Home / Blogs

The Ugly End of the Phone Network

I was a little early. “By the end of President Obama’s first term, there won’t be any more copper landlines left in the country, I blogged just after Obama had been elected. Before that I’d prophesized the end of POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) by 2010. Nevertheless, the end is nigh. And it’s gonna be ugly without some planning.

The problem is more social and economic than technical. A whole web of subsidies and special services assured that everyone had access to the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network), which is still a regulated service. The cost of the subsidies—the universal service fund (USF) subsidy for rural service, for example—is spread over the whole customer base for traditional telephony, which used to be pretty much everybody. Regulated carriers are required to provide special equipment and services for the hearing impaired and others. Lifeline (basic) service is subsidized by more affluent telephone customers for those who are less affluent. Telephone customers pay for 911 service through their monthly bills. Regulated carriers are required to report significant outages and state public utility commissions regulate their quality of service.

However more and more people are getting their telecommunications from unregulated providers. Cellular service is somewhat regulated on a national basis but not at all at the state level. Cellular providers contribute less to the subsidies than landline providers because cell phones were initially considered an addition to rather than a substitute for landline service. Some VoIP providers contribute nothing to the subsidy pools, especially when they are not charging their customers for calls within their network (Skype, for example). Other VoIP providers like Vonage have agreed that they are essentially a PSTN replacement and, because they interconnect with the PSTN for almost every call, they do collect from their customers to support the various subsidies. The FCC has asserted jurisdiction over services which interconnect with the PSTN. States are considering how much jurisdiction they have over nonPSTN providers connected to the PSTN.

But what happens when there is no PSTN with which to interconnect? What basis is there for regulation? Whom do fees for subsidies get collected from? What if there’s a major outage? Who has jurisdiction? That day is coming so these questions can’t be avoided and they’re tough. Should people who use services like Skype to make free calls have to pay a subsidy so that people who don’t or can’t use Skype can afford to make paid calls? Even if we wanted to require this in the US, what’s to stop a new Estonian networking company from providing call connection services to US users via the Internet, especially if it’s not charging for the service? Who is responsible for poor call quality during an emergency: Vonage which doesn’t control the physical network or the ISP who doesn’t control the Vonage servers or the end user software?

The problem of rural areas is particularly acute. The telephone network, like the electric grid, came later in rural areas than in the areas where the economics were more compelling. The electrical and phone network would have taken even more time than they did to reach rural America were it not for government-enforced cross-subsidies and a requirement that regulated monopoly carriers serve everyone in their area regardless of cost of service. This requirement wasn’t a problem for the monopolies because they knew that they could charge well-above actual cost in urban areas and use that surplus for the more expensive areas. Regulators encouraged this socialization of cost; it’s a lot like what the Post Office does. You can make a strong argument that universal access to service makes a whole nation strong—as good roads do—so that cross-subsidies are perfectly proper.

But we demonopolized, imperfectly and unevenly and incompletely; but we did. The result was a flood of innovation including cellular services (the old companies had to buy their way back into cellular) and the Internet. The result is much, much cheaper communication of all kinds. But we have a problem, Houston.

Without regulated geographic monopolies there’s no good way to get the cheap-to-serve areas to subsidize service in the expensive areas. Verizon, for example, sold off its landline business in northern New England to FairPoint so Verizon could concentrate its capital on more lucrative fiber service in more populated areas. Not long after, FairPoint went bankrupt as landline defections increased and capital needs proved greater than anticipated. Even now that it has emerged from bankruptcy without the burden of the debt it took on to buy the assets from Verizon, it’s still not clear that there’s a path to profitability as landline losses to cellular, cable, and VoIP continue to mount. Verizon’s earnings from fiber and cell service are no longer available to subsidize our landline services in Vermont.

It’s easy to envision a future—it’s almost here—when nobody is using copper landlines for plain old voice services except those rural pockets where both the erecting of poles and the original provision of telephone service was subsidized and where telephone service is still being subsidized today. People in these areas are stuck using POTS for the same reason that they needed a subsidy to get POTS in the first place: it isn’t economical to provide cable or cellular or broadband services where the population is thin. The early money goes into areas with a better payoff (reasonably). Not only is there no cross-subsidy to assure buildout of broadband or cellular alternatives to POTS in rural areas; there is also a huge threat to the existing subsidies for rural POTs. These subsidies are collected from other users of POTS; if we country people are the only remaining users of POTS, where’s the subsidy going to come from? We can’t move forward to the brave new telecommunication world and we can’t stay where we are!

But it’s not all as bleak as it seems. Some answers in future posts.

By Tom Evslin, Nerd, Author, Inventor

His personal blog ‘Fractals of Change’ is at blog.tomevslin.com.

Visit Page

Filed Under


Regulate cellular Wout de Natris  –  May 17, 2011 9:04 AM

Good questions. In the Netherlands the first two cellular phone companies were obliged to have nation covering network before a certain date and were regulated if necessary. The same obligation came with 3G networks. There are a few notorious black holes, but they are very limited. Now The Netherlands is a small country, so that makes such an obligation easier and certainly cheaper. In 2011 phone booths are disappearing and the obligation to have them as universal service operator is slackened.

For broadband there is no such obligation either, but fiber is not yet the standard. Both the incumbent and the two major cable operators invest in xDSL techniques on copper respectively coax cables. There is no cable in the rural areas, so only copper based services from the incumbent. There were experiments with wifi networks in rural areas by cable operators circa 10 years back, but whether they really took off? I can’t remember having heard of successes.

Where connectivity to emergency services (112 in the EU) and emergency broadcasts are concerned. The situation is no different. With VoiP slowly being the standard, either in the form of three-in-one-services or not, it may well be that in a time of real crisis there is no connectivity at all if cell phones are not working and radio, phone and tv all drop away in one. How does the public receive emergency messages from government? But even if one has a plain old phone service, usually this is a form of dect device needing connection to the electric grid to operate. Should this drops away there is no connectivity either.

Connection to 112 is mandatory over here, but on very busy events, e.g. New Years eve, it became impossible to call at all after 12 pm on cell networks. OPTA, the Dutch regulator, investigated and this action made availability better and 112 is reachable even if all else drops away temporarily.

The situation you describe may be the result of growing pains and the need to adapt to a new world, but that some questions were overlooked became very clear. Without a form of government regulation this will not change. Where the public safety interest is concerned it’s usually government that is leading. The EU agency ENISA is active where resilience of networks is concerned e.g. Is there anything in kind in the U.S.?

Wout de Natris, de Natris Consult

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet




Sponsored byVerisign

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API


Sponsored byDNIB.com

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPv4.Global

New TLDs

Sponsored byRadix

Brand Protection

Sponsored byCSC

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign