Landline surcharge landmine

Interesting AP story 'bout cell phone subscribers paying a subsidy for rural land telephony users.

You can predict my rant, but I wanted to also use this as a case to point out how technology is changing existing labels. The only thing that cell phone and land line users share is the idea that you are talking to someone at a distance. The technologies are completely different, as are uses, abilities (a cell phone has mp3 players, camera, recorders, games, calendars, sms, email, etc - a land phone has...numbers) and even users. Yet in the minds of companies, regulators, and customers they are just versions of each other. It's like comparing a bicycle to a jumbo jet. Both enable you to travel more efficiently and faster than walking, but nothing about how they work, users, ease, etc are the same. We need to realize that cell phones and land line phones are fundamentally different, just as telephony and Internet use are different. Technology allows things that are very different to have similar uses. We need to embrace, not constrain this idea.

As for the subsidy, AT&T Spokesman Gordon Diamond says,

“We believe the core principle is that everyone, including cell phone callers, benefits from being able to call people in the high-cost areas. If wireless customers didn’t contribute, the surcharge on wireline customers would have to be higher.”

Two, things. One if AT&T believes this as a "core principle" then AT&T should either provide that service, or set up its own fund. As to the second sentence, my only thought is "And..." What's the problem with wireline customers being charged more? If it cost's x to use that service then it cost's x. How is forcing cell phone users to pay more to help wireline users more fair than asking wireline users to pay for the cost of their service? Take it down to the stereotypes. If you're poor and live in the city, why should you be forced to pay more for something that should not only be cheaper, but cheaper and better to subsidize some who is poor and living in the country? At that point, aren't you just saying that one group of poor people are more deserving than another. My personal bet is that there are far more people on the lower end of the economic spectrum living in areas with cell coverage than areas without. Said another way, and much more confusing, but what the hay: Getting rid of the subsidy helps far more poor people than keeping the subsidy helps. Plus it has the benefit of making the system more efficient, removes what is undoubtedly a kitty for the providers, and eliminates a whole oversight issue.

The thing is, wireline phone service is a dying technology. Wireless is taking over, its cheaper and offers more services. You shouldn't fight the inevitable, especially when fighting it is expensive and damaging.