RSS
SBC Told To Get Naked
from the it's-about-time... dept
Earlier this week, my own experience trying to get naked DSL from SBC, and (in the comments) noted that Speakeasy, who would provide naked DSL -- does it in a way that it's economically pointless (i.e., it's so much more expensive, you're better off signing up for phone service from SBC). Now, the California ISP Association is apparently urging politicians to force SBC to offer naked DSL. This isn't the first time this has happened. Georgia told BellSouth they had to offer naked DSL, which the company did briefly until they figured out a way to get around those rules. What's silly about all of this is that it's probably costing them customers. People who don't want telephone service are simply going to rule out SBC as an option, and go with the local cable provider. Of course, if there were some real competition here, rather than a duopoly, there would be a lot more pressure for SBC to stop the forced bundling.
2 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Speakeasy is a premium provider
I agree it doesn't make sense compared to cheaper alternatives (cable modem, or DSL from your local ILEC) but... there's also plenty of crap you don't have to deal with: they're Linux and Unix friendly, technically clueful and provide good add-on options (static IPs, hosting, ...) that cost much more from your local ILEC or cable modem provider. Certainly when I was fighting to get Comcast installed using my Linux laptop there were times that I thought about paying extra for Speakeasy, even though that extra was a fair chunk of change.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speakeasy is a premium provider
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment