BellSouth Tips Toes Back Into Residential VoIP
from the sneaky,-sneaky dept
The big telcos seem to have a love-hate affair with VoIP. They know that it's where everything is headed, but they sure don't like the idea of it eating away at their traditional landline business. AT&T didn't do much when they were SBC, but along with the AT&T name and business came a bunch of AT&T CallVanage customers. Verizon has offered VoiceWing -- but they originally priced it quite high, and then have done little to actually push it. It's as if they have it so they can say they have it -- and then never actively sell it. However, a reporter recently mentioned that the last holdout was always going to be BellSouth -- and that the company would never offer naked DSL (something they've fought) until they had a viable VoIP solution. So, now that the news is leaking out that BellSouth is quietly offering VoIP by rebranding Packet 8's service, does that mean they're inching closer to naked DSL? Somehow, that seems unlikely. Of course, what very few people seem to remember is that three years ago, BellSouth was actually one of the first telcos to offer VoIP. They were reselling service from Vonage very quietly, and the second the press got wind of it, executives shut the offering down. Of course, if they had been smart and kept going, they'd have 3 years of experience with VoIP right now.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Technologically advanced
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naked DSL not so sneaky
The way you've positioned naked DSL in your commentary, I get the impression you take it as the "dirty little secret" of the hard line biz. Respectfully, I would have to disagree.
Obviously, the industry is viciously competitive. Naked DSL is a way for a hard line provider to offer something that accommodates competing technology while cleverly fused with its own product, the hard line.
It's best of both worlds. This is especially true of the business market. For instance, P&G uses both. Voip has its place in the company but when internal phone calls about new products take place, I assure you, it is not on the Internet.
While every form of communication is going to have some sort of Achilles heal, there is nothing less secure than the Internet versus the other mediums available.
What's left of Ma-Bell is not in denial about Voip, far from it. The old phrase, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", well, if you're a hard line company, you can! However, last I checked, Voip providers are not running all over the country laying hard lines nor standing in line to sign up as c-lecs.
Speaking of c-lecs, wouldn't that be "re-branding"? When did that become a dirty word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. It's pretty clear that AT&T (SBC), BellSouth and Verizon are *extremely* reluctant to offer naked DSL. They've all claimed they would and then backed away, or changed the definition of naked DSL so they could announce they had it when they really didn't. It's not a "dirty little secret". They just don't want to offer it because they're afraid it will cannibalize their voice business. That's pretty clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
I think you overestimate the real position of naked DSL in the residential market and that would explain your perception that these companies are afraid of it.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
And yet, there are plenty of us. How is it stupid in that many of us just don't want a land line. Considering that VoIP is cheaper than an old telco voice line, why should I want to pay a telco for a voice line when it's much more expensive? It would seem like THOSE are the people who have money to burn or are stupid.
Meanwhile Qwest does offer naked DSL, and there's obviously strong demand for it. Lots of people have been asking for it, and the stupidity is on the part of telcos who refuse to provide it. By NOT providing it, they encourage people to go elsewhere, to providers who *WILL* give them what they want.
As for it being a "business" decision, that's definitely true. I never suggested it was a "conspiracy." They're obviously trying to protect their legacy voice revenue. My point is that this is what's short-sighted. They're betting that consumers don't know or don't want VoIP -- and betting that your customers are stupid tends to be a losing bet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
If you are SO against a land line and if VoIP is SUCH a superior and less expensive product.
Why do you even care if DSL, in any form of dress or undress even exists?!?!?!?!?!?
Saying "I want DSL but I DON'T want a hard line" is about as bright as saying "I want the internet but I don't want a computer."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
Huh? This makes no sense.
I want DSL but don't want a voice line. How is that the same as saying "I want the internet but don't want a computer."
The reason I, and many people, want naked DSL is because we want the internet connection, but don't want or need a voiceline from the telco. I'm not quite sure what your argument is. Could you please explain more clearly. Wanting a broadband connection without a voiceline makes plenty of sense. I don't need the voiceline -- why should I be forced to have it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
A Digital Subscriber Line (DSL,ADSL,VDSL..etc) IS a phone line! Just because you're not using it for voice doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, a voice line.
You can't watch satellite TV with out a dish and you can't have DSL with out a hard line.
That is why I equated it to "I want internet but no computer".
When you bought your last car, did you get indignant about being made to pay for the backseat because you weren't intending on using it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
We're not complaining about the physical line, but being forced to turn on phone *SERVICE* through it if it's totally redundant and unnecessary. Your backseat analogy doesn't make any sense.
A better analogy would be the last time you went to fill up gas, did they force you to get an oil change too, because you were there.
That's the problem. They're bundling *services* that don't need to be bundled.
No one is saying give me a DSL line that isn't a "line". They're saying give us a DSL line that doesn't have phone service turned on and which we don't have to pay for phone service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
THAT is why you think I'm confused.
Do you have DSL? If so and you are oppressively bundled, you'll notice that the DSL is not taxed.
Ever wonder why?
An even better analogy would be telling your bank you don't want to pay your mortgage because you were on vacation that month and not living there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
Your analogies make no sense and have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The bank/mortgage analogy again makes no sense. How is that being forced to bundle two services when you only want one? I'm having trouble understanding the point you're trying to make.
I do have DSL and I also pay for phone service -- which I don't use. There is no phone hooked up to it, yet I'm paying every month. Doesn't that seem sort of pointless? You have yet to explain why we absolutely need to do this. The truth is, we don't. Qwest has shown telcos don't need to do that. The *only* reason to do it is to protect a legacy voice business. That's the point we're making. What point are you trying to make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
AND
Once again, DSL is not a voice product so how can they be protecting legacy voice by with holding or bargaining a product that has nothing to do with voice?
AND
If you are so buggered by your bundle, switch to cable! No one has more influence on consumer products/services than THE CONSUMER! Supply and demand my friend, learn it, love it and get drunk with power!
AND
My analogies make plenty of sense! You keep saying "I don't want to pay for something I'm not using!" but you are using it to type those words. Remember I mentioned your DSL is not taxed? That's because you can't be taxed on the same product twice. The regulated tax and fees will appear on the "voice" service portion of your bill. DIAL TONE IS DIAL TONE. It doesn't matter what you do with it how you use it or if you use it. If you subscribe to it, you have to pay for it in one fashion or another. (Hence, I don't want to pay for the back seat I don't use or the house I didn't live in).
AND
I know you are but what am I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
Ah, the root of our problem. What you describe as a "making leaps backwards" is exactly what we're saying. Offering DSL without a voice service plan IS NAKED DSL. BellSouth, Verizon and AT&T all do not offer DSL without a voiceplan. That's all we're asking for. That's naked DSL. Apparently you have a different definition for it.
Once again, DSL is not a voice product so how can they be protecting legacy voice by with holding or bargaining a product that has nothing to do with voice?
The whole point is that they are forcing voice. Which part of that didn't make sense.
If you are so buggered by your bundle, switch to cable! No one has more influence on consumer products/services than THE CONSUMER! Supply and demand my friend, learn it, love it and get drunk with power!
As I've explained repeatedly, cable is not an option here, and cable (of course) has it's own problems.
DIAL TONE IS DIAL TONE.
Right, but I don't want voice service. That's all we're talking about here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
Either VoIP or mobile, which is what everyone who is asking for naked DSL wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
I'm still confused as to how saying I don't want to pay for something I'm not using makes me stupid or have money to burn. I would think it's the other way around: paying for something that you don't need and don't use that means you have a lot of money to burn or are stupid.
So, please, go ahead and clarify. Why is it that asking to not pay for a service I don't need, but which is forced on me, make me smarter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uncle!
Presently you pay for communication like this:
Local Carrier - DSL+ISP+Voice
Wireless carrier - Cell
What you propose would be more like this:
Local carrier - DSL
VoIP - Voice
Wireless - Cell
Now, stay with me, because this is where things get tricky.
Even though you are not paying your local carrier for a voice plan, your phone line is active. You have dial tone.
The fall out in your logic is adding the VoIP on top of DSL.
VoIP only makes sense if for those that DO NOT have a hard line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uncle!
I'm still amazed that we're having this discussion. However, your statement again makes no sense.
If VoIP is cheaper/better than hard line voice, then how could you possibly make your above statement? The statement above that is flat out wrong. If you're not paying for a voice plan, then you do not have voice service, other than to call 911. If I still want voice service, it makes a lot more sense to not pay for voice on the hardline, but to get a VoIP plan instead.
So, we take your two examples. In the first one, someone is paying twice as much for voice service. In the second one, they're saving a lot of money, while also getting nomadic abilities and additional features that VoIP allows.
So, explain to me again why this makes no sense or is "irretrievably stupid?" You save money and you get more functionality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uncle!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uncle!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uncle!
Wrong. you can have dsl WITHOUT a dial tone. A dial tone is NOT needed to have DSL. Research the technology before you try to educate someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naked DSL not so sneaky
Naked DSL:
DSL is high speed access to the internet over your existing hard line. They refer to it as naked when you are only using your hard line for the DSL and not to make phone calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]