Concerns raised by the rapid transition from POTS to IP

By: William Jackson
December 18, 2015

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
William Jackson
William Jackson

It is no surprise that the nation is shifting away from Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)—which for more than a century has been the standard for personal communications, provided over a copper-based infrastructure—to more flexible wireless and IP-based services. If you have not yet done so yourself, you probably know those who are getting their landline phone service from Internet service providers or who have cut the cord completely and gone wireless.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, nearly 75 percent of U.S. consumers (about 88 million households) already have switched to VoIP and/or cellular service. These technologies offer economy, greater functionality and choice. But these advantages come at a cost. Carriers and regulators face a host of challenges ensuring users can get essential services we take for granted.

Copper is so 20th century. But copper works. For years, when the electricity went out you could pick up the phone and call the power company to report it. But not if you get your service through an Internet provider or cable company. Your landline no longer is powered over a copper wire. Your cell phone might work during an outage—for a while. Once your battery dies or the back-up power at the nearest cell is drained, it’s dead, too. And making a 911 call on your cell phone can be dicey.

For all of the limitations of circuit-switched calls over copper, the communications industry had a century to develop services tailored to it. The FCC says that many services designed for traditional TDM phone networks, such as credit card readers, home security alarms and medical alert monitors, might not work on a brand new IP network.

Public safety can also have problems. First responders are adopting wireless and IP communications that support video, images and data as well as voice. But IP networks might not support the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS), an emergency service that gives first responders priority access to phone service during emergencies. The Homeland Security Department is working on a program to give first responders priority voice, data, and video communications, but officials say data and video capabilities will not be available for several years. In the meantime, personnel might not be able to complete important calls during emergencies.

DHS also points out that IP networks are more prone to cyberattacks than closed legacy networks.

None of this means that we will—or should—go back to a parallel 20th century network for voice communications operating separately from the Internet. But for all of its limitations, POTS offered a set of robust, resilient services, and the shift to new technologies has outpaced our ability to fully replicate them.

The Government Accountability Office recently completed a year-long study of the challenges posed by the transition to IP networks. It offers no solutions to the challenges, but concludes that the FCC needs a lot more information about the impact of the shift on consumers and the services they expect.

The FCC is adjusting to the changing communications landscape. Earlier this week the commission announced the elimination of some outdated rules for the telephone industry, recognizing that it has changed dramatically since the break-up of Ma Bell in the 1980s. Specifically addressing the shift to IP telephony, the FCC also will require telecom carriers to warn customers about service problems during power outages. Carriers will have to give consumers the option of purchasing a backup power device with at least eight hours of standby power to enable calls, including 911 calls. Carriers will have to offer 24 hours of backup power within 3 years.

Although we already are well into the transition to all-IP telecommunications, the full impact will not be clear for years. Some of the changes, such as increased mobility and functionality, will be positive. But in times of crisis the limitations of a best-effort technology such as the Internet are likely to become apparent. If we’re lucky, these limitations will be addressed before the crisis hits.