POTS is more secure then IP. Getting rid of POTS puts the government of the United States in a very vulnerable position with respect to national security. POTS is the only reliable service for national emergencies.
This scenario makes a perfect movie script. FCC and USG give in to AT&T pressure. United States goes from POTS to IP. Then China cripples the IP infrastructure in a cyberwar attack and invades the US of A and builds condos to solve overpopulation problem in China. People - the Internet was an interesting experiment - but we should not have to be dependent on Internet infrastructure which governments barely understand nor are any of those same governments in a position to protect IP infrastructure. This would be a security nightmare if it every happened. I'm sure some expert inside or outside government will figure this out and take appropriate action to make sure it does not happen. cheers joe baptista On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Bob Poortinga <[email protected]> wrote: > >> AT&T Asks FCC to Kill Conventional (POTS) Phone Service > >> > >> http://bit.ly/6HP5r3 (GigaOM) > > I would just like to point that there are millions of devices out > there which depend on POTS service to work properly. Items such as > security systems, postage meters, remote sensors, and, yes, even FAX > machines either work poorly or do no work at all on VOIP (even G.711) > systems. Replacing all these devices with VOIP compatible workalikes > (if they are even available) would be costly and time consuming. > > My employer uses an unregulated VOIP service from AT&T (IP Flexible > Reach which uses G.729) in some of our offices, but we still have to > maintain POTS lines for our FAX machines, security systems, and > STU-III phones <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STU-III>. > > [ Converter boxes to handle the basic interface issues would likely > be available, but how cost effective these would be for most > consumer POTS equipment (vs. buying all new phones, etc.) is > another matter. As the underlying backbone voice networks move > toward VoIP (whether on the public Internet or private telco > intranets), issues like FAX compatibility may get more complex -- > even if you have an analog access line. I frequently hear > complaints about FAX being unusable over some existng VoIP > systems. I can certainly imagine that STU-III in its current > form might also have similar issues. I can't test that though, > since I don't have an STU-III handy -- I'm still stuck with > (FO-F-I-P) AUTOVON. That's a joke, son, a joke! > > -- Lauren Weinstein > NNSquad Moderator ] > > > > > -- > Bob Poortinga K9SQL > Bloomington, IN US > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/
