reliable. Cellphones as much as people have come to trust them are not reliable in times of crisis, VoIP is not self sustaining in power outages and depends on the internet and grid power. etc etc. and not to mention VoIP relies on a solid stable internet connection, which surprisingly many people don't have a good enough connection for flawless voice quality. I've personally struggled with this due to our ISP having all sorts of issues and whatnot out of my control.
 
The installer who came to install our U-Verse said that right now AT&T isn't even offering landline or DSL internet service in our area, only U-Verse. I asked him what's in store for current DSL customers. He said in about a year AT&T will contact them and tell them to switch to U-Verse or lose service completely. And in about 18 months the only thing left working will be U-Verse. DSL will go dead completely.

It seems that Internet service pricing has gone up. In this area it's about $50. per month for anything over 1 mbps.
 
AT&T can't even manage their wireless network, where you'd expect all their concentration to be as they divorce themselves from copper. I've used their wireless phone since 2007 and it's been a VERY slippery slope of performance degradation. It takes me up to 5 redials to do ANYthing from paying bills to calling the police (911). Oh it's got all the 'bars' but half the time it says "network unavailable". And even if I get a connection I don't hear more than a third of what's being said. Including when I called AT&T to complain about it.

I can't well imagine wireless service being WORSE than AT&T. But then I'm pretty old and gullible. [rolleyes]
 
Given that we've still got hundreds of millions of American still stuck with highly substandard "Broadband" after the FCC defined that as being a minimum of 24mbps, and people being sold "faster" Fibre connections at similar data-rates to their old Cable or DSL connections, I don't know whether the Telcos would even blink an eye at the FCC and its supposed legislation on the Copper Phaseout. 

 

The problem with phasing out copper, and even the cable runs is that it will now really start testing the abilities of the new fibre networks. When it comes to privatised utilities vs. reality, I think we ALL know how this is going to end up, no matter what Fibre can push down its lit wires.

We already know that Cable AND DSL are hugely over-subscribed in many parts of the US. Whats to say this burden isn't going to crash the Fibre? 

 

Whats happened here is that these companies have let their Copper networks come to the point of literal disintegration, and are now rolling out fibre as things really start to unravel in the worst areas, selling it to customers as an "upgrade," pocketing the increased costs of supposed higher speeds while they let everything else crumble. 

 

If it were slightly more convenient, I would cut the mobile phone in an instant and keep a landline. When work wants to call me in, they never bother with the landline, which I can ALWAYS hear when I'm at home. At home, I put my phone on my desk, on charge, and get on with my life. I don't cart it round, unless I need to go a distance in the car. Only this results in the whole, "Why didn't you answer your phone?!?!" saga, which I can spare you for another day. 

 

Just like anything, well-maintained Copper is great. If there is ever a huge crisis affecting large parts of the exchange system, those of us who placed our trust in "superior technology," will be left out in the cold. That said, the backup systems at telephone exchanges only go so far, which can make some areas "black-spots" during extended blackouts... 
 
So how many years has the copper part just been the last mile? I mean just because you have a 24awg pair coming into your residence doesn't mean you really have a copper connection after all. We have been using fiber for all the back bones in most areas for 20 years or more.

At my house I still have a copper pair that runs from my basement ~2 blocks up to the local point of presence. From there its all fiber now. I used to have a 25,000 foot analog run down to the switch house about 5 miles away. I could never get a modem connection over 31kbps. I still have an land line and the telco provides my 20Mbps VDSL (I could get 100Mb if I wanted to pay for it). As far as voice performance or reliability is concerned the change over to fiber only improved both.

They will soon be replacing the copper runs with fiber to the house. They will be offering 1Gb(!!) symmetrical data plans after it comes. Personally I really like the idea of fiber, it has a lot of advantages over copper, but of course there are some disadvantages too. In any case I remain quite pleased I'm not feeding the Comcast animal.
 
 
What's the difference between Uverse and DSL? We had DSL at work, changed to Uverse to accommodate some details related to the digital projectors ... but it still comes in over the same phone jack that splits into the fax machine.

I still have landline (although I canceled long-distance service a couple years ago).  DSL was not available when I moved to this house 10 years ago so I used dial-up for a few years (never got 56K speeds), then switched to cable (local service, ComCast reseller). I don't know if DSL/Uverse is still unavailable but I suspect that is the case.
 
When they installed our U-Verse, they had to rewire the phone system in the rooms we had U-Verse outlets in. The connectors on the wall for U-Verse accept only CAT5 connectors. I was told that U-Verse is fiber optic rather then conventional wiring.
 
DSL and Uverse use different modems. While it's possible to buy your own DSL modem, as far as I know, you have to rent a Uverse modem from AT&T. The current rental price appears to be $7 month. I found some forums that say that your carrier might allow you to use your own Uverse modem (known as a VDSL2 modem) but only if the service doesn't include TV and then only if the carrier agrees. And the only VDSL modem available appear to be used, so the phone company might discover it's an unreturned unit and charge you a $7 rental fee anyway. On top of that, AT&T supposedly routinely updates or replaces Uverse modems so if you insist on using  your own you don't have that regular updating.

 

ATT can provide a variety of Uverse speeds at my location. The most attractive right now vs. cable is the 18 MBPS service at $45/mo. But then it's really $52/mo including the $7 monthly modem rental. Then ATT wants $99 to install the service, and there are local taxes/fees on top of that (about another $5/mo I think). So the total will be about $57/mo not including the install fee (which would average to $66/mo over a year). Plus the quoted rate is only good for 12 months, at which like the rest it would zoom up in monthly charges. At that point the $57 I pay for 50 MBPS Comcast service looks good... but that's going to zoom up to 80/mo when the 12 month contract runs out in a few months. I can switch to a lower speed (about 25 MBPS) for "only" $65/mo, at that point.

 

In other words, highways robbery. There ought to be more competition for internet service but realistically it's limited to AT&T and Comcast in this are. Verizon FIOS is not available here, although Consumer Reports gives it high marks for reliability, speed, and cost in other markets.

 

Here's a link that explains how DSL and Uverse work and why they need different equipment:

computer.howstuffworks.com

How VDSL Works

If you've been holding your breath for the next best thing in Internet connections, get ready to exhale. VDSL has five times the speed of regular broadband.
computer.howstuffworks.com computer.howstuffworks.com
 
Phil

The answer to that is a rather long winded one. The first major push for fiber was in the long lines part of the network starting in 1979 in Chicago, and didn't really start winding up until the late 80s. Through the 90s fiber then was being run between central offices for additional capacity and to support new technologies (like DSL), but contrary to popular belief, the copper was never stripped out or even taken out of service, it's still very much in service even to this very day, the fiber was just an overlay.

Coming to the last mile thing, DSL loops couldn't be more then 18,000 feet from the CO due to signal degradation and therefore neighborhoods further then 18,000 ft from the CO had Remote Terminals installed which housed the DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer) and POTS multiplexer, usually fed by fiber and in the early days fed by copper T1's.
Usually the only time your POTS was put on the Remote Terminal was if you ordered DSL on that line, then both services would come out of there. Otherwise if you just ordered a POTS line without DSL from the phone company they would put you on a central office loop despite having that remote terminal.
Newer developments may just have the remote terminals, and therefore the copper may be only last mile.

But generally as a rule of thumb, there may be fiber up to the last mile but if it was all copper prior, then it's most likely still all copper and still in use despite having that last mile fiber.

As far as Uverse goes, Uverse is just a brand slapped on multiple different technologies. ADSL2+, VDSL2+, and FTTP. The first two being the most common and are last mile copper based, and then of course fiber to the home being the last. The majority of Uverse is VDSL2+ based over copper and served out of VRAD cabinets placed in neighborhoods near cross connect boxes and fed with fiber. (Truly last mile). ADSL2+ is usually fed out of CO's.
 
The length of the run from the local central office/DSLAM was my limitation for years. Where I lived I never had any availability for any form of ADSL.

Jump to about 5 years ago when Qwest started to install boxes on the corners of all the neighborhoods in the area. These boxes were installed next to the existing telephone connection points and were fed with newly run fiber. Our copper pair was migrated into the new box and voila we now have VDSL/VDSL2.

Qwest/Century Link was pretty protective about selling the VDSL2 modems initially. You could buy an ADSL one anywhere. Now they are all over eBay for cheap, I have bought a couple backup modems for work and home.

At work we used to have a sub-megabit ADSL connection but they came in and gave us a VDSL2 modem a while back. We have a 20/5Mbps connection now and all is good.

When I rewired for the DSL I placed the audio telephone filter in the basement, next to the demarc point and fed all the existing home telco wiring with a filtered signal. I also installed a new PolyPhaser telco lightening protector at that time. My modem is on a shelf in the basement connected directly to the demarc point and powered by its own UPS. I light up the house with WiFi so there is no physical connection from my computers into my access point. As a ham with antennas in the air, I worry a lot about how lightning induced energy could effect my life. I avoid multiple paths like the plague, this is one reason I like non-conductive glass fiber. It will be awesome it runs the final stretch up to my home.

In any case, I apologize for starting the thread hijack towards DSL. John's initial shared link is just about the FCC ruling not allowing companies to remove services without notice. Which is likely a good thing.
 
Recently found that I could waive the $99 install fee (for some reason that option didn't appear the other day) and do a "self-install" for Uverse. But I'm going to wait until Comcast raises my rates again and won't play ball (probable) before I go with Uverse.

 

I figure 12 MBPS will be enough for my needs, anyway. We'll see.

 

Meanwhile I took my cell phone downtown and sure enough there was free 12 MBPS wifi service for an area of about 10 sq blocks or more. But it disappeared about half-way home. Of course, not entirely sure about the security on a free wi-fi service, though. I'd be a little reluctant to use it for online banking, for example.

 
 
Like others, I partly mourn the decline of landlines. Preferably landlines with real phones--i.e. something with a dial. At the same time, though, I am one of the ones responsible for loss of market share, given that my only phone the last few years has been a cell phone. When Tradition and Let's Be Cheap had their battle, Cheap won.
 
Landline reliability

Traditional landlines did have good reliability. That said...

It seems like newer technology could be acceptably reliable IF care is made to ensure reliability (e.g. overkill power backup systems, etc). Problem is...the companies running this technology probably want to get by with as little as possible. Every dollar for backup power means one less dollar for the CEO's private jet.

It is also worth noting that landlines may not be reliable if poorly implemented/maintained. And again, we hit a problem that modern companies probably don't want to invest a single dollar past what they must. Indeed, this may just be old fogey whining about the past, but one long term resident of my area said that phone service was much better years and years back, before the-then company was absorbed by another company.

I actually had one failure of the phone system once. About 10 years ago, there was a massive wind storm. Some were without power for a week or more. I lost phone service for at least several hours on that occasion.
 
We live in an area which has been established as an urban area for about 100 years and with our rapidly aging copper have ongoing issues with line quality.

Unusually enough these days, we never loose the ADSL service, only voice which means it can be days or weeks before we realise that there is an issue.

Our last federal government had mandated FTTP, the current government rolled that back to FTTN. New housing estates or replacement of copper are now cabled with fibre, so its just a matter of waiting for it get bad enough for the upgrade to occur.

We currently get 20mbits down and 1.5mbs up so FTTN is only going to make that faster for us in the longer term.

I cant find it at the moment, but there was a video on Youtube by Telecom Australia from the 80's that was espousing how ISDN was going to replace POTS and give us all multiple phone/fax lines and high speed access (64kb/s) to data services :) In Australia poor old ISDN got left behind except for commercial premises and we all got left with POTS.
 
The land line to this house was always a bit shakey.

 

I moved in around 1997. A couple of years later my employer had an SDSL line installed so I could telecommute. I already had a phone line and a fax line. Without telling me, the phone company multiplexed the phone and fax line together, so they could put in the SDSL on a separate pair. Apparently they only had two pairs to spare for this location. That worked OK until the employer discontinued the SDSL line and I had to get ADSL instead. It was slow and unreliable. I found out that this was because rather than putting it on the SDSL pair, they piggybacked it onto the already multiplexed line. When I discontinued the fax line they told me they couldn't switch the ADSL over to the remaining line... because it was multiplexed. I raised hell about that and finally they switched it over, but the it got even slower and less reliable. When their modem gave out I got my own. I went through two modems because the line quality was so poor. Must have been voltage spikes or something. Finally I was fed up with the slow speed (they said it would be up to 1.5 MBPS but it never got much about 750). They said I could go with Uverse but by that time I had no faith in their ability. I got Comcast instead and it's been much better, faster. But not cheaper! The price started out around $30/mo and now is $57 - in the course of about a year and a half! That's a 60% annual price increase!

 
 

Latest posts

Back
Top