Miscellaneous

by Mike Masnick




Ma Bell Is The Latest To Mock Naked DSL Requirements

from the no-rules-on-price,-huh? dept

As the debate surrounding the telcos has lately been focused on net neutrality, another issue that is a result of the lack of competition in the space has slipped back under the radar: naked DSL. Most of the telcos (Qwest being a notable exception) require that any customer who wants a DSL line also has to buy phone service from them as well. This is what allows them to claim they charge only $15 or whatever for a DSL line, but if you add in the phone service and additional fees it tends to be much higher. It's never made much sense that the telcos are so against just offering plain old naked DSL without the phone service. After all, for people who just want to use a mobile phone and/or VoIP, isn't that only going to encourage them to go to the competition who won't force them to bundle an unwanted service? Oh... right. There isn't much competition, which is what allows the telcos to get away with the bundle. For quite some time, there's been some pressure on SBC/AT&T to offer naked DSL in California, but the company has resisted, claiming that no one wants it (which is laughable). However, as part of the SBC/AT&T merger, one of the requirements (and basic admission that the new company had monopoly powers in some areas) was that they offer naked DSL. Not surprisingly, they looked for loopholes. They didn't take the misleading route of Verizon in announcing they offered naked DSL when the fine print showed they they really didn't, but rather went with the strategy of (1) not telling anyone they actually offered naked DSL and (2) jacking up the prices of naked DSL so that it's only $1 less than if you ordered DSL and a phone line. Yes. One whole dollar. AT&T offers a bogus response to a reporter asking about this, claiming miraculously, that the naked price "accurately reflects the real cost of DSL." If that were true, it would mean the company is selling almost all of their DSL lines at a loss -- which is ridiculous for anyone who can do a bit of math.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    chris (profile), 19 Jun 2006 @ 6:27am

    Re: Why doesn't TechDIrt believe in open markets?

    there are like 6 open telco markets in the US.

    there are only two choices in town for me, the cable company and the phone company. so until i can get tv service from the phone company there really isn't much of a choice for me.

    this is the whole problem with telecommunications: there still isn't real competition.

    yes, wild blue rocks, it rocks absolutely:


    Get WildBlue Registration Form | Availability & Offers | Satisfaction Guarantee
    Current Promotions | Standard Installation

    We apologize, but due to overwhelming demand, we are not currently performing installations in your area. We hope to resume in the coming months. Please register and we will inform you as soon as installations resume in your area.

    The Zip Code you entered: 41091
    Search Another Zip Code

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.