Will DSL Really Get Naked?
from the believe-it-when-I-see-it dept
For years, many people have been asking for "naked DSL" -- the ability to get DSL without also having to pay for phone service. While Qwest became a supporter of naked DSL early on, the other big telcos refused to budge. They would either say there was no demand, or they would announce it, delay it and then not really offer it -- even as they claimed they did. Even better, was BellSouth, which tried to jump on the naked DSL bandwagon by offering something totally different and calling it naked DSL. So, with that in mind, we're still a bit skeptical whenever the big telcos say they're going to offer naked DSL. Broadband Reports notes that AT&T and Verizon are now required to offer naked DSL, as part of their various merger agreements. However, it's still not clear exactly when this will happen, or what form it will take. Given how hard the telcos (with the exception of Qwest) have fought this, it's likely that the eventual naked DSL offerings may be "naked," but will have so many strings attached, that they'll feel pretty well clothed.
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
I would welcome the idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon has it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon has it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon has it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sprint doesn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sprint doesn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not all that great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partnered ok, Naked not-needed
On the other hand, I think it is ESSENTUAL that we have competation for content and contend delivory. Thus it is OK if the phone system provides the wire but I think it is desirable to be able to have another vender use these wires, at a reasonable cost, to deliver the DSL part of the service. That way it is more likely that there will be competation for DSL rates, services, and if needed content availability.
The phone system should be paid for, whether the DSL provider is them or a third party, for the wire, but allow us to have the flexability to use a partner for DSL, etc. service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partnered ok, Naked not-needed
When I moved up the road I called Bellsouth and asked if I could get Fiber at my new home. They said yes, but I would be required to also buy phone service. This was not DSL.
I did not need a home phone because of my cell phone.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT VoIP vs POTS! Home phone service is a waste of money to people like me.
I said no thanks and got Comcast cable. Which I loved more than my fiber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partnered ok, Naked not-needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't get naked DSL ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qwest in Colorado for over a year
The original product offering from Qwest required a minimum loop qual of 1.5 that was eventually dropped and they are still offering the product to the lottery network provider. This was done for many reasons but the primary being locations that wanted to use indepent carriers for service in Qwest territories (McLeod, etc.). This meant that dial tone was leased and service via traditional delivery was not available, but due to the CO copper to the premise still being owned by Qwest as long as there was an available pair it made for the perfect product. It also eliminated many of the false posative quals that can occur on traditional loop qualifying. There are many benifets to a product like this, ranging from a seperate enterprise product offering allowing for seperate SLA's, to multiple offerings at a single premise that would normally only have one TN, to allowing the continuation of "convergance".
As far as the post "Partnered ok, Naked not-needed by Mike Liveright " I would have to disagree, as you can see just by the quick examples there are many other reasons other than VOIP to have this service aailable. Just to be clear I am not saying the choice for a copper TN should go away, rather that the choice of how to have the product I am purchasing be served to me. The reason that the major telcos have not embraced this is simple FEAR, they would rather deny a new technology that could transform there industry than embrace it as a new product offering, with new benifits, markets, and add-ons. They fear it because they only see the ecrochment of the VOIP market instead of seeing the transformation of the entire network provider, telco, and overall communications network market.
There are many other reasons this is a needed product offering this is just a sample, I have deployed networks in over a dozen states and countries using technologies ranging from wirless to satalite to DDS, to DSL and others, the benifitial offering, cost efficency, and overall product potential of "standalone DSL" practicly demands and screams for the consumer world to demand this product from the telcos.
And as far as the difficulty of install don't let them lie to you, you is from the premise perspective no differant to install than traditional DSL, in some cases additional IW may be needed but the is a minimal expense and or hassle as long as you DON'T have the provider do it.
Just my 2 cents on a subject that brings my passion out, those that read tis and know me will immediatly recognize the woodchuck and know that often I will hold my tongue but on this and a few other subjects I'll take anybody to task...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Boston
Not really naked yet after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is an example of how that works: AT&T is currently offering DSL for $17/month for 3000 down/512 up. That equates to $6 per Mbit per month. If you tell them that you will switch to AT&T if they do not drop your cable to the corresponding price or lower, you will bolt. Since Comcast in my area offers 5 Mbit, your monthy price works out to be $30/mo. This works whether or not you are a TV subscriber (trust me I have done this both ways). If one CSR refuses, just call back later; eventually, someone will approve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uhmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nekkid DSL r0x0rz
That is truly where the industry is going and right now T and VZ are the front runners to take us there. If you live in Texas, then feel lucky because that's where both companies' infrastructure build outs are beginning. VZ already has thousands of real customers up and running on fiber and T is trial testing it now with plans for full roll out later this year.
Qwest is a front runner for the nekkid and the VDSL, but they aren't building enough fiber infrastructure to keep up with the big boys anymore...which sucks for me as I live in a Qwest operated state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phone companies are scammers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
naked from verizon, but not verizon bureaucracy
i called verizon to get dsl and at the same time requested them to come out and install a wall jack (for $199). the rep who took my order had a problem with making my request fit into the system since 1) it was a new building, and 2) I was only getting DSL. Eventually, he said his manager helped him beat the system and it took the order. He scheduled my wall jack service for 1 week later. the box came w/in days.
well, that day came for the technician to install the jack and no one showed up. i called back and they said there was a signal problem. They asked me to give them a week or so to resolve it. they said they would give me a call back.
Meanwhile I started getting calls from a verizon recorder saying my dsl service was setup and to call them if I have any problems. I called verizon to get an update and they transferred me to the dsl call center in Ireland (truley clueless reps...if you don't use the service you shouldn't be talking about it) and they said my dsl was activated.
It seems that when i called to complain about the technician not coming out to install the jack, they thought i was talking about activation.
i had to explain to them that it was great that it was activated but i still cannot get to it...i still don't have a jack. i was transferred from the dsl call center in Ireland, who said it was a local telephone office problem, to a call center in the US, who said it was a dsl problem since i had ordered naked dsl. the US rep then transferred me back to Ireleand.
I asked the rep in Ireland to stay on the line while he transferred me back to the call center in the US. He did and I held on the line for awhile while he spoke to the US call center telephone rep. They seemed to have worked things out and I was able to get on the service schedule for jack installation...but 1 week later as the US rep said he couldn't override the schedule in the system.
Verizon naked dsl is available, but they are still working out the bureaucratic kinks. you also must accept a telephone number (not a usable one) as your account number. this telephone number is also not portable to Vonage. This is another example of not having made the bureaucratic step to naked dsl.
the technician is suppose to come today to install the jack. if you he doesn't come, you will hear from me again. I ordered naked dsl around 10/1/2006..today is 10/26/2006.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
for real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naked DSL Now Offered from ATT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ATT Dry Loop in SF but be ready to pay the price
I live in San Francisco and had AT&T High Speed, placed the order on 12/24/07 for $23.99 dry loop service. What a joke. They screwed up my order and so didn’t place it (after telling me it’d take two business days to get done). The originally scheduled downtime happened (on 12/31) but the uptime sure hasn’t yet. It was planned for 1/2 but on 1/3 I checked and found out that the “order hadn’t been placed”. WTF?
Currently no department wants to take responsibility to get this done, even though someone there screwed up the order.
They first told me it’d take 2 business days, now they’re saying 5 biz days from the date of the “fixed” order and that “Dry Loop cases don’t have escalations because they are not a priority.” (I’m appalled that they can say this with a regretful tone - it’s condescending)
Customer service reps are sweet but ineffective - if AT&T wants to keep its techier clients they need to get with the times. This is 2008 and Silicon Valley - play nice before the Google gets in on your turf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bad dry loop in MO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]