Can I suggest an optimistic spin on this: they're not doing away with the analog PSTN, they're asking the question, can we transition phone service to the internet, and if we did what would be the ramifications (for the disabled, for emergency signalling etc etc).

Slightly less optimistic spin: the folks who operate the old PSTN have alot of sunk costs into the infrastructure with not alot of revenue returning anymore, and they might want to get out of that 'business'. At a certain point its up to goverment to ask the question, if this is a public service with public use but a lesser return to private interests, should the public (government) pay for it?

They may be saying: its time to transition - if there are shortcomings in IP telephony, its time to engineer around them, build a better mousetrap. And truth be told, Thomas Edison would probably be licking his chops right now.

I have some serious concerns about the ability for IP to replace emergency signalling over PSTN - I have already heard from one proponent (with a vested dollar interest in making the transition) argue that as a whole, society would not be worse off for not getting a reliable 911 signal in almost all cases, but they would have to engineer a newer, better way around this dilemma. I have alot of experience dealing with the types of companies that make money off the internet, and almost zero faith that they could engineer something as comprehensive and beneficial as the PSTN. I suggest that the FCC set at least a five 9s uptime and reliability metric to any replacement, and that shutting down the PSTN be done slowly, only after years that show the replacement actually works. There aren't too many Thomas Edisons out there anymore.