dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
SBC: Few Want Naked DSL
Customers 'interested in bundled services'
by whocares0 09:00AM Tuesday May 24 2005
As users move toward VoIP or cell only, many are looking for DSL service without local service (naked DSL) and are finding it isn't offered, notes the Houston Chronicle. "We haven't seen a significant market demand for it, and our customers show us increasingly they are interested in bundled services", says Andy Shaw, a spokesman for SBC in San Antonio.

view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
Dissman

join:2001-04-26
Alexandria, VA

Few want naked DSL?

Well, we dont want *forced* bundling either. To get the special discount rate, you have to be signed up to a near perpetual contract with some obnoxiously expensive phone plan or with Dish Network. Plus, i'm stuck with a phone line that i dont even use that costs me like $15.00 a month. SBC internet at $53.95 a month is no deal.

richdelb
Go Hawks Go
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL

Re: Few want naked DSL?

DSL Doesn't even exist in my mind, unless I can get it without needing a POTS line. It simply is not an option, no matter the speed, or cost.

I have no need for a POTS line. Why pay all that extra money for DSL? It's simply a surcharge. $29.95 a month for DSL PLUS 15 extra bucks for a land line? (and all it's taxes and "fees") (On a side note, one could argue that a POTS line is just another SBC created fee for the use of it's DSL service...)

Thanks, really, but I'll pass on DSL.

Look.. I am paying for cable internet, so the cost isn't the issue for me. It's the fact that I'd have to pay for something that I DO NOT WANT, in order to get what I do want.

I'm making no judgement on the ACTUAL DSL service here, just to be clear...

mahony

join:2000-06-24
Modesto, CA

Re: Few want naked DSL?

Richdelb said
"Look.. I am paying for cable internet, so the cost isn't the issue for me. It's the fact that I'd have to pay for something that I DO NOT WANT, in order to get what I do want."

Keep paying for cable/sat, you pay for about 100 channels you newver watch. Whan will they have a a la carte TV service? I am tired of paying for HGTV and other channels I never watch.

richdelb
Go Hawks Go
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL

Re: Few want naked DSL?

said by mahony:

Richdelb said
Keep paying for cable/sat, you pay for about 100 channels you newver watch. Whan will they have a a la carte TV service? I am tired of paying for HGTV and other channels I never watch.
Sure got that right, but with a cable I DO use /want some of those channels.

With a POTS line, I don't want it at all, so the comparison is not the same.

A la Carte cable / sat is something that I support 100% but that's not really what the topic is about.

skider861234

@mindspring.com
Funny that I was happy with my SBC DSL service, but no longer needed the landline. I asked if I could "go naked" and SBC said "no", so I moved to cable technology...wonder if I show up on their metrics as "no demand"???

Maxeh
Woot?
Premium
join:2002-12-23
Chicago, IL

i'd drop

I'd drop local (almost 40$) a month, faster then your leetest curry (teh scene joke). In the past year i have never touched my home phone, i just used my cell and skype.

rarely anyone in my home uses the home telephone line, so if i had the option of converting it to a $20 voip line, i'd jump right on it
mlundin

join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS

Re: i'd drop

said by Maxeh:

I'd drop local (almost 40$) a month, faster then your leetest curry (teh scene joke). In the past year i have never touched my home phone, i just used my cell and skype.
I'm in the same boat...I'd drop my land line like a hot potato given the first opportunity. And on second thought, if there isn't much demand for it, then what's the problem offering it to those who do? It won't damage their business and marketing plan too much if only a few want it, and it really can't be a whole lot harder than changing a few settings in their billing software. Hell, they might even gain a few customers. I fail to see why these companies have an issue with doing this unless there truly is demand and they are afraid of losing something by offering the choice.
RJ44

join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN

Re: i'd drop

said by mlundin:

And on second thought, if there isn't much demand for it, then what's the problem offering it to those who do? It won't damage their business and marketing plan too much if only a few want it, and it really can't be a whole lot harder than changing a few settings in their billing software.
The old "flip a switch" argument huh? I suspect making a few changes to billing software requires a whole lot more time, effort, and money than you think it does.

I've always said, if the phone companies thought they could make a profit on naked DSL they'd offer it. Period.

RJ

dsl_joe

@dsl.ipltin.ameritech
I would do that too.

dleehend
Howdy
Premium
join:2002-03-11
Malvern, AR
said by Maxeh:

I'd drop local (almost 40$) a month
How do you get your local up to $40 per month, if you never use it?

My local, with all fees & taxes, is less than $20. Of course I will not bite on their bundle phone service promotions.

Sounds like you are paying for more that just a local land line.

I get my DSL for $19.96 and only have what is absolutely necessary to get the local line. I did add the $4 for 60 minutes of long distance about a month ago. My total bill, DSL, local, distance, is only about $45.

Basically I have a $22 local line with 60 minutes of long distance + $20 DSL.
--
Live carefully today! Tonight you may answer for your actions.
rtkeen

join:2001-08-02
Indianapolis, IN

Bundled services

I guess it depends on how the services are bundled.

Vonage offers bundled services. But those bundled services are offered at 1/3 the cost of the same bundle from SBC.

We don't want SBC's bundled services ...

J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI

Re: Bundled services

said by rtkeen:

Vonage offers bundled services.
Maybe it is a case of semantics, but I tend to view Vonage as offering bundled features versus bundled services. If one looks at the video, data, and voice triad as services, Vonage only offers one - voice and also requires that the customer already has a data service for connectivity.

While YMMV, the features of my voice services from SBC and Vonage are pretty much equivalent (not including e911), with my monthly Vonage bill at 40% of the voice portion of my SBC bill. Then again, SBC is a stand alone service and Vonage requires that I purchase broadband service from a third party in order to be functional. Total monthly cost for Vonage would need to include some kind of allocation of broadband cost for anything resembling an apples to apples comparison.

Riss_Centaur
Mod'taur - - - - 4 On The Floor.
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2005-07
join:2004-01-20
Chicago, IL

Naked SBC

You sure find demand for it online here: »When will SBC get naked?
-Riss
--
I have a plan so cunning you can pin a tail on it and call it a weasel!

MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX

???

Not many would but would it really cost them that much to cut special services from them (like they already do) to sell it?

ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

And where...

is he getting his info?? How about some solid evidence and not just something you decided to pick out your arse Mr. Shaw!!!
--
FWD#: 223611
GhostDoggy

join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA

Like the Devil saying ...

People WANT to come to Hell and not boring Heaven.
markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
Reviews:
·Charter

That is to funny.

Andy Shaw to hire better researchers. Or give up the drugs.

What next you going to pull what cable companies did, but tell people if they go wireless you will get cancer and die?

Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Cross Plains, WI

What?

Isn't this coming from the same company that likes to distribute lies through loaded polls?

What they REALLY meant was "customers don't want naked DSL because they don't want to be forced into using cingular as their cell phone provider and they don't want to pay outrageous monthly fees for naked DSL."

woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

hmmmm...........

Their paradigm (sic) is bundling....it's harder to change when everything is tied together.....this is everyones (Telco/cableco) business model....they present it as a savings to the customer.... when it really isn't ......once they have you, try to change.....I have sbc for local, att long distance, cingular for cell, Covad for dsl....., I get bum rushed every month to combine.....never will.....my phone service has been great...same phone for 30 years.....use my cell for long distance, no xtra charge....dsl only a couple glitches in 5 years...I don't like to waste money, but can afford current set up....dsl is on fax line, not my regular line....I could probably save some money by combining, but screwem....and they must of pulled the info from someones arse....
--
BlooMe

Tiggercharm

@165.252.x.x

DSL should get naked

I don't make enough calls to warrent a land line as well as a cellular. My obvious choice was cable modem. DSL would have been viable if it were naked. Truth be told SBC is increasingly interested in offering bundled services. Lock down the customer on as many products as they can!
bac522

join:2003-08-04
Manchester, NH

Re: DSL should get naked

said by Tiggercharm:

I don't make enough calls to warrent a land line as well as a cellular. My obvious choice was cable modem. DSL would have been viable if it were naked. Truth be told SBC is increasingly interested in offering bundled services. Lock down the customer on as many products as they can!
And your cable modem is not a force bundle

imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI

Re: DSL should get naked

said by bac522:

And your cable modem is not a force bundle
More than likely not. Most cable companies do not require you to have tv service to get internet, unlike SBC who requires an active phone line to get DSL otherwise your SOL, or you have to pay the Speakeasy "rape" charges for a naked service.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: DSL should get naked

said by imrf:

said by bac522:

And your cable modem is not a force bundle
More than likely not. Most cable companies do not require you to have tv service to get internet, unlike SBC who requires an active phone line to get DSL otherwise your SOL, or you have to pay the Speakeasy "rape" charges for a naked service.
OTOH Cable Companies DO charge you a fee for not having their TV Service (ie: If you have both you get a "Discount" off your Cable Internet fee which is a way to make the fee not look like a penalty for having Naked Cable Internet).

imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI

Re: DSL should get naked

said by RARPSL:

OTOH Cable Companies DO charge you a fee for not having their TV Service
Some do some don't. Some charge $5, some $15. The hit for not having an SBC line is much more than the cable hit around here, your area may be different.
markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO

Re: DSL should get naked

Most major ones do though, thats the whole thing.

I don't feel so bad downloading TV episodes online when im paying $10 extra a month for NOT having TV. I download House, Alias, Scrubs. That about covers my $10 i don't want to pay..

justaminute

@comcast.net
Some cable companies charge extra if you don't take cable from them for broadband internet.

TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL

Bundle up one service please.

Great---how about you Bells bundle up just one service for me? Thanks...

mahony

join:2000-06-24
Modesto, CA

Re: Bundle up one service please.

Richdelb said
"Look.. I am paying for cable internet, so the cost isn't the issue for me. It's the fact that I'd have to pay for something that I DO NOT WANT, in order to get what I do want."

Keep paying for cable/sat, you pay for about 100 channels you never watch. When will they have a a la carte TV service? I am tired of paying for HGTV and other channels I never watch.
remusrm

join:2003-04-07
Beverly Hills, CA

Re: Bundle up one service please.

i want naked dsl. i pay close to 40 bucks for the damn land line that i do not even use. only keept it for cheap international rates...
jdir

join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA

How did they do the study?

I sure want naked DSL. It better be $9.95 a month

wolfox
Gentle Wolfox

join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL

I'm calling Bullsh*t on SBC...

I have asked for years, as do many in the SBC forum for unbundled services. SBC has hemmed and hawed for years on the subject, claiming bogus scientific and/or legislative reasons. When my payment lapsed on a DSL provisioned line some 4+ years ago - they wasted no time disconnecting my voice services. Took them an additional 3 MONTHS to turn off my DSL completely.

Give us want we want... Take it off baby bell. Take it all off and show me naked copper. I would GLADLY ditch my UNUSED voice services that are MANDATORY for DSL sign-up. Figure they would cut me a break since I just happen to have and use a Cingular wireless phone, right here in my pocket.
--
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL!

warriors
It's A Great Time Out

join:2001-06-05
San Jose, CA

Re: I'm calling Bullsh*t on SBC...

Is there something we can do to tell SBC that there are a hugh number of us who want naked DSL?
tiamold8

join:2004-07-21
Tucson, AZ

Re: I'm calling Bullsh*t on SBC...

Sure, get a whole bunch of people, and go riot outside SBC headquarters.
I actually wouldn't mind doing that, lol.

XBL2009
------

join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL

Yes I want naked DSL ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

YES I WANT NAKED DSL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. DSL

2. Cell Phone

3. Dish Network

That is all I need, I have no use for a landline !!!!!!!!!!



bbandbrat
Big Broadband Everywhere - Firstmile.Us
Premium
join:2005-04-05
USA

They have to be kidding

No significant market demand?!?!?! What are they basing that on, the fact that they have a monopoly in their service areas where they provide DSL? Maybe, just maybe they could consider that what people want, since they essentially have no choice in telco providers, is not to be forced into a bundle of over $100 a month for phone and internet just to get DSL.

Hello????

SatelliteMan
This Aint No Rag... It's A Flag.

join:2002-05-09
Franklin, NC

Why no land line?

I would never trust a cellphone as my only calling option, ever. Where I live, there isn't a cellphone signal for atleast a mile radius. In the case of an emergency, I wouldn't want to risk having a dead battery. Imagine if the power went out for a week, and you couldn't recharge your cellphone... With my POTS line, I know that my phone is always going to work.
--
Walmart.com - Always Low Prices!

•••
fkittred

join:2002-01-24
Biddeford, ME

Our Experiences offering Naked DSL

We started offering Naked DSL about a month ago. We now
offer three different voice configurations: Naked DSL (We call it "Solo"), GWI Voice/DSL and Verizon Voice/DSL (often called "Lineshare".) Pricing is:

3meg/1meg Service: Naked $39.95, GWI Voice $29.95, Verizon Voice $34.95

5meg/1meg Service: Naked $44.95, GWI Voice $34.95, Verizon Voice $39.95

8meg/1meg Service: Naked $54.95, GWI Voice $44.95, Verizon Voice $49.95

Verizon charges us ~$15 per month for a bare copper phone line and $5 per month if we "LineShare" our DSL with their Voice.

We have not advertised this Naked DSL service. I couldn't even find it on our web page without using the search option.

So far, the demand for the service has been moderately good. The vast majority of our customers seem to want "GWI Voice/DSL", but a reasonable number have chosen "Solo". Considering that we do not advertise the service, and you can only get it by asking, this is a sign of good demand.

If you are wondering why we don't advertise "Solo", the reason is that we are new to the Voice market and are trying to put as much distance as possible between us and VoIP providers. We do not want the public to think we have anything to do with VoIP. Later in the year, I think we will push Solo harder. Again, I believe the demand is there.
--
Fletcher KittredgeGreat Works Internet8 Pomerleau St.Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
bbandbrat
Big Broadband Everywhere - Firstmile.Us
Premium
join:2005-04-05
USA

Re: Our Experiences offering Naked DSL

Verizon may offer naked DSL where you are but they do not where I am, southern CA. The bundle required to get DSL takes my $30 landline to over $110.00 per month because it includes all the bells whistles, which I don't need and wouldn't use.

Today, my combined Phone, Cable and cable modem is around $120. If I went with Verizon's DSL it would be over $160.

I'd rather have DSL, but not at the costs of the required bundle.

Frustrated

dslwanter
It's coming
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Mineral Ridge, OH

Options.

Everyone is entitled to options. I am in strong support of the landline but I feel, even for those who are stupid enough to ditch their landline for VOIP and/or cell phone, should be allowed to get a naked DSL line if they want. Perhaps maybe SBC could offer it but at a higher price to make up for the difference with not having POTS.
--
"and he will raise you up, on eagles wings, there you are the breath of dawn, make you to shine like the sun, and hold you in the palm, of his hands"

FTCXtreme

join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA

Consider the eyes of most people

Most people are not like us on BBR, The have POTS and Cable TV. Most do not use VOIP. Most have a cell phone and house phone. You have to think fo what most people see, They dont see, the fact the Cable and Bells are competing over phone. They see Cable TV, Cable HSI, POTS, DSL. Think of it. I dont really care for naked DSL, I myself dont see VOIP's superiority over POTS besides pricing, and the fact you can use it almost anywhere theres broadband. With POTS, you have service after the power goes out VOIP, maybe if you're lucky. POTS 911 works perfectly fine. VOIP, if you're lucky you can set it up to work okay. I don't see anything VOIP can do that a POTS can't, maybe Video phone. With a POTS and Cellphone, I do do everythign VOIP can do.

Fatal vector

@aol.com

Re: Consider the eyes of most people


Not only that, but no one says you HAVE to go for the bundling scam, such as unlimited long distance and every lame, useless "feature" you can think of for $50 a month, WETHER YOU USE THEM OR NOT YOU STILL PAY FOR THEM. That's why they are so heavilly promoted. They know the lazy and clueless will go for getting ripped.

You can, still, get just a basic line with no frills. Just stick a machine on it and you're good to go. I have a cell, it was AT&T and it's now Cingular. I dont notice any difference other than I seem to never be roaming any more and my price hasn't changed. Works for me.

It's simply a matter of patiently wading through all the marketing crap and cherry picking what you need/want.

And I have the forementioned basic line with 19.95 DSL from SBC. It costs about $45 a month. I keep the line because it works-Just as it did in the northwest blackout a couple of years ago-My cell failed immediately because there were no operational cell sites. VOIP would have too, because no power to run a computer, never mind being able to connect to the internet. Besides, we've had the same phone number for 30 years.