Verizon Stops Selling Standalone DSL to New Users

I predict within the next month...they are already trying to charge me $10.00 every time I go over 150GB of data, but so far have credited the charge back when I threaten to leave.

This will just drive more people to cable (if available). No cable company I'm aware of forces you to bundle services if you don't want to (of course they offer discounts for bundling).

I wonder if one can order a second DSL only line and use a load balancing router or just run two separate home networks (something that AT&T no longer allows for residential customers period, regardless of whether or not a land line is on the account).

no next time they won't credit back to you- they'll simply tell you to go some where else.

And there is nothing stopping them from requiring a dial-tone other providers do it.

The cable bundle is essentially the same thing - just worded differently. The cable guys first would require you have basic service, and then they changed that to you have to pay an access fee (which was the same or more than basic cable). Now they just "reward" you for having a bundle of services.

Verizon sent me the e-mail today Karl is referencing. What a bunch of IDIOTS.

It costs them almost nothing to continue to provide DSL to a customer once it is setup and running. Since the physical plant needs to be in place to provide phone service to anyone who may want it, why not just take what you can get from a customer and give them DSL if that is what they want. Some money is better than none! In fact they already charge more for a dry loop than a DSL loop + voice.

Since DSL is a poor option for anyone who needs a lot of speed, you would think they would be trying to make it easy and attractive to keep customers, but I guess not.

What this will mean is the copper will continue to deteriorate as more and more of it will sit un-used and un-needed and as a result un-maintained.

With FIOS expansion all but dead, it looks like Verizon it trying to push customers to cable. Why of course, they have a deal with the cable co now don't they?

not really the same thing. POTS is a LOT more than that extra $10 a month that the MSO charges.

I live in hillbillyville, and our cable company forces us to have basic cable TV if we want internet service. Obviously that isn't the norm. Simply a cash grab.

all but dead? FiOS is dead. no more builds. And it was dead from the start. They got to pick the cities they wanted and in the end those will be the only VZ landline markets. Everything else will go to someone else who wants the copper or can deploy something else that is cost effective.

Other telcos are doing this same thing and you really thing VZ is going to be any different? VZ was one of the first that required you to have an ISP and pay a Port charge to them. It was like that until they could get their approval and Ohio was one of the last states that they could. For 1.5/384 was a total of 64+ and that was back in 2001. VZ is all about the $$$$$$.

I don't know who your cable company is, but here where I live CMCST charges $21.95 per month for basic, and that includes about 15 channels (including local, CSAPN, home shopping, tv guide, PEG/local school/local gov't). Having said that I have their $70 or $80 tv package (digital starter I think it's called). So, I would just say that it's not a comparable amount of money to get the basic only package as opposed to a local only POTS line in some places.

Has anybody in NYS received this e-mail? I have not; I know that Verizon tends to (or is forced to?) treat our market differently than others. I'm wondering if this requirement will apply here?

One has to wonder if they'll make any allowance for people with Verizon Wireless service? I have my dry-loop DSL and VZW bills combined onto one bill that comes from Verizon.

So instead of adding extra fees on your bill, which is a sin these days. They will just now force you to buy something you don't need or want. Verizon knows that a lot of people don't use a landline phone anymore. This is why it makes it so easy for Verizon to implement this. Verizon knows most people won't use it and that translates to free money.

When I had Embarq (Which is now CenturyLink), it was the same way. You couldn't get DSL service without having phone service. Because I had a cellphone, I had no reason to use the landline. Didn't even waste the time or money to even get a landline phone. So Embarq was getting an extra $35 a month from me for non use of services. Why would Embarq complain about free money. The worse thing about it is, they try to sell you phone line insurance on something you won't use.

Sure hope Verizon don't do the same thing with FIOS. I know Verizon is pushing there VOIP service very hard. The Verizon tech who came over my house the other day tried very hard to sell me phone service. In the end, he lost.

I kinda feel bad for that tech. Not because he lost a sale but because odds are he is required to try and sell. which to me seems outside the scope of the repair guy.

if my dryer breaks down it gets fixed but the guy does not go "I see you do not have a Maytag washer, I could set you up with a good price on one."

Probably not long. AT&T started offering naked DSL as a condition of the BellSouth merger. They were required to continue doing it for 30 months, and this was over 5 years ago.

getting greedy for revenue, that's what it is.

Sounds like a tying contract to me; how it is permitted is a great mystery.

In Dallas, even though there are still DSL subscribers at our CO we can no longer signup for it because they service our address with U-Verse as well. So, now if you want the cheaper service that doesn't include a monthly fee for the modem or an installation fee you are SOL...

I know it's not his fault. He is only doing what Verizon tells him to do. I guess Verizon figures that the tech has more contact with the customers, why not use them as sales people as well.

verzion is getting too greedy again, I think it's time for regulators to begin taking a look at the state of competition!

a standalone service is getting harder and harder to find under $50, whether is be phone, internet, or cable-tv!!!

the requirement of the BS merger doesn't apply any longer as that is done and over with.

And at this point the FCC will do what ever T tells them or they'll go to court over it.

ATT will move to this next. You don't think they're going to give up that extra $20+ a month that they can have?

I am an AT&T DSL subscriber who wants to change to DSLX becuz they are cheaper. My address is also serviced with U-Verse. So what you are saying is that I'm SOL also.

It's not about what they charge for basic. It's about the extra fee they charge for not having TV.

And I have Buckeye. CMST does NOT charge $21 a month for not having TV with HSI. It's more like $10-12 extra. The same as TWC and the others.

It's called you want that extra $$$ that your contract calls for you do as we say and sell.

Basically as once you are on U-Verse they do NOT have to change you. Especially if you have the U-Verse FTTN service; you're basically screwed. IPDSLAMS are NOT shared and never will be. That will be a problem DSLX and Sonic face over and over again; especially with IPDSLAMS being installed easier and faster, and cheaper than the full FTTN services of U-Verse.

Sorry TV and Internet are not a regulated service no matter how much the states want to make it seem like it is. And the FCC will just get smacked in court for trying to regulate it.

It is a business. It was always about the money.

I recently moved back to Frontier Fios and went just with their internet. I was told in order to get installation waived and the 2 year price lock, I had to have the "security calling" feature for a couple of bucks a month. It's only outgoing 911, no incoming or outgoing to other numbers.

My first bill came and I noticed I also have a $3 charge for an unlisted phone number. For a phone number that I don't have and that I can't receive calls on.

This is from the pop up window that appears when I choose "performance internet service" from their website. I cut a lot of verbiage off from the top and bottom of this that I didn't think was relevant (but you can go check it out for yourself).

*********************************************************
After 12 months, or if any service is cancelled or downgraded, regular charges apply. Comcast’s current monthly service charge for Performance ranges from $42.95 to $62.95, and may vary depending on your area and other Comcast services (if any) received.
*********************************************************

The new "monopoly" is the duopoly ladies and gents. This is going to deter people from canceling there accounts because grandpa will die. Look at what is happening to those grandfathered ATT wireless people.

Either you stick with cable and let them rape you or you go with DSL, let VZ rape you, while they force you to rape your self.

Dust off the HTPC's and find a way to lower that wireless bill if you expect to keep paying for these services.

Well...it's more like leasing the medium (the outside plant). They want to be compensated for maintenance on the outside plant, same as the phone company. It's just that telcos are IMHO a lot more greedy about it, and rake in all that FUSF money. Not only that, I was pretty sure their rates are regulated (at least in NYS). I can't imagine Verizon for example would charge less than the ceiling price.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on it, but I recall the voice service was on the order of $35 for me. But that was probably in my era where I had flat rate service, because that was when I first got DSL, and was still making modem calls. It was somewhat less for pay-per-call, perhaps $25. This was before Verizon offered dry loop DSL, so voice service was required. (Eventually they pissed me off, and I went Adelphia Power Link (which became Roadrunner).)

I hope you don't mind that I chuckled into my ale when I read that. Classic maneuver. It's all gotten so premeditated petty. There. I've coined a worthy phrase. Draft a fake summons from your local state district court advising them to appear in response to accusations of Premeditated Petty.

Christ, they've gotten us so pinned to the mat we at least deserve some fun. Any reasonable judge would agree.