SBC Ignores Cries For Naked DSL

from the how-many-requests-move-up-the-chain? dept

Tue, May 24th 2005 10:57am — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ripped-off-by-sbc-squirrel, 24 May 2005 @ 11:33am

I want it
I have a storage site / business site that I have DSL in for security. I have to have a phone number for no reason there to have DSL in for my security. I would drop the phone in a heartbeat. Of course the cost of dsl would go up another $25 if I did that though, so this argument is probably muted.

Also, the reason they don't want bare DSL is that you only need to have DSL + vonnage (less than the $50 / line unlimited "bargain" they offer). or DSL + some way to terminate SIP phone calls into numbered phones, and you'd need no phone service of any kind either.

This is a case where unbundling would make incredible sense.

Same with the cell companies, but that's another topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- grammar-and-usage-nazi, 27 Oct 2005 @ 8:58am
  
  Re: I want it
  
  Your argument is not MUTED. It's MOOT. Man am I sick of that mistake. Also people:
  it's = it is
  its = possessive (e.g. its malodorous stink)
  And "irregardless" is bad usage. Use "regardless".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2007 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re: I want it
    Grammar-and-usage-nazi I hope you fall into a well and die.
    This is a blog, not a professional letter, so who gives a flying *uck if someone makes a few typos misses an apostrophe or incorrectly uses a word. There is a time and a place for grammar-and-usage-nazi's and this really isn't it asshole.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Johnny5, 3 Aug 2007 @ 8:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I want it
      "Usage Nazi": There are a lot of people out there who don't write the English language according to your standards. Most of them don't really care, and you're wasting your breath pointing out their mistakes. If you let it bother you, you're adding a lot of unnecessary aggravation to your life. You will be a less happy person.
      
      Anonymous Coward: Spelling/grammar trolls are abound on the internet. You will also be happier if you just let it go. Take comfort in the fact that they're spinning their wheels about, really, nothing. The troll doesn't care about your opinion of their trolling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The GT Guy, 24 May 2005 @ 12:10pm

Cable Reliability
I worked in the telco business for years and agree naked DSL is a good idea. I know certain telcos are working on it as I have contacts. However, my experience with cable net access is much better than with DSL. My cable, in 1.5 years, has gone down once for 30 minutes. I stayed on the phone with my DSL provider in contrast.

Things change ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Baderderm, 24 May 2005 @ 12:11pm

SBC Local required for DSL
I was going to change my ISP to SBC DSL but SBC screwed up our switch to one of their bundled services (we still use the line). They wouldn't give us the long distance services we wanted, because "we didn't already have their long distance service"?!?! [Yes that was exactly how they explained it to us several times.]

Anyways, we didn't even want to mess with their DSL services at that point (we were already internet-less for a week) and decided to switch all of our calling plans to AT&T (including local). All of the "major" DSL carriers that served our area required SBC local service for some strange/dumb reason. Except AT&T, which went through Covad. And we also haven't really paid attention to the news much and didn't realize that SBC was acquiring AT&T. So we switched to the same company or something like that.

If cable were cheaper, we would have just switched to Comcast (which used to be AT&T Broadband in our area) and forgot about the DSL service. We haven't quite gotten to the point where we are only using our cell phones, but we are getting closer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chomper, 24 May 2005 @ 12:52pm

No Subject Given
I was going to say, in the New Jersey area, DSL is horrible and cable is king. Cablevision, although I hate their guts, has the best internet service out of everyone in the area. It is consistent to the point where I had one outage over a three year period.

The prices are a bit high, but then again, with four people in the house, it's a bargain compared other alternatives like going back to dialup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rick, 24 May 2005 @ 1:32pm

get naked dsl on SBC lines
You can get naked DSL (in some locations, like Chicago) over SBC lines if SpeakEasy DSL is available in your area. check them out at speakeasy.net- they also rock because their TOS are great, you can host your own servers, and even resell your bandwith, or open a wifi hotspot- all completely legally. Try doing that with cable! i have had speakeasy for about 10 months and I couldn't be happier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 24 May 2005 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
  I called Speakeasy about naked DSL in my area. The answer was that there were two prices. If I had SBC local service, it was much cheaper (but still more expensive than if I just went with SBC). If I didn't have SBC local, it was ridiculously expensive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rick, 25 May 2005 @ 7:07am
    
    Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
    mike, that stinks- i'm paying $60 a month right now for speakeasy, the cheapest i could get with SBC+local was around 75. granted, i'm in chicago so there is a cable monopoly in my neighborhood that makes cable much more expensive than in other neighborhoods where there is a choice (i'm stuck with comcast, some neighborhoods also have rcn, which has the best digital cable/modem combo deal i'm aware of)- let me know what the quote from speakeasy was vs. sbc, i'd love to know if i could haggle with them over pricing!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike (profile), 25 May 2005 @ 9:18am
      
      Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
      SBC was $26 for DSL + $12 for phone.
      
      Speakeasy, without SBC was $99
      
      Speakeasy, with SBC was $69
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - rick, 25 May 2005 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
        wow, that is crazy. like i said i have speakeasy service and it's "onelink" no phone line required. check it out here: http://speakeasy.net/home/dsl/?service=homeplus&type=onelink
        i couldn't love it more, and it's a decent deal for 1.5 down/768 up, but there is no way i'd pay 99 for it. 55 is pretty much my limit- which is much less than i'd pay for cable+cable modem. I know the speakeasy modem itself is 99, but I'm sure the service is 55. anyway, hope that helps- it's still not as cheap as SBC/Yahoo dsl, but I'm betting the quality is better, and the TOS are much better. of course if you're not concerned about those, then it really doesn't matter. good luck searching!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris, 27 Jul 2005 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
        
        speakeasy is 56 clams.
        
        sbc dsl WITH the local phone package is only 40 clams. you are getting scammed.
        
        CE
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - chris, 27 Jul 2005 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
        
        my current phone bill is 25 clams
        
        speakeasy naked dsl is 56 clams.
        
        sbc phone service plus DSL is 40 clams (15 clams for DSL)
        
        definitely can't figure out why i can't get naked dsl. need it bad.
        
        CE
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stephen, 22 Jan 2007 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines
  I would not recommend SPEAKEASY. Not even if they are the only choice. Their customer service sucks. They will not even respond to emails without an automated response. What kind of internet provider refuses to provide support via email? They really have been horrible to have to deal with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
10hours, 30 May 2006 @ 7:31pm

good news???
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/20/BUG67HQ0P319.DTL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joshua, 14 Feb 2007 @ 9:41am

SBC is better
any one with SBC is lucky, where I am from you have to get a phone line for DSL, obviously, but there is only ONE phone service in town and its 25 a month!! and then those morons charge ANOTHER 25 for 256k dsl!!!!! sure naked DSL would be nice but with sbc, its not that bad of a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]