Users Annoyed At AT&T Naked DSL Pricing > welcome to the "consessions"

welcome to the "consessions"

Lets see...
DSL (with POTS) = $39
DSL (w/o POTS) = $45

Comcast (when it was here) was
HSI (with TV) = $ 44.95 (+ modem rental)
HSI (without TV) = $ 56.95 (+ modem rental)

How is this much different ?

Perhaps the phone line was subsidizing the DSL line???

That is cable's argument for charging more. Also, if you have a receiver, it used to be a lot of people got just HSI and full cable too.

$10 more than regular bundle pricing is fair.

Having that basic POTS line is pretty smart during times when everything else fails during major storms, etc.

reply to en102
Glad to see people finally accusing phone of penalizing vs. discounting which cable has been doing.

And besides, no matter the price of DSL or Cable Modem service... considering Dial up was pushing close to $24.99 a month for a single computer on line, why would ANYONE complain at ANY broadband service for multiple computer for under $59 a month considering all you can do with this broadband over DSL.

Either way..

If anyone is familiar with making deals with the devil, this is very much one of them. The FCC said "offer naked DSL"... as like the devil would say "we did, but you didn't say it had to be cheap"... Ask the devil to be rich, who's to say he doesn't make you a drug load in South America who's always under assassination attacks.

The brain children who make up the body of our government still haven't gotten it that you have to spell out every detail, because the lack of detail usually equals a loophole.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one.

reply to fiberguy
You've been watching Bedazzled too much.

reply to kyramilan
yeah, this is the truth, sadly...

I pay $32 a month for my POTS line (that's after taxes/charges/etc) and $15 a month for my ISP....I'd go with a cheaper $5-$10 ISP, but I know that my current one has been extremely reliable.

Thus, I pay $47 a month for dial-up....I almost NEVER use my POTS line for phone calls. v_v;

reply to grandpinaple
Well, that's just one of them. Good movie though.

reply to en102
Agree!! Stop crying about it and just keep a land line if it's cheaper. Cable is the same way. I tend to believe people want something for nothing.

reply to kyramilan
READ the Chicago Tribune article more closely. The customer DOES have a POTS - from a re-seller of AT&T and appears to be happy with the service from the re-seller. But AT&T does not allow the re-seller to sell the DSL service. Therefore, if the customer wants DSL service, he is left with 2 choices: 1) Pay for a phone line that he does not want, need or use; 2) Abandon the POTS re-seller, one of a number of companies enticed into the telecom business by Ameritech/ SBC when it was trying to prove it had "competition" in the local phone service business and should, therefore, be permitted to sell long distance service. Immediately upon approval for long distance, Ameritech/ SBC began "wooing" back their old customers with methods like the one the customer describes. And even if the customer wanted to "gamble" and go without a POTS, shouldn't freedom of choice provide him the opportunity. They call that "competition". And this whole thing has nothing to do with "true costs" or with one service subsidizing another. This has to do with the fact that AT&T was a monopoly prior to the mid-80's and is doing everything they can to attain that status again - at least for wired services. And the FCC appears to be assisting them in the process. On behalf of all the current AT&T customers, I’d like to welcome the Bell South customers to this world of “competition”.

reply to inteller
I've had Bellsouth DSL for a long time. It's decent service, but I do believe it is overpriced. Fiberguy makes the point that no one is required to buy it, and of course that is true. Free market, yada, yada.

But that's not really the issue. Companies like Bellsouth have a virtual monopoly on telephone service and, therefore, DSL service. If I had twelve choices for high speed internet, sure, each company could charge whatever it wishes and they could slug it out for my business. If I had two or three choices, I'd feel the same way. But the reality is, if you want a landline in my area, you've got no where to turn but Ma Bell.

It is Bellsouth's dominance of the market that gives rise to regulation. Though it may be a private company, Bellsouth serves the function of a public utility. In exchange for a monopoly on tens of millions of users, Bellsouth should be able to offer its services at a pretty competitive price.

The word monopoly is especially relevant since the recent AT&T / BS merger has taken us a long way back toward the bad old days of the AT&T monopoly. Not that I think AT&T will ever be as powerful as it once was. The world has changed and there are a lot of options that didn't exist 30 years ago. Still, if AT&T does not achieve market domination it won't be because it didn't try.

Since Bellsouth is charging above average prices for its DSL service (compared to other carriers in other parts of the country), I think it's pretty apparent that some concession to the consumer is not unreasonable. That's what the FCC tried to do with the naked DSL deal, but since private industry is usually smarter than government regulators, I expect BS will find a way to avoid losing any substantial revenue on the naked DSL deal. They will make it so hard to get that the vast majority of people will never even know it exists, or so hard to qualify for that those of us who are watching will be out of luck.