The Death Of Land Lines

I believe this will happen with in my lifetime too, along with an explosion of new technology like never seen before.

Why do I feel guilty for eagerly looking forward to this?

Maybe because I know that so many gadgets devices and objects that I grew up with are going to be extinct for my own grandchildren? Perhaps. Today in the present, I can still hit up the goodwill and buy a cassette for my old rattletrap car, but how many more years until all of the players finally give out and the old cassettes degrade? I can sometimes only get a couple of plays out of the old ones before they are forever lost.

I collect old phones. Summer yard sales are the best place to find them, you know the old rotary or even push button ones? I know the day will come in the not so distant future these phones will be relegated to the shelf on one of my curio cabinets.

But I am so very excited to see what marvels await us in the future, because I fully believe we live in technocratic times.

Originally posted by Lophe
reply to post by Tiloke

 

Hard-line, not landline. A landline is a specific term for any line that connects to land from a ship. Oddly enough most of the time a ships landline is actually over radio waves. A Hardline is a physically wired non-cordless line.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, I don't think we would have ever understood what he's saying. But, you are wrong my friend, a fixed-line is the proper term here. Any other word is wrong, ignorant, or obsolete. LETS GET WITH THE TIMES HERE PEOPLE.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Lophe]

The term "landline" is a commonly adopted saying used to describe a standard fixed-line PSTN connection, its definately not an ignorant or a wrong term when used by the average person not involved with either IT or telecoms...

For reference: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 31/1/10 by Death_Kron]

Originally posted by sciemus

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by sciemus

 

You don't seem to be thinking straight. Of course everything emits Em radiation. That's not the issue. The issue is that we're holding this device directly to our head. Did you not read the article I provided? It provided many links with numerous sources showing that cell phones cause brain tumors, damage dna, and screw up the blood brain barrier. If you don't think this is cause for concern, you might want to reconsider your logic.

So you seem to understand the basic concept that the power of an electromagnetic field declines as you move further away from it...

The concept your describing is called attenuation.

I don't have any medical or scientific knowledge regarding the harmful effects of using mobile phones but as you mentioned there are far more powerful radio waves floating around the atmosphere which no one seems to attribute to health damage.

Originally posted by Lophe
reply to post by aristocrat2

 

They have this thing called voip bro. You don't have to get rid of your home phone for a cell. We just hooked up with clear wimax internet and phone. 55$ a month for life.

Well my broadband service is for free, happily paid by the company I work for however in the UK you can get broadband for as little as £6.00 per month, that works out to around $10 a month.

Maybe the following might be of use when talking about the medical effects of an RM signal:

Attenuation coefficient
Attenuation coefficients are used to quantify different media according to how strongly the transmitted ultrasound amplitude decreases as a function of frequency. The attenuation coefficient (α) can be used to determine total attenuation in dB in the medium using the following formula:

As this equation shows, besides the medium length and attenuation coefficient, attenuation is also linearly dependent on the frequency of the incident ultrasound beam. Attenuation coefficients vary widely for different media. In biomedical ultrasound imaging however, biological materials and water are the most commonly used media. The attenuation coefficients of common biological materials at a frequency of 1 MHz are listed below:[2]

Material α(dB / (MHz * cm))
Lung 41
Bone 20
Kidney 1.0
Liver 0.94
Brain 0.85
Fat 0.63
Blood 0.18
Water 0.23222

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

(ex tags)

[edit on Mon Feb 1 2010 by Jbird]

reply to post by sciemus


I'm quite aware of electromagnetic pollution from cell phone towers, power lines, wi-fi networks, etc.. I don't use wi-fi, and make sure to live greater than 40 meters away from power lines. I understand that we're being bombarded with radiation from many sources. My point was that people seem not to be aware or concerned about the ill effects from cell phone usage, and it's something that they have complete control over. I can't entirely limit my exposure to EM radiation, but I can choose to not hold a phone to my head ever again.

reply to post by unityemissions


Because being concerned about cellphone radiation is like being sat on by an elephant, and worrying that a fly might land on the elephant and crush you more. The amount of energy given out by a cellphone is miniscule compared to the other EM radiation we are constantly bathed in all day every day, regardless how far from power lines or wifi base stations you live.

reply to post by unityemissions


I have used a mobile phone for the majority of my life and I feel no ill effects. Your more likely to die by getting hit by a bus, can you provide me just one story where it has been proven that mobile phone usage was the sole cause of death?

Edit: spelling

[edit on 31/1/10 by Death_Kron]

reply to post by Death_Kron


Of course I can't! What an absurd request. Can you provide me a single source which proves any cancer was caused by a single source?!

reply to post by davesidious


1mm away from phone vs several hundred feet from the powerline. That's ten's of thousands of times further away! This negates the differences in power.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Of course I can't! What an absurd request. Can you provide me a single source which proves any cancer was caused by a single source?!

[edit on 31-1-2010 by unityemissions]

Well if you can't prove it and no scientific evidence is available to support your claims then surely your opinion is just that? Only a matter of opinion not fact.

Let me pose you this question; on average how long do you think someone spends on their mobile phone each day? Maybe around 30 minutes on average if that?

Well every single individual on this planet is subjected to a constant bombardment of electromagnetic signals each minute of every single day.

So surely from a pure statistical point of view its more likely that an individual would suffer ill health effects from either the radio, TV or other various signals bouncing through the air?

I know you will probably use the argument that a person holding a mobile phone is closer to the brain thus more likely to cause more damage but like others have stated in this thread the multitude of other signals around us are far more power and thus by your logic more likely to cause ill health?

Think about it.

Guess i'll be without a phone then. Even if it weren't for my concern with the medical implications of a cellular phone, I find the pricing plans to be absurd for almost all carriers. I'll probably use email as my main form of communication then. Have never owned nor will I ever own a cellular phone.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Please stop spreading lies. There's an abundance of scientific evidence. It's not my fault you choose not to look into this objectively.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Please stop spreading lies. There's an abundance of scientific evidence. It's not my fault you choose not to look into this objectively.

Please provide this evidence that proves mobile phone usage is directly proportional to causing cancer or its variations and I'll happily review it and then get back to you.

Forgot to mention, you have skillfully avoided my hypothetical question?

[edit on 31/1/10 by Death_Kron]

reply to post by Hypntick


Fist,
You are doing your self a misservice by living in a shell scared of cellphone cancer when there's nothing conclusive regarding it.

Second,
There are a number of unlimited phone plans at fair prices emerging.

Third,
Look in to VOIP

Most companies depend on land lines so how can they get rid of land lines? I doubt are going to switch over to all mobile phones because you can only have one line on mobile phones, you can't transfer calls or fax.
I work from home and calls can only be transferred to a land line. What would happen to all those home based jobs such that recquire home phones? This would be an end to customer service and many different telephone based services.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
Most companies depend on land lines so how can they get rid of land lines? I doubt are going to switch over to all mobile phones because you can only have one line on mobile phones, you can't transfer calls or fax.
I work from home and calls can only be transferred to a land line. What would happen to all those home based jobs such that recquire home phones? This would be an end to customer service and many different telephone based services.

ISDN2 & ISDN32 are relatively old technologies in comparison to some of the current technologies used but they are still in place and will be definately for some time to come!

As a former Land Development Site Superintendant I had many meetings with AT&T, Cable Companies, Power Companies and the like.

One of the things that a lot of people do not realize is that phone lines are not only for phone. As another commenter stated they are used for internet but they are also used for fire dept warning systems, security systems, and a few other things needing the phone line for information distribution.

That being said, AT&T has been trying to further the use of the phone lines for the very reason the OP brings up. The use of the phone lines is really unnecessary now for phone lines. Cable companies can handle a lot of the phone line use now. I do not know how many different lines can be put on one cable, that I do not know.

All of the phone lines I was installing, in the different residential and commercial sites I was building, over half of them were for other purposes besides phone usage.

I cannot speak of the tumor link, but I do use my speaker phone nowadays instead of placing it at my ear. It is never stupid to be careful.

I'll second this post. I worked for Cellular One back when the cellular netwrok was being rolled out in the 1980s, so that makes me an "early adopter".

Cell phones suck.

The audio quality is abysmal - barely communications grade.

The form factors are "anti-ergonomic" and exasperate RPS problems in my wrists caused by a lifetime of PC usage (I'm not alone in this - most PC users will get it after they ruin the linings of the nerves in their arms)

As the PE points out, landlines run on 70V from the local exchange and do not depend on 120V from the power company.

Cell towers have battery backups that will die in a matter of hours without the mains

Cell is radio and the usage is constrained by an economic model that assuems time-sharing of call patterns. IOW - cell phone networks collapse under heavy use as in a disaster

I've been a radio amateur almost 30 years, since my teens. RF in the body is a problem with "ionizing" or not and the FCC requires rather detailed RF Exposure Guidelines be enforced, even on ham radio stations operating in HF or VHF, let alone near-microwaves. Believe cell phones at 800MHz up to 1.8GHz or higher are harmless if you want --- but I'll take greater precautions with my own brain, thank you.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
As a professional engineer who works for a major telecommunications company I'd like to offer a few quick thoughts on the subject.

Firstly, without a PSTN line the most common method of accessing broadband internet services is eliminated. You would have to rely on either cable modem, satellite or fibre services; although this isn't a problem the easiest way to access broadband is via ADSL.

Secondly, my broadband and phone package includes free landline to landline calls any time after 6 oclock in the evening on weekdays and free all day at the weekends.

As such I have found myself using my landline more than ever and relying less on my mobile phone thus saving money.

Another thing I would like to point out is that landline telephones do not rely on the national power grid; they are powered via the telephone exchange.

I realise that most people own mobile phones but the majority of the elderly population probably don't thus a landline telephone is their only way of contacting people in the event of an emergency.

Landline telephones may seem a little dated when compared to GPRS, Mobiles, emails etc but they are here to stay for the forseeable future in my opinion.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 31/1/10 by Death_Kron]

In some places, California for instance, it is the law that the LEC provide 911 service to every home. So if there are no landlines, POTS, PSTN, etc. how can they comply with the law?


With regards to the cell phone causes cancer argument....
I have participated in EME surveys and we have found evidence that the EME field within 100' of overhead distribution power lines can well exceed 100% of the recommended continuous exposure limit, and was correlated to the line voltage; the same distance from a typical cell tower was around 25% and a cell phone in use barely registered 1% on our equipment.
So the argument that being 40 meters from power lines versus holding the cell phone against the head is a good comparison because the distance negates the difference in field strength is completely meaningless since as I mentioned above the field around the over head lines at 100 feet (approximately 30 meters) is still several orders of magnitude stronger than the field around the cell phone.

Additionally, most cellphones in use today operate on a CDMA type air-interface, a.k.a. "spread spectrum" (- yes 3G / UMTS, etc. have roots in CDMA), and in doing so have rather low power outputs as their signals are spread across mulitple frequencies and are typically only as strong as necessary to get above the background noise. Older phones operating on AMPS or TDMA broadcast around one channel and by necessity at higher power.

Here is AT&T's reply to the FCC's Requet For Comments.

I have a few comments in reponse to AT&T.

Yes, Pots and PSTN usage is dropping, and each drop increases the cost of maintaining the lines for the rest of the subscribers, while decreasing the profits for the company. I agree.

Yes, penetrating the broadband market more deeply is esential to the companies survival, although I'm not sure its a critical national priority.

However, when they say; "revenue from wireline telephone service fell to $130.8 billion in 2007 from $178.6 billion in 2000". I say, what industry has not lost billions since 9/11.

When they complain; Between 2000 and 2008, total interstate and intrastate switched access minutes have fallen 42 percent.. I say you had the oportunity to invest your profits in cell phone towers and other sectors, instead of giving it to your CEO's and Board of Directors.

In addition, there is something seem to have ignored. While they squander the profits that they thought would always be there, something called Converged Technologies has sprung up. Even small Telco's have started to embrace this to off-set the losses they expect from loosing landline subscribers.

They have begun to use existing copper lines to implement the Converged Technologies. Instead of just telephone, they are already providing DSL over copper. But they didn't stop there. Ways have been developed to provide high speed ethernet over copper. This has allowed the development of deploying television over copper lines.

This puts them in direct competition with the triple play Cable TV providers who are also pushing these same converged technologies, (TV, VIOP, & Internet Broadband), over the same medium...copper lines.

Deploying these technologies has the major benefits of encouraging subscribers to keep their landline service, and puts them into an area that is basically deregulated, (TV, Broadband, & VOIP), which effectively lets them grow their service area beyond the current regulations, thus increasing profits even more.

AT&T seems to be ignoring this development for the most part.

[/rant]




[edit on 1/31/10 by makeitso]