Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ditching your Landline Just Got Easier

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the taking-it-with-you dept.

News 358

QuePasaCalabaza writes "The FCC has approved a bill 5-0 that allows consumers to take their land line phone numbers and carry them over to thier wireless phones. USA Today has one of the first scoops on this ruling. The official news release [Word|PDF] is there."

cancel ×

358 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

who wears short shorts? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7444944)

do you wear short shorts?

slashcock (-1)

(TK)Max (668795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7444945)

______
.-" "-.
/ \
| | < FROM THIS DISEASED MOUTH
|, .-. .-. ,| SPREADS THE WORD OF TROLLKORE.
| )(__/ \__)( | AWRY BE THE WORDS AND OPINIONS
|/ /\ \| OF THOSE WHO POST HERE. TAKE
(_ ^^ _) NO HEED OF THEM.>
\__|IIIIII|__/
|-\IIIIII/-|
\ /
`--------`
.::::TROLL-KORE FOREVER!!!
.::::I hate you, I hate your country, and I hate your face.

I have DSL (1)

deadgoon42 (309575) | more than 10 years ago | (#7444948)

So I still can't ditch my land line.. unless I want to get into bed with the evil cable company that is.

Re:I have DSL (1)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7444971)

You can have DSL on a line that doesn't have voice service.

Re:I have DSL (3, Insightful)

ThogScully (589935) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445072)

Technically, yes. But when I used to have DSL (cable wasn't available yet when I moved here), I was required to have a voice line by Verizon in order to get DSL service. And no other company could connect me with DSL due to problems communicating with Verizon - even Verizon took 4 months.

Anyway, saving $40/month by switching to cable and dropping my landline was the best and most cost effective upgrade I ever did and I don't have to pay a dime to Verizon ever again.
-N

Re:I have DSL (1)

faust2097 (137829) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445079)

It depends on where you are. In San Francisco you must have residential phone service to get DSL [thanks SBC!]. Fortunately people have his habit of not securing their wireless networks and slightly out-of-spec antennas are easy to build.

Anyway, this bill comes about 3 years too late for a lot of us. Also, much like cell number portability I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:I have DSL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445083)

do you have DSL with no voice? I have called qwest to disconnect my voice service but they won't do it. This really pisses me off to pay for a voice service I don't use, plus all the fees just to have a static IP.

Re:I have DSL (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445086)

You can have DSL on a line that doesn't have voice service.
Not if you're an SBC customer.

Re:I have DSL (4, Insightful)

TheShadow (76709) | more than 10 years ago | (#7444974)

unless I want to get into bed with the evil cable company that is

Well, you're already in bed with the evil phone company... so what's the difference?

Someone needs to just run fiber to everyone's house/business and put all these bozos out of business.

Re:I have DSL (2, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445084)

Even if I had a plan that could put the big telcos out of business, I wouldn't. They own and operate too much of the Internet infrastructure. Wouldn't want to risk killing that, now, would we?

Remember when UUNet threatened to only pass traffic of paying customers? That would have cause a severe disruption in the...well...nevermind. But the point is, the same thing could happen if one of the big backbones were to kick the bucket.

Re:I have DSL (1)

rekoil (168689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445159)

Explain this to me...at what point in time did UUNet (or any other backbone) pass traffic for free?

If you're thinking of peering circuits/NAPs, remember that providers only advertise their own networks to peering partners - they're not going to take traffic at a peer that isn't going to one of their paying customers. So in that sense, the traffic does belong to their paying customer.

Was there a plan at one time at UUNet to pull peering circuits?

Re:I have DSL (2, Insightful)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445118)

Well, you're already in bed with the evil phone company... so what's the difference?
The difference is that cable companies usually have more Draconian TOS than phone companies and usually don't offer static IPs. Although I have no great love for SBC, their TOS specifically allow me to run servers. I've never seen a cable company that would do that.

Re:I have DSL (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445002)

...unless I want to get into bed with the evil cable company that is.

Why not? Cable connections perform...better

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Re:I have DSL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445015)

so? you are paying her and you don't have to marry her. what's the problem? just use a condom.

Re:I have DSL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445124)

I've got the same problem... Had no land line for 5 years, but just got one for DSL when the new apartment had no cable modem service.

Anyone know the right place to lobby to get SBC, etc to sell these services independantly?

Re:I have DSL (3, Interesting)

Saint Mitchell (144618) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445189)

I couldn't agree more. However The Bell Bitches are every bit as evil.

Lets say I want to run VOIP to bypass SBC. I have to have Cable. What about DSL you say? If I want DSL I have to have a landline so I can't bypass them. It takes cable + VOIP to bypass the Bell Bitches as of now for any ADSL. This is a total L.O.S. I've called SBC and asked them why I can't get _just_ DSL. There answer was "WE need a copper pair to run the signal on". Ok, then run it like you would if I were going to have a phone. Poof, copper pair. "Uh...we can't do that". Why? "Let me speak with my supervisor". "It is not possible to have DSL without a phone line". No it's not I just went over this with you. "Sir, it is not possible, if you'd like I can take an order for Phone + DSL and have a technician dispatched within 5-14 business days." Sure there is DSL competion...sure there is. P.S. !@#$ you SBC

one number to rule them all... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7444960)

and on vacation find me...

HAHAHAHA, everybody else is an idiot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445154)

Say heeeeeellllllllo to telemarketers on you mobil now!

Re:one number to rule them all... (1)

rjelks (635588) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445183)

In the land of Qwest, Where customer service reps lie...

Ditching your landline... (0)

eurleif (613257) | more than 10 years ago | (#7444970)

It was always easy, just throw it into the darn ditch by the side of the road! (Yes, this is funny. Laugh.)

5-0 ? (3, Insightful)

kajoob (62237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7444977)

On a side note, does it disturb anyone else that a mere 5 people control such weighty decision affecting telecommunications?

Re:5-0 ? (4, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445022)

On a side note, does it disturb anyone else that a mere 5 people control such weighty decision affecting telecommunications?

There are only nine people on the U.S. Supreme Court who decide whether laws governing your school, your privacy, or your right to have an abortion are constitutional or not. Get used to it.

Re:5-0 ? (1)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445158)

And 535 members of Congress who make those laws. And thousands more that are responsible for state and local laws. What's your point?

Re:5-0 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445032)

on another side note, does it disturb anyone else that people who know nothing about how the government works continually rant against it using ill-formed thoughts?

Re:5-0 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445053)

Umm, Supreme Court?

Works pretty well.

Re:5-0 ? (5, Insightful)

KD5YPT (714783) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445066)

So would you rather have 5 relatively technical savvy people making a decision, or 400+ people (the congress) who don't have the slightest idea on what TCP/IP and Ports are making the decision?

Re:5-0 ? (1)

Pionar (620916) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445279)

On a side note, does it disturb anyone else that a mere 5 people control such weighty decision affecting telecommunications?

No, because it's called checks and balances. If the FCC makes stupid rules (as was the media consolidation rules earlier this year), congress AND the supreme court can strike them down, the supreme court only if it's unconstitutional. so that's 5 + 9 + 535 = 549 people controlling this rule in various ways.

This will change the way (0)

pagluy (651141) | more than 10 years ago | (#7444995)

This will change the way I run my portable sex chat line.

Knives are hip! (-1, Troll)

Melted Rubber (723294) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445000)

Would just be easier to go take a knife at some important guys throat and demand he use magic so that you can have the same home phone and wireless number. -bows-

It is called call forwarding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445103)

Now take that knife away from my throat

No land line is great (4, Interesting)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445003)

Just as long as you don't need to use your phone during an emergency.

Hell, I cannot get reception during home football games much less after a tornado rips through the state.

Land line is also good for your home's alarm and tracking where a 911 call is made from.

I guess I'm just an alarmist, but when you need to call someone, a land line is significantly more reliable than a cable phone or cell phone.

Re:No land line is great (1)

*weasel (174362) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445076)

cell phone tracking for 911 services is fully functional in europe, and as i understand, nearing rollout in the states.

hell in europe they're discussing whether parents can use cell phone location technology to track their kids.

Re:No land line is great (1)

swordboy (472941) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445078)

Many local land-based phone companies are now providing 911 services for people without actual land line services. This is for the people who simply can't afford a phone, period.

On a side note, I'd like a cell phone docking station that would connect my cell phone to my house wiring - much like the ATA adapters that come with popular VoIP services like vonage or packet8.net.

Re:No land line is great (2, Informative)

otterboy (18894) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445145)

Seen this? [thehightechstore.com]

Re:No land line is great (1)

hatrisc (555862) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445081)

I live in philadelphia. I would not feel safe without a land line in the house. Two cell phones or not.

Re:No land line is great (1)

the_pointman (143482) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445155)

BoomerSooner raises a good point, during emergencies of grand proportion, finding reception would be a big problem, however, lets examine the more mundane emergencies (i.e. heartattacks). The Order is for carriers that already have coverage in the home areas, if they didn't have enough capacity, then it would deemed technically infeasible. If all landlines were ideally moved over to mobiles, then everyone would be able to reach emergency services in the case of the mundane emergencies, as well as use existing triangulation technologies to local exactly where the emergency is occurring, be it in the home or on the street.

And plus the phone compnay will finally be able to get rid of all those phreakers with their capt'n crunch whistles and redboxes.

or until (4, Insightful)

The Tyro (247333) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445164)

a burglar cuts your land line before hitting your house; oldest trick in the book. Cuts off the phone-home feature of most home alarm systems, particularly since the ones that do have a "cellular backup" feature charge big extra fees for that feature.

I like always having a cell phone available. If you suspect a home burglary and find that your phone doesn't work, you'll be damned glad you have that cell, because you're facing one of two kinds of opponents.

#1. A professional who has anticipated your alarm system.

#2. A stalker-type who has surveiled you, knows you are home, and has plans for you.

Either way... I'll keep my cell AND land line.

Re:or until (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445221)

An interesting thing about how my house was built: The phone line comes up from the underground lines in the middle of the basement. Some architect was very paranoid when he built this house. The previous owner even put a fake gray box outside with a dead line running a few meters out into the yard.

Re:or until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445227)

"Either way... I'll keep my cell AND land line."
... And my Glock ;)

Re:or until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445238)

wow, paranoia is a disease, you should get checked out. Let me guess you are an American (fellow american that is...well you could be south african, but then you wouldn't be paranoid, just a realist).

Re:No land line is great (4, Funny)

chochos (700687) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445214)

you also need a land line to get out of the Matrix, but they never explained why...

Re:No land line is great (1)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445293)

So long as you have a landline phone plugged into the wall jack, you can dial 911. You don't even have to pay for service.

The same is true for cell phones as well. If you cancel your cell service you can still dial 911 in the event of an emergency. It's some sort of legal requirement that telephone companies allow 911 calls to go through.

Getting rid of land lines... (1)

hookedup (630460) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445008)

I'm all about getting rid of my landline, but i'm a DSL customer. If I were to get rid of my phone, would DSL still be able to be used on that line?
Has anyone had any knowledge about this?
Is it just the phone companies way of getting more $ out of people saying you need a _working_ phone on that line for dsl, or does it actually require a working phone #? (escapes me as to why it would)

Re:Getting rid of land lines... (2, Informative)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445045)

No, you just need a physical line, connected to a dslam on one side, and a dsl modem on the other.

Re:Getting rid of land lines... (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445149)

No, you just need a physical line, connected to a dslam on one side, and a dsl modem on the other.
While that is technically correct, if you're an SBC customer, they
require you to have phone service (voice) on the line just because they can.

Re:Getting rid of land lines... (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445213)

Yeah, they can, his question though, was if it was necessary for the proper function of the dsl connection. At least that's what I think he was aksing :)

not really correct (1)

boarder (41071) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445224)

Theoretically you only need a physical line to a dslam, but that's not how it works in the real world. I have friends that work in the DSL industry and have tried so many different ways of getting rid of my land line, but they always tell me I need to have an account with the phone company. They need that computerized record of where I'm connected (since they move my physical connection to different hardware on occasion) in order to provision my DSL line.

In the early days of DSL you could fool the ILECs into dropping your land line while still keeping DSL, but that is no longer possible with either ILECs or CLECs (at least, it isn't in any city with any company I've tried).

Re:not really correct (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445307)

Still, they could keep a record of your physical location without assigning a phone #, correct?

Seems to be more of an administrative issue, than a technical one.

Re:Getting rid of land lines... (2, Interesting)

visionsofmcskill (556169) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445260)

Verizon lost the dial-tone on my DSL line a couple weeks back... but the DSL kept on working.

Pick up the phone... not working... cant make a call or anything as if the line was dead.

DSL experienced no problems at all

So i called them and apparently DSL works on two frequencies completly seperete from the dial-tone. And theyd had some problem in which the dial-tones operating frequency was cut off at theri network.

long story short.... is it possible for them to give you DSL without a phone-number.... yes. But it is beyond doubtfull that they will.

Damn. Wish we had that over here... (2, Interesting)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445013)

... in the UK. I've managed to keep my mobile number for a couple of years now, but they did it by requiring every mobile number to start 07... That makes it impossible to have your home number on the phone :-(

Simon

Re:Damn. Wish we had that over here... (1)

smellystudent (663516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445087)

Orange have a free service called Everyphone (i think...) which allows you to redirect your mobile to another number. As long as it's to a landline or another Orange phone, it doesn't cost anything.

Re:Damn. Wish we had that over here... (1)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445107)

When I call someone in 0121, for example, I know they live in Birmingham and they cann't change that. I like being able to tell whats what, who's from where and how to avoid a fair few criminal traders who operate out of unregistered PAYG mobiles.

Re:Damn. Wish we had that over here... (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445190)

No, you don't KNOW that. You know that they have access to somewhere to put a phone outlet and forward their calls via, and that is all. Yes, it means it's a little bit harder, but if you rely on the phone number to indicate trust you're just begging someone to screw you over.

just what we all need... (2, Insightful)

seriv (698799) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445016)

An easier way for the FBI to monitor us all.
-Seriv

Re:just what we all need... (1)

fedork (186985) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445090)

I do not think there is any problem for FBI to monitor a landline (technically at least)

Fly baby! (0)

esaglam (597432) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445037)

And the next thing is FAA will approve that you can use your car as a personal airplane... :P

Hooray! (0, Offtopic)

JohnTheFisherman (225485) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445042)

As if enough o*--- riends are get*==shh* rid of lan*==-- lines and going j***st with ce*==== ones.

So many people say that no other product would survive if it worked like some OSes did, crashing all the time. Cell phones are 10x worse, and they're EVERYWHERE.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445262)

How is that OT?

Same Numer for all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445043)

I want the same phone number for my cell and landline. If I'm home, I'll save airtime, if not, I'll pick up cell.. When will someone vote on that..

Re:Same Numer for all (1)

AVee (557523) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445199)

You'd have to dig for a link, but i'm pretty sure Ericsson had just that. A cellular that used a local dect station when (close enough to) home and the GSM network when away from home...

All we need now... (1)

nicedream (4923) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445044)

...is a way to keep DSL service w/o an old-fashioned land line.

What about wireless to landline? (5, Interesting)

jdh33 (457067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445048)

What about wanting to go back to landline service?
I'm tired of my cell service and just want to put my wireless number on a landline. Or better yet, put my wireless number on a vonage line.

Re:What about wireless to landline? (1)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445113)

I'm tired of my cell service and just want to put my wireless number on a landline. Or better yet, put my wireless number on a vonage line.

Sorry. You'll have to wait for more legislation. ;-)

You can't. (3, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445152)

A few articles have detailed the problem, and it all revolves around area codes. Without expressed limits what would stop some idiot from New York wanting to transfer his line to his new California home?

Perhaps if the phone system could ditch area codes as geographical representation. It should not be too hard, in Atlanta we have 4 area codes all covering the same LARGE area (largest free calling zone in US)

404,770,678, and 470

Nice for some. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445049)

"The FCC has approved a bill 5-0 that allows consumers to take their land line phone numbers and carry them over to thier wireless phones."

Well that's nice. Unfortunately being unemployed, and being unable to afford broadband. Means that I can't afford a cell phone, and landline (Internet) at the same time.

Just saw (4, Interesting)

mental_telepathy (564156) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445071)

a commerical for a new service from Cingular that would allow you to tie your cell phone to ring to your home phone when attached to a device they sell. And you don't use wireless minutes when answering at home. So, you could have the bext of both worlds.

Re:Just saw (1)

Lemmeoutada Collecti (588075) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445127)

Bellsouth had this back in ~95 for cell phones. When you were in range of a base station, the cell functioned as a cordless.

Re:Just saw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445280)

It's called 'call-forwarding'. Not exactly rocket science. Cingular just made it AOL-User friendly by allowing you to put your phone in a cradle and automatically enable call-forwarding.

Re:Just saw - aka Call Forwarding (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445294)

You can get the same functionality out of most cellular services by just fowarding your calls from your cellular to your home phone. It is a complete guess, but I think that all the base station does is automaticly start/end your call forwarding service.

Re:Just saw (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445305)

Uhh, ever heard of call forwarding?

But...My TiVo. (4, Insightful)

boinger (4618) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445077)

How will TiVo know what's going on?

You can't even record a single show without first making a telephone call on a landline. Even the DirecTiVos which get their listing from the satellite.

Is there a way to plug a normally landline-connected device into a cell phone for the occasional call?

Re:But...My TiVo. (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445134)

An _old_ cell phone my family used to have had an RJ-11 jack on the bottom, for modem use.

Okay... (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445148)

...so this isn't for you. Keep your landline.

Frankly everyone should keep a landline for emergency calls at the very least. Lord knows I don't want to be searching for service if I'm bleeding to death on the floor.

Re:Okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445277)

guess what. all phone lines are REQUIRED to be allowed to call 911

whith or without service.

same with your cellphone.

Re:But...My TiVo. (4, Informative)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445167)

Well, a simple Google search finds this product [9thtee.com] , (blurb from site: "The TurboNETTM Ethernet Adapter Card allows you to hook your TiVo up to your network. This allows daily updates over broadband instead of the telephone, easier hacking, TiVoWEB, etc.") although I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the task of avoiding the need for a phone line.

Re:But...My TiVo. (2, Insightful)

boinger (4618) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445198)

I am fully aware of the various tools/hacks for connecting a TiVo to an Ethernet LAN.

You still have to make the initial call over a phone line. I'm positive.

Re:But...My TiVo. (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445230)

So you can't come up with a way of getting a single phone call placed once in the history of a piece of hardware? Don't know anyone with a phone line?

Re:But...My TiVo. (1)

boinger (4618) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445177)

Well, upon looking to Google for answers, I came up with something [cellsocket.com] , but that's quite a few coins ($100 up to $130, depending on model) for such basic (I would think) functionality. And it's Nokia-only, and then works only with certain models.

Anyone know of anything similar that's more in the, say, $50 range?

Neat, but why? (2, Interesting)

Muddie (72996) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445105)

I have (luckily) gotten no telemarketing phone calls on my cell phone, but I was littered with them on my land line. Why would I want my cell number published? Why would I want to pay *extra* to not have it published, and why would I want to pay more in phone company "surcharges" for this "benefit"? [cellphonecarriers.com]

I ditched my land-line a long time ago, and never missed it. I appreciate the concept, but I think I'd take a pass on this opportunity.

I understand if you've had your phone number for years why this might be a nice option, but for me (who moves all too frequently, which assisted in my desire to ditch a land line alltogether), this just isn't a factor.

By definition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445110)

...aren't most of these landlines already 'ditched?' I would suggest 'get rid of' or 'stop paying for' as a more accurate alternative.

so now I have two cells? (1)

ACG521 (722056) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445112)



I'm all for ditching the landline but then I'd have two mobile phone numbers. That doesn't sound very useful to me. Unless companies figure out a way to incorporate both numbers to ring on one cell phone, count me out.

Already there in (western) Canada (1)

Dell Brandstone (127568) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445120)

GSM provider Fido is pimping their CityFido plan. $30 USD/mo. Unlimited local calling, and they'll gladly hijack your home phone number for you :)

http://www.cityfido.ca/

-db

Question: Who is the authority for phone numbers? (1)

pegr (46683) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445137)

Is there a POTS equivilent for IANA?

take my telemarketer-known number with me? (4, Insightful)

*weasel (174362) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445139)

are you mad?!?

one of the few things that makes sole cell ownership preferable to a landline is that the cell companies don't (or can't) sell their registries to telemarketers.

since i've gone land-line-less ... hell i didn't even -need- the do-not-call registry.

but if i took my landline number onto my cell service - man i'd be doubly infuriated at any telemarketing - even if it was restricted to traffic allowed by the do-not-call registry.

(non-profits, political advocacy, and any company who has sold you products or services in the last 18 months -- all cleared to bother you as much as they want.)

telemarketers (2, Interesting)

fedork (186985) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445142)

I never got any telemarketing calls on my cell phone, but I do get quite a few on my home phone (regardless of do-not-call thing). I am guessing I will start getting them on my cell if I switch the number and will have to waste minutes / be bothered all the time by the telemarketers? No, thanks. Caller ID helps, but only to a degree...

Verizon can't support (1)

PDG (100516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445153)

My g/f works as a residential phone rep at Verizon and not only have they not been told of any such new regulation, there has not been any training or new systems to support the new regs. I emailed the contact at the FCC and have received no response regarding their ability to enforce this regulation.

Bah! Who needs this? (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445163)

My landline and mobile line are one and the same. I just use a 12,450.775 mile long coiley-cord. Available at your local Radio Shack.

Great, another surcharge on my phone bill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445179)

I'm sure the phone companies will be horrified at the thought of changing their systems to accommodate this ruling, and will fight it tooth and nail.

I'm also sure that even before they start complaining about it, they'll be tacking a new "Number portability" surcharge on the phone bills of all their customers.

Bad idea (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445188)

Now telemarketers can no longer screen out cellphone blocks so expect more telemarketing calls on your cellphone as they can correctly claim that they no longer have the ability to tell if a number is a cell number or not.

How does this help households? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445206)

Ditching your land line for a mobile phone sounds terrific if you are single and want to make sure that your friends and potential mates can get in touch with you 24/7. But, I'm old and gray and live with ... other people!

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm not alone in this (no pun intended). Most households have > 1 person in them and even single households will have a high probability of turning into multi-person households.

Until there is a 1-n mapping for these numbers the utilitze and newsworthiness of this seems to be the hype. I want a single number and I want it to ring on my cell phone, my wife's cell phone, the kids' cell phone and the dog's cell phone. And then I want a private number for the SAME cell phone so we can also have some privacy in our conversations to boot.

Fabulous! (1)

hdc (665183) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445211)

Now just get my wireless phone to pick up signal where I need it (like at HOME maybe???) and this will be a great thing. Can we now get the lawmakers to force wireless carriers to push their signal in the areas they promise they cover and in reality don't? Far more useful if you ask me....

Get ready for... (2, Insightful)

HomerJayS (721692) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445215)

A $4.99 monthly charge on your phone service with a line item description of "Number Portability Fee". After all, the telcos will certainly claim that they will need to spend billion$ to implement number portability. They will certainly be entitled to recoup their costs.

I ditched mine 6 months ago. (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445218)

I dumped my home phone when my son moved out to college. I hated the damn thing. His friends quit calling when he moved but the telemarketeers did not. So now I only have a cell phone and I do perfectly well with that.

I don't get unsolicited calls on the cell phone (yet) and I don't get textspam (yet) either.
Matter of fact I am going to have text messaging disabled on my phone, they charge me $5 a month for it and I've only used it once to see how it works. They also charge me $5 a month for Internet capability and I don't need that either. Matter of fact I bet if I look over my bill closely I could find a bunch of stuff that I could trim out.

But as for having my home number go to my cell phone, I don't think so. That will just give the telemarketeers a hot line direct to me, 24/7 and I don't like that concept.

I never had my own landline in my life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445241)

I got a cell phone when I started studying 5 years ago. And there wasn't any good resons for me to have also a landline.

Luckily, here bundling of different products is illegal and ISPs cannot force you to take landline in order to have a DSL.

don't spam me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445244)

Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

auser0@sctelcom.net
auser1@sctelcom.net
auser2 @sctelcom.net
auser3@sctelcom.net
auser4@sctelco m.net
auser5@sctelcom.net
auser6@sctelcom.net
a user7@sctelcom.net
auser8@sctelcom.net
auser9@sc telcom.net

spelling (1)

chrismg2003 (687481) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445245)

"thier" what is up with the misspellings on slashdot lately? they've been all over the place.

Now if the dumbasses at the FCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7445254)

will just

stop the bullshit in letting verizon yank dsl if I switch local carriers

stop the bullshit with cost recovery fees

stop the bullshit with universal access fees

stop the bullshit with "line fee mandated by FCC" fees

stop the bullshit with other fees

adopt truth-in-advertising that includes all fees and federal/regional taxes in single price cell phone advertisements on per minute plans

stop the bullshit with trying to regulate VOIP

stop the ass-sucking of the mpaa/riaa

then we'd be better off!

Obvious Disantvantages (2)

SomeOtherGuy (179082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445271)

Of ditching the land line:

1.
Multiple outlets no more. I know when Grandma calls it is nice to have a few of us able to listen in at the same time.

2.
TiVo/DSL/BBS's.

3.
Emergency Calls. Would suck to not have service/coverage during an emergency.

4.
Battery life. (I can choose to not go wireless with a jack or two in the house to ensure dead batteries and misplaced handsets don't ruin the chances of contacting me)

On the plus side: I am sure the companies that build and sell aftermarket replacement batteries for cell phones love this ruling. At $29 - $59+ a pop -- and a life span of less than a year (of being able to hold a full charge)that equals some big cash.

dedicated area code (2, Interesting)

thung226 (648591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7445273)

NYC has a dedicated area code of 917 for cell phones... does this mean I can take the (very highly) coveted 212 number and go wireless with it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>