Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
Ajax, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·Bell Sympatico
edit:
August 16th, @03:57PM
| Very sketchy practices...
I thought there was some FCC ruling or something that prohibited additional charges simply on the basis that you didn't have phone service? Am I totally thinking of something else...?
And second of all, the merger terms are disgusting. They needed 12 months to unroll naked DSL? BS, you could unroll that in 24 hours after the merger.
Finally, it's ridiculous that the price of the current "hidden" 768kpbs is $10 with phone service and they're claiming "nobody wants it", while the naked tier they're planning to roll out is $20/month. Double the price!? Brilliant, that will have the customers running to you in hordes!
Crooks.
--
....where's my fiber? |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| said by Raptor  :I thought there was some FCC ruling or something that prohibited additional charges simply on the basis that you didn't have phone service? Am I totally thinking of something else...? And second of all, the merger terms are disgusting. They needed 12 months to unroll naked DSL? BS, you could unroll that in 24 hours after the merger. Finally, it's ridiculous that the price of the current "hidden" 768kpbs is $10 with phone service, and the naked tier they're planning to roll out is $20/month. Double the price!? Crooks. A warning against setting up a dsl line just so you can do an end-run around getting phone service from them.. they double your price to make there less of an incentive. However.. there's nothing saying you couldn't subscribe to a cablemodem for another $20 and have bandwidth to spare with some QOS under their competitor. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| Its not always about the bandwidth... but about the price.
$120/year vs. $360/year.
For some that do basic email / eBay and are dialup converts.. they may not want to pay extra for something they don't really use. How many out there take FULL advantage of the more than 6Mbps on their plans ? |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| said by en102 :For some that do basic email / eBay and are dialup converts.. they may not want to pay extra for something they don't really use. But when you actually look at the prices, you have to decide if you want to pay LESS for something you don't use, or MORE for something you don't get at all.
Here in Austin it is cheaper to get metered rate phone PLUS DSL than it is to get naked DSL alone. And even if you are insane enough to pay more for less, they don't offer the top tier naked.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
Zerny
join:2007-05-04
Fort Gratiot, MI
| reply to Raptor
I wish they would rule about cable doing that, I was in a pinch with my money recently and i called comcast to elminate my TV service for awhile to save money, the lady on the phone told me that if i didnt have TV service on the line the price of the internet service would go from 29.99 to 60 bucks a money.
seems like complete BS... |
|
three6ohchri
join:2004-04-14
Portland, OR
edit:
August 17th, @01:19AM
| You are pricing internet with a discounted rate (29.99) and internet at full price ($60)/\. You must have had a discount on your internet. If you remove your cable TV you are also changing the packaging and pricing on your internet. The price you were quoted was the full price rate, without discounts. Big difference.
--
three6ohchris |
|
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
 ·tw telecom
·ygnitionnet
| reply to Raptor
said by Raptor :I thought there was some FCC ruling or something that prohibited additional charges simply on the basis that you didn't have phone service? Am I totally thinking of something else...? Your totally right. When AT&T merged 2+ yrs ago, one of the "concessions" the FCC demanded to allow the merger to happen was that SBC/AT&T had to offer naked dsl. So AT&T offered naked dsl, and made it $15 more expensive than if you got dsl and a phone line together. This was the way it was in CA so none of the other states persued it.
So when AT&T and Bell South merged late last year the FCC brought this up again. AT&T agreed to offer naked dsl for 2 years (don't know what happens after 2 years but I wouldn't be suprisd if they called all of the naked dsl subscribes and tell them they have to add a phone line and long distance.) I know of a couple of people in Dallas who tried to get naked dsl in February and couldn't find an AT&T rep who knew what "naked dsl" was. As far as I know you still can't get it in Texas.
Who is suppoise to enforce this stuff? The FCC or the PUC? Tey haven't protected consumers rights for the last 10 years, I don't know why I thought they would start now? |
|
