From Newsgroup: comp.misc


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network/

AT&T sued California yesterday over the state’s refusal to let the
carrier stop providing phone service to all potential customers in its wireline network territory. AT&T is also asking the Federal
Communications Commission to declare that California cannot enforce
its rules and to let AT&T stop providing service to about 199,000
phone customers.

....

AT&T yesterday also submitted petitions asking the FCC to intervene
directly in California. One petition asks for permission to
discontinue copper-based service to 184,000 residential customers and another asks for permission to discontinue copper service to 15,000
business customers.

Some folks may have already seen this already, but if not, this is a
pretty big deal:

California has been ground zero for some years now in the fight between
AT&T and consumers who want to keep traditional POTS service. Yes, AT&T
et al have already been aggressively pursuing copper retirement
elsewhere, but thus far, the California Public Utilities Commission has prevented AT&T from abandoning thousands of customers without reliable
vice service (partly due to massive consumer uproar). Unlike other
states that have given in to AT&T and eliminated Carrier of Last Resort
rules (often as a result of bribery, as in Illinois), COLR is still on
the books in California.

Back in March, the FCC unfortunately made a very bad move by preempting
state rules where they conflicted with the FCC's deregulatory agenda,
bringing this all to a head. Now, AT&T has:

* Sued the CPUC for its previous refusal to grant AT&T's application to discontinue POTS in California.
* Petitioned the FCC to preempt California's COLR rules and allow it to proceed with disconnections and end ETC/Lifeline obligations anyways
* Applied to disconnect 199,000 POTS customers in California by June
2027 (automatically granted by the FCC under its new streamlined rules,
unless there is significant and immediate consumer opposition)

Sadly, I've heard from many consumers who were misled, bullied, or lied
to by companies like AT&T and Verizon into giving up their POTS landline
when they did not want to, or people who have related how they were
migrated by AT&T to so-called "advanced" replacements, and then could no longer reliably make or receive calls due to poor connectivity. People
have recently reached out and are terrified to death given their
inability to reliably reach 911 or anyone else by any other means.

Even if you have given up your landline or don't depend on one, please consider taking action to support those who depend on them. Particularly
in hilly, mountainous, rural, wildfire-prone, earthquake-prone, and
power outage-prone areas, people *will* die if this proceeds as
"business as usual". Now is the time to have solidarity with those who
need to have access to landline service for emergencies and reliable 911 access. And as the "analog divide" expands, so too does the digital
divide, as people with access only to DSL or dial-up have that taken
away from them too.

There are several actions people can take to help protect what access to landline infrastructure still remains. There is a bulletin outlining all
the imminent threats to POTS, both in California and nationwide, and how
to take action, here: https://phreaknet.org/action
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Sun, 24 May 2026 19:48:39 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

Now is the time to have solidarity with those who need to have
access to landline service for emergencies and reliable 911 access.
And as the "analog divide" expands, so too does the digital divide,
as people with access only to DSL or dial-up have that taken away
from them too.

Yes, but ... Government action to protect access to such a service is considered “Socialism”, isn’t it?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-05-25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 24 May 2026 19:48:39 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

Now is the time to have solidarity with those who need to have
access to landline service for emergencies and reliable 911 access.
And as the "analog divide" expands, so too does the digital divide,
as people with access only to DSL or dial-up have that taken away
from them too.

Yes, but ... Government action to protect access to such a service is considered “Socialism”, isn’t it?

Only if you're Republican. If you're not Republican, it might just be
called "not anarchy".

Besides "common sense".
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-05-25, Nuno Silva <[email protected]d> wrote:

On 2026-05-25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

Yes, but ... Government action to protect
access to such a service is considered
“Socialism”, isn’t it?

Only if you're Republican. If you're not
Republican, it might just be called "not
anarchy".

Besides "common sense".

In other words: in the liberal mind, someone's
actions are measured primarily (perhaps entirely?)
by what the liberal labels the doer.

Their derangement clearly isn't limited to Trump,
but a terminal case of "reality is whatever I
whimsically call it in a given moment".

In addition to the above, so-called "gender
fluidity" comes to mind as another example:
gender unknown until labeled.

See also: Solipsism in Spades
--
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
| alt.troll.adam-h-kerman: proof that the |
| internet sometimes gets something right | ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

elsewhere, but thus far, the California Public Utilities Commission has prevented AT&T from abandoning thousands of customers without reliable
vice service (partly due to massive consumer uproar).

Who wouldn't want a reliable vice service????
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

[crossposting to aus.comms]

InterLinked <[email protected]> wrote:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network/

I took this as inspiration to check whether there are similar rules
in Australia and it seems here it's the "Universal Service
Obligation" (USO): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-09/telstra-taxpayers-funding-landlines-phone-review/104269734

Luckily here in Australia they don't seem to count the mobile
phone network as a replacement voice service, so the rules only
permit dropping POTS in places served by the National Broadband
Network via fibre(+copper) or "fixed wireless". Since 3G was turned
off mobile coverage has gone way downhill and it only works
properly outdoors now where I live, so I'm glad to still have my
POTS landline.

However it turns out the government is paying a telco (Telstra)
"about $270 million a year" to provide that, and free payphones.
For that money, the local phone exhange has been breaking at least
every few months, for years, and it's sometimes taken them weeks
just to get someone to come out and look at it. My line was
switched to a spare a few years ago because the phone lines
themselves are rotting away. I bet most of that government funding
goes straight to their profits, not to mention the $30/month I pay
for line rental myself.

But of course Telstra wants the USO changed so they can stop
providing POTS in more places too, while still netting the
government funding to pay for running their worsening mobile phone
service:

"It wants to redirect the money it is currently spending maintaining
the copper network (which it describes as a "dinosaur" compared to
what is available now) and invest the funds in more modern
technologies.

"This means removing the requirement for Telstra to use the
outdated copper network to deliver USO telephone services in much
of regional and remote Australia," Telstra said in a statement." ...

I can't find any news since 2024 about how that went...

Oh, it seems there's now the "Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation"
(UOMO) proposed in a bill last year, which no major news outlets
seem to have bothered reporting about properly (typical). Bloody
stupid to have them use satellites to try and provide a mobile
service available from a tower I can _see_ from from home, which
also worked fine before 3G was turned off! But I bet we'll be
paying plenty for them to try and do that, like they try and run
POTS...

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications/modernising-universal-telecommunications-services
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications/phone/phone-services/universal-service-obligation-voice-services
https://www.telecomreviewasia.com/news/policy-news/27027-australia-moves-to-mandate-universal-outdoor-mobile-coverage/

I'm not sure what that means for the future of the USO - will
Telstra get government funding for their mobile network diverted
from POTS like they were asking for?

Of course Telstra already say I'm in a 4G coverage area, so I'm
sure they still won't spend that money here to offer me a service
as reliable as my landline used to be before it started breaking
all the time..
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 24 May 2026 19:48:39 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

Now is the time to have solidarity with those who need to have
access to landline service for emergencies and reliable 911 access.
And as the "analog divide" expands, so too does the digital divide,
as people with access only to DSL or dial-up have that taken away
from them too.

Yes, but ... Government action to protect access to such a service is >considered Socialism, isnt it?

If telcos want to eliinate POTS, that's fine, as long as they find some
other way to meet the tariff for the POTS service to the letter.

What is going on is actually not telcos wanting to get rid of POTS, it is
a matter of telcos wanting to eliminate tariffed services with access
and uptime requirements, so they can replace them with unregulated services that they can charge anything that they want for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-05-26, Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 24 May 2026 19:48:39 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

Now is the time to have solidarity with those
who need to have access to landline service
for emergencies and reliable 911 access.
And as the "analog divide" expands, so too
does the digital divide, as people with access
only to DSL or dial-up have that taken away
from them too.

Yes, but ... Government action to protect
access to such a service is considered
Socialism, isnt it?

If telcos want to eliinate POTS, that's fine,
as long as they find some other way to meet
the tariff for the POTS service to the letter.

What is going on is actually not telcos wanting
to get rid of POTS, it is a matter of telcos
wanting to eliminate tariffed services with
access and uptime requirements, so they can
replace them with unregulated services that
they can charge anything that they want for.

Holy crimenies! That's like at least a notch and
a half lower on the Objective Virtue Scale than
USENET trolls!!!
--
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
| alt.troll.adam-h-kerman: proof that the |
| internet sometimes gets something right | ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 26 May 2026 12:30:37 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

What is going on is actually not telcos wanting to get rid of POTS,
it is a matter of telcos wanting to eliminate tariffed services with
access and uptime requirements, so they can replace them with
unregulated services that they can charge anything that they want
for.

Isn’t that how the USA version of free-market competition is supposed
to work?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In article <10v57qu$2d006$[email protected]>,
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2026 12:30:37 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

What is going on is actually not telcos wanting to get rid of POTS,
it is a matter of telcos wanting to eliminate tariffed services with
access and uptime requirements, so they can replace them with
unregulated services that they can charge anything that they want
for.

Isn't that how the USA version of free-market competition is supposed
to work?

It is, but wired telecom can never really be an effective free market
because the barriers to entry are so high. The regulated monopoly
actually worked very well for a long time and actually promoted rather
than stifled innovation because Bell was forced to do so.

The barriers to entry are high enough for wired systems and low enough
for wireless that there are many African companies with no real wired infrastructure but universal use of cellphones. And yes, microwave links between cell towers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 27 May 2026 00:46:48 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

... wired telecom can never really be an effective free market
because the barriers to entry are so high.

We solved that by separating ownership/control of the “last mile”
copper network from the companies actually providing the service over
that.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 00:46:48 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

... wired telecom can never really be an effective free market
because the barriers to entry are so high.

We solved that by separating ownership/control of the last mile
copper network from the companies actually providing the service over
that.

Did we? It seems that this just split the problems up and made them
even worse. I understand what Judge Green was trying to do, but the
end result is the mess that we have now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 00:46:48 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

... wired telecom can never really be an effective free market
because the barriers to entry are so high.

We solved that by separating ownership/control of the last mile
copper network from the companies actually providing the service over
that.

Did we? It seems that this just split the problems up and made them
even worse. I understand what Judge Green was trying to do, but the
end result is the mess that we have now.
--scott

It fixes one issue, that being that:

1) no one wants 50 different companies wire's hanging from the poles so
that homes/buildings can choose from 50 competing companies for service
This is the "barrier to entry" aspect. If each ISP first had to pull
wires across an area before they could offer service to the area, this
is a huge capital investment cost with no guarantee of payback on the investment in any reasonable timeframe.

2) that when reduced to "one wire" across a given area, that "one wire" becomes a natural monopoly
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly>. Whomever controls
that one wire is in a monopoly position and can dictate prices that
everyone else must pay or else.

There was an excellent example in my locality that played out during
the days of DSL internet. At the time, POTS phone lines were
regulated, and the owner of the POTS copper last mile (Verizon in my
case) was required to offer access to the copper wires to each home at
equal and non-discriminatory rates to other companies.

Seemingly overnight (although it did take a bit longer) I had my choice
of a huge number of DSL ISP's offering internet connectivity. The
competition for price (because of the number of competing companies)
was such that even Verizon ended up offering a low cost (for them) DSL
service just to remain competitive.

Then Verizon managed to hood-wink the FCC and other regulators into
allowing them exclusive ownership of their new-fangled FIOS fiber
network they were planning to install. The new rules for their fiber
meant that only Verizon would offer internet service. No more 50-100
other companies all offering service, using Verizon's fiber network.

The result, I have my choice of two ISP's. Verizon and Comcast via
Comcast's separate cable network. And 'internet service' that in the
DSL era had fallen to $20/month or thereabouts is now at least
$100/month or more. And while one can, sometimes, play games bouncing
between Verizon and Comcast when they give "offers" for new
subscribers, there's still only two to choose from, so one either pays
the price, or has no internet.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

InterLinked <[email protected]> wrote:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network/

AT&T sued California yesterday over the state's refusal to let the
carrier stop providing phone service to all potential customers in its
wireline network territory. AT&T is also asking the Federal
Communications Commission to declare that California cannot enforce
its rules and to let AT&T stop providing service to about 199,000
phone customers.

<snip>

Are these companies still making a bit of profit on this
service ? I think they are. I guess gone are the days were
as long as a business is making a profit they keep the
service.

Maybe the state of Calif. should take over the service and
related assets and spin it off to a separate company.
--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 28 May 2026 02:24:31 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 05:47:57 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 00:46:48 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

... wired telecom can never really be an effective free market
because the barriers to entry are so high.

We solved that by separating ownership/control of the last mile
copper network from the companies actually providing the service
over that.

Did we? It seems that this just split the problems up and made them
even worse.

Really?? I didn’t know you’d tried that. We did, and it led to a real explosion in broadband internet use -- lower prices, greater choice,
all the usual benefits from greater competition.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling#New_Zealand>

When we went to fibre, we kept the same model of carefully separating ownership/control of the last-mile fibre from the companies actually
providing service over that.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 28 May 2026 17:15:32 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

Maybe the state of Calif. should take over the service and related
assets and spin it off to a separate company.

Putting the interests of ordinary citizens above those of
profit-making companies ... isn’t that ... SOCIALISM??!!??
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 5/27/2026 1:47 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 00:46:48 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

... wired telecom can never really be an effective free market
because the barriers to entry are so high.

We solved that by separating ownership/control of the “last mile”
copper network from the companies actually providing the service over
that.

For a time, but not anymore. Due to the FCC's forbearance from UNE
(unbundled network element) requirements a few years ago[1], ILECs are
no longer required to allow other companies to use their facilities.
Most remaining POTS CLECs just resell the ILEC's service... if they can.

Anyways, in this case, AT&T has notified all CLECs that they will also
be kicked out, just like all the consumers. They don't want to provide
service over the network or allow anyone else to, either.

And of course, as someone pointed out, fiber has never been subject to
this requirement and Verizon has point blank told me one reason they aggressively pulled out copper in metro areas where they replaced it
with fiber was to shut out competitors. "In theory, they could run their
own copper all over again"... yeah right.

Like most telephone people, I generally support the regulated monopoly
model (pre-Divestiture Bell System) over unregulated competition, which
has turned out to be a massive failure IMO. That said, a small few CLECs
have tried to do a good job (e.g. Sonic in California) and it's a sad situation for them as they want to continue providing service but are
fully at AT&T's mercy.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/08/2020-25254/modernizing-unbundling-and-resale-requirements-in-an-era-of-next-generation-networks-and-services
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 28 May 2026 20:43:16 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

On 5/27/2026 1:47 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 00:46:48 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

... wired telecom can never really be an effective free market
because the barriers to entry are so high.

We solved that by separating ownership/control of the “last mile”
copper network from the companies actually providing the service
over that.

For a time, but not anymore.

We still have that model in effect here. And we carried it over to
fibre, too. The memories of our politicians are not that short. Or
maybe it’s our system of democratic checks and balances that keep
their memories sharp ...
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In article <10v9qts$3il1i$[email protected]>, Rich <[email protected]d> wrote: >1) no one wants 50 different companies wire's hanging from the poles so

that homes/buildings can choose from 50 competing companies for service
This is the "barrier to entry" aspect. If each ISP first had to pull
wires across an area before they could offer service to the area, this
is a huge capital investment cost with no guarantee of payback on the >investment in any reasonable timeframe.

This is what happened in Bangkok, and almost all of those companies went bankrupt before completing their rollout, but after installing a lot of
fibre. Every street corner has random fibres dangling and there are
huge rolls of fibre hanging on lines across streets.

2) that when reduced to "one wire" across a given area, that "one wire" >becomes a natural monopoly
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly>. Whomever controls
that one wire is in a monopoly position and can dictate prices that
everyone else must pay or else.

Yes, unless that monopoly is highly regulated by a government commission
which sets prices. When this is done, prices can be set so that people
in higher density areas and more popular services subsidize people in
lower density areas and less popular services. I think that is good.

Then Verizon managed to hood-wink the FCC and other regulators into
allowing them exclusive ownership of their new-fangled FIOS fiber
network they were planning to install. The new rules for their fiber
meant that only Verizon would offer internet service. No more 50-100
other companies all offering service, using Verizon's fiber network.

FIOS is mostly non-tariffed although it is possible to get a tariffed
POTS service over FIOS if you can find someone at verizon who knows what
it is and will sell it to you.

The result, I have my choice of two ISP's. Verizon and Comcast via >Comcast's separate cable network. And 'internet service' that in the
DSL era had fallen to $20/month or thereabouts is now at least
$100/month or more. And while one can, sometimes, play games bouncing >between Verizon and Comcast when they give "offers" for new
subscribers, there's still only two to choose from, so one either pays
the price, or has no internet.

Welcome to America!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2