RSS
Twitter
California Makes Slightest Push For Naked DSL
from the when-a-$15-product-costs-you-$40 dept
Telcos have raised all sorts of objections to naked DSL as they do their best to resist offering it. Now, Karl Bode at Broadband Reports points out that California regulators have urged telcos to drop their phone line requirements, a first step towards potentially requiring it. SBC responds it's trying to work out "technical issues", an excuse that sounds pretty fishy. The company also adds it believes the market, not the government, should make the decision, responding to claims from consumer groups that a requirement to offer naked DSL be made a condition of the SBC-AT&T merger. Of course, for SBC, "the market" means "us here at SBC", and it will continue to force users to buy services they don't want in order to get one they do want as long as it can.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
I don't understand wants wrong with them forcing you to have a phone line to get DSL. Just think of it as a damn deal combination. The "IF YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT GET IT" concept seems to work very well. Get cable or satellite. Usually dsl + phone cable, so stop bitching people.
Anyways, if they drop the phone line requirement then Im guessing that dsl prices will go up so its the same thing, and equillibrium will be restored.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
And what for those who want to use the benefits of a DSL connection without the issues of a phone line? Static IPs anyone? How about (web/email) servers? I dont see those on a cable line. I wouldnt touch putting that one a satellite.
All I want is a internet connection. I dont want a phone or a video feed. But with either DSL or cable, I get force fed those "addons" to my connection service.
I currently have DSL in california without a phone number. I do pay a bit more for having a "phoneless" connection, but I feel its worth it.
Just because its the way it was doesnt mean its the way it HAS to be. Lets think in ways that can actually help the consumer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
and now with VOIP and other voice/data offerings why would people want/need a land line with their net connection?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Well of course with VOIP blowing up then DSL companies specifically are going to want to keep the Phone line attachment because it discourages use of VOIP. Cable also has similar package constraints. I can either pay my 50 dollar net fee and a 14.95 surcharge or I can pay the net fee and get basic cable for 14.95. I could take the TV or leave it but since it's the same either way i take it. I heard a rumor of a lawsuit against cable companies that did this type of thing but I haven' heard of it being confirmed or any type of verdict so whatever....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Response to "if you don't like it, don't get it". Hey idiot, what if I just want DSL alonge and am not interested in satellite nor cable internet services because of performance reasons I'd rather not get into within this post.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
can't stand it
When a DSL provider says that DSL won't work without a Phone hooked up, I am currently in the process of switching from bellsouth ( who require a phone) to Speak Easy ( who says I don't need a phone ).
I don't use my Home Phone unless I call bellsouth to complain about the service being down again. I have a Cell Phone to call people. I DO NOT need a home phone it is useless to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment