http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15730511 en Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:09:58 EDT Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:09:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15730511 audiog : Technically is was not..per the case brought against SBC and Verizon in CA by AT&T, Covad and etc.

SBC and Verizon designed their provisioning system to only provision a DSL if it has a telephone number. That made a Naked DSL not an option in their systems and the CA PUC ruled that you have until December of this year to redesign you provisioning system to provision a DSL without a phone number.

SBC and Verizon both admitted that while it is not and option that is was technically possible to make it work ( add the option to the provisioning system) in their statements before the commission.

One to the cool last things that AT&T legal did before it was sucked up by SBC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15730511 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:49:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15729787 steevio : Well, this is going to be interesting! I mean, we have been told by them that this is not possible and "WE" weren't interested in such pacakges, right?

I think this would encourage many of those who are just tired of the pricing tactics of SBC/AT&T to be motivated to stick around after our contracts are up IF THE PRICE stays competitive. Now, they go back to their old ways of just increasing and yoyoing DSL prices to compensate for landline overcharges, then we are back to square one.

Sadly, I think that is exatly what is about to happen :huh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15729787 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:08:32 EDT