SBC Ignores Cries For Naked DSL
from the how-many-requests-move-up-the-chain? dept
Not a surprise at all, but SBC claims that the reason they're not offering naked DSL is because no one seems to want it. While they're probably correct that people are interested in bundled services, that doesn't mean people don't want naked DSL. From the comments on this issue (and my own experience) it's obvious that plenty of people do want it -- but SBC is making a tidy profit in forcing people like me (who has a phone line that isn't hooked up to any phone, and whose number I don't even know) to bundle useless phone service. Of course, the whole resistance to naked DSL should be proof positive that the market for broadband services in the US isn't competitive at all. If there really were a competitive market place, I'd have other options that aren't force bundled. Instead, the only options are forced bundled DSL or force bundled cable (which either requires cable TV, or makes it ridiculously expensive). And, since cable rates remain artificially high and cable has shown itself to be ridiculously unreliable it seems that we're stuck for the time being. With Presidential promises on broadband proving to be nothing more than talk (as expected) and the FCC's idea of "competition" in broadband to be a technology (BPL) that almost never seems to work, it doesn't seem like things will change any time soon. Then, of course, when local governments actually try to do anything, they're attacked as being communists for trying to offer broadband. Oh well. I guess we're learning that the FCC's morality/indecency campaign wasn't just about covering up Janet Jackson's nudity, but DSL's as well.