Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Cell phone delays couldbe costly in a crisis
Re: “Reject AT&T bid to shed its landlines” (Page A8, March 10).
I am one of those landline users and have had the same phone number since 1978. I am also a retired 911 police and fire dispatcher.
One of the reasons why I retired was the increasing use of cell phones and the frustration and fear because of it. With landlines, when a person dials 911, their address (including apartment number) immediately shows up on the 911 screen. With cell phones, it’s a triangulationusing cross streets and area, but not the exact address.
If I’m inside my apartmentand cannot speak for fear, illness or whatever, I still get help right away. With a cell phone, that could take minutes, possibly with deadly results.
Christine KhouryBelmont
AT&T must remedycell service issues
Re: “Reject AT&T bid to shed its landlines” (Page A8, March 10).
I applaud your Sunday editorial urging the California Public Utilities Commission to reject the request of AT&T to “shed” our landline service. I am one of the supposed 5% who continues to rely on my landline. It provides good service (for nearly $100 a month) and it always works in case of emergency.
I subscribe to AT&T for cellular service ($70 a month) on my iPhone. However, I live on a hillside in rural San Mateo County, facing the Santa Cruz mountains. At home my AT&T cell service is at best one bar, and most of the time “no service.” The fallback position is VoIP , voice-over-internet calling. If electricity fails, so does my internet router. In case of emergency (fire, earthquake, etc.), I cannot contact help without driving. Even in downtown Woodside, the cell service is weak.
AT&T has a responsibility to remedy these cell service issues before threatening our landlines.
Karen OffenWoodside
Nonprofit PG&E wouldbetter serve state
Related Articles
Letters: Reconsider rate hike
Letters: Deny AT&T | Check sources | Agree on health care | Crossing line
Letters: Let A’s go | Hope to Democrats | Biden, Trump
Letters: Shameful turnout | Pot problems | Know Trump | Reject Kennedy | Gaza policy
Letters: College dreams | Women’s vote | Unworkable plan | Gratitude for truth | Admirable effort
PG&E enjoys a government-approved monopoly supplying energy to millions, in an industry that people can’t just opt out of, or choose another competitor, like with cell service. When PG&E sets the price for their product, and includes investors’ profits, where does fair end, and extortion begin?
Mercury News articles “PG&E profits hop higher as revenue surges from electricity and gas” and “PUC approval of PG&E interim request sends bills higher — once again” don’t seem like subjects that should be happening concurrently. It was shocking, too, that PG&E CEO Patricia Poppe received $51.2 million last year.
How could a CEO be so valuable to be worth that much money? Maybe it’s more about PG&E profits and PUC approval than running an efficient and cost-effective public utility service. The society that is PG&E’s customers would be better served if PG&E was a nonprofit corporation.
Jim MielkeSan Jose