Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSL in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17108882 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:54:33 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:54:33 EDT Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17108882 dslextreme : They are REQUIRED to offer naked DSL under the ATT SBC merger agreement. The issue is that they are not required to provide it at a specific price point.

At this point they offer you naked DSL, but it is not any less expensive than naked DSL + a phone line so what's the point of offering it to begin with?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17108882 Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:07:41 EDT Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17100858 anon : Who Say's they are not going to offer naked dsl?I think they will.I think they will do away with all there narowband,and only have broadband,and give you a choice to have v.o.i.p.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17100858 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:40:25 EDT Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17099325 LilYoda : At least with Cable you get the option to buy Internet service only. It's only a $5 increase a month, so that'e about 10% compared to the $50 subscription fee (that's the numbers I remember from when I was doing this with Charter)

With Bellsouth, good luck getting a DSL only line... I tried when I was still in Georgia, only speakeasy was delivering naked DSL...
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17099325 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:40:27 EDT Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098958 Dark_Fiber :
said by McWizzard See Profile :

They should be required to offer "naked DSL" in ALL their server areas within 6 months of the merger and for a period of not less than 30 months. Further, the "naked DSL" pricing should be the same as like dsl package prices being marketed for their existing packages.

One service should not be "tied" to another service offering (dsl & voice) nor should one service subsidize another service offering.
Typical response...and no mention to the fact that the cable companies require you to pay for their TV service or pay a higher rate for cable modem.

Let the AT&T bashing begin.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098958 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:37:40 EDT Re: Net_Neutrality, Naked DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098338 dslextreme : I agree with your stance 100%.

Net Neutrality + Same Price Naked DSL.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098338 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:58:18 EDT Net_Neutrality, Naked DSL http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098297 McWizzard : They should be required to offer "naked DSL" in ALL their server areas within 6 months of the merger and for a period of not less than 30 months. Further, the "naked DSL" pricing should be the same as like dsl package prices being marketed for their existing packages.

One service should not be "tied" to another service offering (dsl & voice) nor should one service subsidize another service offering.

As for Net Neutrality, I'd be fine if they were restricted from blocking or limiting any existing IP service curently existing on the net. Thus, if they choose to offer VoIP 6 months from now, that's OK, but you can't block my existing 3rd party VoIP just because it's not your offering.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17098297 Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:53:33 EDT