The Core

Good News: Deadline for phone companies to block robocalls is finally here

Bad News: The law doesn't apply to texts, which has evolved to become the primary communications mode.

https://www.wral.com/deadline-for-phone-companies-to-block-robocalls-is-finally-here/19893112/

^{I've pretty much chucked my phone.  Works great for us eccentric, reclusive types.}

It galls me that I have to pay $11/mo for caller ID in order to make this work. So landlines with caller ID are $51 each now plus various fees. 

I can get a top-notch cell plan for less than that. Every indication is that AT&T would love to just see landlines go away.

Wow... I didn't realize it had come to this:

According to the Chicago Tribune, state legislatures in 20 of those 21 states have given AT&T the OK to end landline service in their states so the telecommunications company can focus and invest more in wireless or internet-based phone networks. California is now the only holdout among states where AT&T is the legacy phone carrier.

As those articles point out, rural areas are not just failing to keep pace with urban areas, our services are actually getting WORSE over time. I think most people here would find it acceptable if AT&T rolled out cell service and then withdrew landlines, but withdrawing landlines without providing an option other than satellite telephone would be horrible.

>>AT&T raised phone prices 153% over a decade

I "only" see a 36% rise in our bill since November 2013. Still, that outpaces official inflation, which would have resulted in only  19% increase over that time period.

That's big news around here. Local orgs (county govt and local NGOs) have full-time grant writers tracking that (and other stuff of course).

We'll see what happens. There was a pile of cash early in the Obama admin and AT&T refused to accept any of it, saying that if it had been in their business interest to provide service to those areas, they would have done it already.

To be fair, it is a massive investment for a minimal return. I would say most people here would sign up immediately for $100/mo for reliable 5mbps service with a 250GB cap, but as there will never be more than 300 houses, that means a max upside of $30,000/month in total revenue, and it would require upgrading miles and miles of cables and switches and getting regulatory approval and NEPA/CEQA approvals* and committing to long-term maintenance.

I am afraid no provider wants to be on the hook for that. In other words, even if it gets built with government money and donated for free to a provider, I'm not sure they would even take delivery.

From a business perspective, I don't blame them. They are just following the profits as a for-profit company will do. I just get frustrated when they say they close down an existing service and encourage all customers to "upgrade" to the new service... that they don't offer in our area, especially since their original profitability was a result of being given a market monopoly that they now no longer want.

*This is a major focus of local government - trying to figure out what they can do to simplify and streamline the regulatory aspect so that projects can even be considered.

And yes that is really socialism.  But I don't see any farmers lining up to go back to coal stoves and oil lamps.

In fact, most of them hate "big government," but their entire water and electric and roads infrastructure is the result of big government. It would *never* have made sense based on ROI for commercial ventures. But somehow or other, the image of big government handouts is the "welfare queen" - single, black and urban.