I don't deny any of that, but I'd be pretty pissed as a telco customer
if they are allowed to pull out of those areas. A very large amount of
money has been funneled through the USF program so that voice lines are
available in the hinterlands.
How many millions of USF dollars has Verizon pulled out of their
Northern New England customers? I would be very willing to bet that it
is significantly more than they have spent on maintaining the copper to
those customers.
Yes the rural areas a losing money which is why the USF existed in the
first place, someone decided that all telco customers should fund voice
to every home regardless of its economic viability. Right or wrong,
that was the deal they signed on for, they have taken the money for this
long but now when they are having to make sizable reinvestment they are
trying to weasel their way out of it.
However, the real point of my reply on the email was that some customers
are still more economically served via copper rather than wireless.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Sam,
It's the rural areas that are affected when it comes to the copper
network. As I understand it, the original purpose of the USF was to
help pay for the rural areas, otherwise there would be no copper there
to begin with. If the urban areas are losing landlines by the droves
there is no surplus to help pay for the rural areas either. There are
too many miles of copper and not enough customers to pay for it in
these areas. Why do you think Verizon is selling off huge parts of
their telephone network in Northern New England?
It is not that these people have not personally been there it is the
fact that rural areas are losing money no matter how you look at it. I
know it still costs a fortune to get bandwidth in these areas but that
is not going to make up for how much money is being lost to maintain
the copper.
If any of my facts are wrong I am sure someone will correct me. ;-)
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Sam Tetherow wrote:
Hmm, I'll take that bet. People that make these types of claims
obviously haven't been in areas where you can go for more than 40
miles with no cell service, on a major highway, not to mention
getting off the beaten path to individuals homes. Some times it
really is more economical to string copper than put up towers.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
George Rogato wrote:
Worldnet founder: Copper landlines gone by 2013
“By 2012 [there will be] no more reason to use our
landlines--so we won’t,” Evslin wrote. “I
don’t think the copper plant will last past 2012. The problem
is the cost of maintaining and operating it when it has very few
subscribers. Obviously [it’s] a huge problem for AT&T and
Verizon. And an important social issue as well.”
http://telephonyonline.com/home/news/copper_landlines_gone_052507/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
