Ohio bill could doom landlines [telecom]

A similar bill was defeated in Kentucky. The bill was actually written by AT&T

The sponsor's recommendation to criticism of introducing legislation drafted by AT&T was awesome:

Hornback defended AT&T getting to write a deregulation bill that would benefit the company. Nobody knows better than AT&T what the company needs the legislature to do for it, he said.

"You work with the authorities in any industry to figure out what they need to move that industry forward," Hornback said. "It's no conflict."

Umm...we realize that maybe AT&T has been generous to you, but you're really supposed to be representing the citizens and thinking about what we need the legislature to do for us.

I'm confused. What were all the subsidies for universal service for? Will they be returning those subsidies if universal service is no longer provided?

They're giving out cell phones instead. Tracphone is a major player in Maryland. They advertise on TV that if you're getting assistance you can have a free phone. Great if you can get cell service. Mark L. Smith snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com

But the universal service subsidy is in a different pot than the cell phone subsidy, right?

btw, when I washed my old Motorola V195s quad-band GSM cell phone, I replaced it with a $5 cell phone AT&T was celling for prepaid service. AT&T gave me the unlock code. I'd prepaid for a minimum number of minutes, but it turned out I didn't even need to do that.

I've been using it temporarily, but I haven't bothered shopping for a better phone. I won't care if I drown this one.

I don't see how the government subsidy can make cell phones any more available. Anyone can afford a $5 phone without a government program.

That would make sense only if the USF is going to pay to extend cell coverage to the many places that don't have any (including a few where local politicians have made the decision not to allow it). How likely is that?

And will it address areas that have some but not all of CDMA/TDMA/GSM coverage?

Tracfone was the -first- cellphone operator to provide USF-supported cell-phone service. They pioneered the entire concept, under their 'Safelink' brand. It is only relatively recently that other operators (almost exclusively 'pre-paid' services) have managed to clear the required regulatory hoop-jumping -- which must be done on a state-by-state basis -- and started offering 'competing' service.

There are distinct advantages over the land-line 'lifeline' subsidy service -- the cell service provides a 'limited use' (roughly 2-4 hrs airtime/month) phone at no cost to the subscriber, while the 'lifeline' service for landlines provides only a partial reduction in the cost of a landline The landline usually provides unlimited 'local' calling, however.

Wrong. Or, more politely, 'false to fact'.

The USF is split into 4 'pots' -- 'high cost' service areas, service for 'low income' persons, 'rural health care' service', and 'schools and libraries'.

USF fees apply to cell service, so a cell operator (Tracfone) made the case that they should be able to offer _their_ service on a subsidy basis. After several years of 'threshing out the details', the FCC certified Tracfone's purpose-built subsidiary 'safelink' as a cell-based 'lifeline' services provider.

You, sir, simply "don't know what you don't know".

Many of the very destitute have absolutely -zero- income. The $5-10 that prepaid providers charge for a phone on their service =is= a nearly insurmountable barrier for them. And, without airtime 'minutes' such a phone is usable only to call 911.

The 'subsidy' service provides (*one*time*) an 'el cheapo' cell-phone at no cost, and a (limited) bundle of minutes. typically 250/mo for domestic- only calls, with no 'roll-over', or 125 minutes (domestic only), with roll- over, or 63 min/mo. including international calling

The question was binary, so providing correct information isn't rude, it's expected. On Usenet, people stand in line to post additional information, clarifications, and especially corrections. From now on, I shall be handing out bakery numbers to keep the queues managable.

I had no idea that you believed your refrain "false to fact" and your overuse of quotes around phrases attributed to no one appeased anyone.

Thank you for the information.

I made no comment on the cost of monthly service. My comment was limited to the up-front cost of the instrument itself, a cost so minor it shouldn't require government subsidy.

My main question remains outstanding. Significant subsidy has been provided to wire areas with low population densities, to install switches and to replace them with modern switches, and to maintain services. If utilities that benefited from these subsidies withdraw service from areas they don't wish to serve, will they be returning the subsidies?

I await my refund.

Even someone without $5 :-) ?

Cheers,

-- tlvp

If you don't have $5, I doubt that anyone would want to talk to you. ;-)

The cellphone does provide portability, which is important these days since there are so few pay phones. If say a low-income senior goes out and their car breaks down or they fill ill and need help, they have their cell and can call someone, and be called back.

The flip side is that the landline provides unlimited _incoming_ calls as well as whatever outgoing allowance. Also, four hours over the course of a month isn't that much two-way walk time. That's 240 minutes divided by 30 days, yielding only 8 minutes of talk time per day. Not a lot.

I saw a pay phone being used yesterday by a person who did not appear impoverished.

Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

Just out of curiosity, at what kind of business or location was the payphone located?

These days, all I see are empty phone booths and shelves that once held pay phones. A few remain at railroad stations essentially to serve as a 911 phone, but even some railroads got rid of them.

Anyway, my guess is that if a senior needs to make a phone call, someone in a business, especially one they've visited (ie a doctor's office or store), will likely let them use the office phone. It's just if they're driving in an isolated area--as so many suburban places are--they'll be too far to walk to anything and need their cell phone. (A scruffy younger person might not get their priviledge.)

When my mother lived in the city, most sections were developed enough that she was never far away from a store if she needed help. The suburbs aren't like that.

Of course, many seniors and other ill people can't get out very much and a landline is the preferred means of communication. The modern Lifeline service is very valuable for them if they're of modest means. While the economic situation of senior citizens has improved very much over the decades, rising uncovered health care costs, rent, and reduced pensions and investment income is hitting quite a few of them hard. People who figured they'd get by on 4% interest on a bank CD find it tough when it's 0.5%.

I am late to this discussion, but I have kept my landline vs. moving to VoIP, or using my mobile phone exclusively, because:

1) In an extended power outage, landlines generally keep working, 2) The cell phone reception at my home is completely unreliable, 3) In an widespread "disaster" situation it's tough to charge your cell phone, and finally, 4) Cell towers are completely overloaded in such situations.

My reasoning may be faulty, but I feel that the landline is a necessary "business continuity plan". Of course, being able to have an intelligible phone conversation in the best of times, is a plus.

Bob

It was at a 7-Eleven store in a high traffic area in a very upscale location. The person using it appeared to fit the demographic of the area and was certainly not a senior citizen.

Wes Leatherock snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@aol.com