Verizon Stops Selling Standalone DSL to New Users > This is Bob Elek with Verizon.

This is Bob Elek with Verizon.

reply to Bob Elek
That's a good one! Which one of you guys anonymously posted this? You should be paid! Is this a late April Fool's joke? hahaha! Classic.

By adjusting the way we offer DSL, making you purchase something you don't want or need, we are able to control our executive bonus structure more effectively, enabling us to continue a lavish lifestyle while taking advantage of a duopoly and price collusion that you stupid idiots will never defeat!

We are proactively giving existing customers a 30-day advance notice to stock up on lube, with extra sand included.

reply to Bob Elek
I'm not a Verizon customer, but I have never had a landline. Ever. I have naked DSL through AT&T and with my cell phone, see no reason to get a landline. POTS is a dead technology.

reply to Bob Elek
Word spaghetti....

Nonsensical!

reply to Bob Elek
Better value... by forcing them to have a service that no one wants and no one will use?

reply to scott2020

reply to Bob Elek
One moment while I hack up a hairball...

**BULLSHIT**

There, all better.

reply to Bob Elek
Bob, I am going to say this nicely, Shove it out your ass.

Thanks

Teleco user

reply to dustman81

reply to Bob Elek
I used to have Verizon DSL + voice but switched to standalone DSL and a VOiP voice provider because it is much cheaper, with better features and equal reliability.

If I move, cable Internet will probably be cheaper than Verizon DSL + unwanted voice, so I will probably switch to cable, and Verizon will lose a customer.

Assuming Verizon makes money providing DSL-only service, losing customers like me doesn't seem to be a smart move by Verizon.

reply to Crookshanks
Verizon CDMA 1x. Seriously, no one wants landlines. No one wants another phone number, and not being able to reach people in a household directly. They are for old people who haven't made the all-wireless switch yet.

Sure, CDMA 1x can go down, but so can landlines. Cable phone is a disaster. Nowhere near the reliability of cell/POTS.

For a business, if the customers have their cell phone numbers in the first place, or if they have GV set to go to cell phone, who cares?

The savings is not VOIP. The savings is not having a landline in the first place. They are obsolete.

reply to Bob Elek

reply to Bob Elek
Cost control? Yes Bob that's why its now $60.00 to get a 384K*1024K line now instead of the 14.99 "price for life" that Verizon used to offer.

I can get 5*30Mbit cable from Time Warner for 49.99....

reply to rtfm
Victims? Dude, I would LOVE to have FIOS. Why all the haters?

reply to Bob Elek
Dear Mr. Elek:

Perhaps if Verizon's copper voice product offerings weren't stuck in 1992 you'd have less blow-back regarding this change, and reduced defection to VoIP competitors overall. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for your copper service to not match the features of VoIP services feature for feature after a decade of various efforts, and at a price point no more than $5 or $10 greater to cover plant servicing. Promote that as a premium for copper voice being more reliable than cableco or wireless in the event of weather or other unusual situations. Keep a bare-bones copper voice tier for seniors/disabled/low-income that costs $10 or less with an optional $5 basic 1M Internet tier if they want it.

Sex-up your Freedom packages with all calling features AND DSL as standard. Roll-out CallAssistant across the board (getting rid of stupid impediments like it not being compatible with virtual number service), or get in bed with Google Voice and come up with a solution to replace CallAssistant.

The entry-level copper voice/DSL bundle goes for $35.99 includes unlimited local/regional and up to 7M DSL; next step up is unlimited US & Canada LD and up to 15M DSL for $45.99; and an International calling tier for $55.99. If an address can't get DSL service, provide a fixed LTE solution for the same price WITHOUT CAPS.

Offer a femto gizmo THAT DOES NOT EAT CELL MINUTES for FREE on the 7M & 15M DSL bundles since that offloads traffic from your kissing-cousin's wireless network.

Lastly, for those who might want a video option but can't use DirecTV (such as people in MDUs who don't face south), offer Flexview for an extra $20.

Since Verizon says it doesn't intend to rollout FiOS beyond where it already is, an approach such as this would once again make copper attractive and worthwhile both for consumers and Verizon. The costs of reworking the products would be negligible...probably much cheaper than selling-off copper markets.
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."

Problem is, VOIP is like $3/mo (Ooma). Why femto? What about just doing wifi calling on the phone itself?

Not everyone has a wifi-capable phone, or wants to use a voip client instead of their cell number.

Ooma may cost $3 but most services still cost more than that. And that price point won't support plant maintenance.
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."

All smartphones from the last 5+ years are Wifi capable. T-Mobile does it this way, and it's one of the few high points of their otherwise lousy service and network.

I'm not making the argument that $3/mo would support plant maintenance. I'm just saying that Ooma is the competition, and that's what the telcos have to deal with. Really, the fact of the matter is that voice service is nearly fully commoditized, and the commoditized price is near $0. As a result, they need to do internet and TV, since internet is the fundamental pipe, and usually duopoly, and TV still has good margins. In order to effectively do that, they need FTTH.

You are again making the erroneous assumption that everyone has a smartphone. Many people don't. Even those that do have them do not universally have a voip client.
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."