Copper land lines cost a fortune to maintain, and with everyone having moved to cellphones years ago, don't generate income to pay for their upkeep. People pay far more for an internet line that dumps out a gig of traffic, while very few pay for a hard line that is hard to cut and only carries a few kb of traffic.

> everyone having moved to cellphones years ago

That is untrue. The news is full of stories of people who are right now being forced-off hard line connections that they want and will pay for. The choice is being removed, which is not a fair market.

But, telling any group of people that "they are the only ones" is gas-lighting. Systematic lies to marginalise people was central to the Purdue Pharma opioid scandal and to the British Post Office scandal - telling people "You're the only one" when a problem is evidently extensive should be a very serious fraud.

> don't generate income to pay for their upkeep

When many private companies took on telecommunications properties they did so under obligations to maintenance of infrastructure, availability and reliability standards. If it turns out their choices of technology don't meet those standards of affordable resilience then that's their financial miscalculation and their problem now. Or are you saying that markets are incompatible with national security?

Detractors please don't get so upset at someone pointing out broad, sweeping, parochial generalisations are not okay (or at least try to defend your position). If nothing else they just make a bad argument.