T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
 ·tw telecom
 ·ygnitionnet
| reply to Raptor
Re: Very sketchy practices...
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? |
