Will Naked DSL Be an AT&T Merger Condition? Playing the FCC approval guessing game Sunday Oct 15 2006 11:08 EDT There's lots of discussion over what concessions AT&T will need to make in order to gain FCC approval for their merger with BellSouth ( Business Week, Consumer Affairs). With the FCC's third Conservative commissioner recused for previous CLEC lobbying efforts, the potential for a 2-2 partisan split vote means FCC chief Kevin Martin and AT&T will have to make a deal with the FCC's Democrats. Possibilities include forcing the telco to offer naked DSL nationally (still limited availability), divesting some wireless spectrum, or network neutrality provisions. |
hayabusa3303Over 200 mph Premium Member join:2005-06-29 Florence, SC |
......If you could get dsl. Too many places dont have dsl so the merger is pointless to some people getting broadband. | |
| | |
hayapoopa
Anon
2006-Oct-15 11:29 am
Re: ......ummm don't they have more DSLAMs then any other telco?!? | |
| | | |
Re: ......maybe the have very low capacity ones | |
| | | | hayabusa3303Over 200 mph Premium Member join:2005-06-29 Florence, SC |
Re: ......They put glass to my CO 4 years ago guess what still no dsl. LAst time i talked to a tech out here he told me they have no plans to put light down it anytime soon. | |
|
| | dslwanter20 years on this site Premium Member join:2002-12-16 Mineral Ridge, OH ·Armstrong Ubiquiti UniFi AP-LR Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X SFP
|
to hayapoopa
said by hayapoopa :
ummm don't they have more DSLAMs then any other telco?!? What's that matter? Until everyone is served that fact doesn't mean squat to those who are still too far from the central office with no live RT. I think if Mabell, whoops I mean AT&T, wants to get bigger, tough conditions such as coverage wide DSL should be enforced. | |
| | | | |
hayapoopa
Anon
2006-Oct-15 7:05 pm
Re: ......well being in Ohio I guess you wouldn't know about BellSouth's DSL coverage | |
| | | | | dslwanter20 years on this site Premium Member join:2002-12-16 Mineral Ridge, OH ·Armstrong Ubiquiti UniFi AP-LR Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X SFP
1 edit |
Re: ......said by hayapoopa :
well being in Ohio I guess you wouldn't know about BellSouth's DSL coverage Naw really? You don't think I know that ? If AT&T wants to get bigger they need to improve their existing infrastructure first get your customers served first before going for more. Why don't you be a man and register? | |
| | | | | | hayabusa3303Over 200 mph Premium Member join:2005-06-29 Florence, SC |
Re: ......said by dslwanter:said by hayapoopa :
well being in Ohio I guess you wouldn't know about BellSouth's DSL coverage Why don't you be a man and register? Priceless... | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to hayabusa3303
Naked DSL1st: BellSouth Preferred Pack - $29.95;
2nd: "Gov't Mandated & Authorized Charges" - $4.43 ("Federal Excise Tax - $1.11, AL - State & Local Taxes - $2.19, Telecommunication Relay Service - $0.15 Emergency 911 Service - $0.98;
3rd: "Surcharges and Other Fees" - $7.09 ("FCC Authorized Charge for Network Access" - $6.50 and "Federal Universal Service Charge" - $0.59);
4th: DSL Extreme - $37.95;
5th: Gov't Mandated & Authorized Charges (AL - State/Local Tax) - $2.28)
6th: Refund for Regulated Cost Recovery Fee - $-1.82 for FastAccess account.
Total: $79.88
Someone explain to me the logic of any Telco rolling out VoIP, when FCC several months ago pulled the rug out of state commissioner offices over the subject of naked DSL? BellSouth didn't seem to have a problem with in Georgia and Louisiana. That said, it cost $59.95 for the service unbundled.
If you're forced to have a local phone line, where's the logic? Cable subscribers using the service?
We live in an area where you can see the cable TV line, but there isn't enough saturation of homes for the company to run us a line to our home. And if I had cable, I wouldn't own a home phone, period!!! And why? Our cells we use exclusively for long distance calls and literally for all calls. We might answer our phone once a week, with all the crap we get calling from satellite TV to credit cards.
Whether it's T-Mobile, our cellular provider which I understand intends to roll-out Wi-Max, living deep in the woods, we don't have choices like many others do. It pisses us off that companies deliberately make it hard for customers to have choices.
If you live in Phenix City, AL, you know exactly what I'm talking about - 1 cable company monopolizes the entire area.
If you live in Auburn & Opelika, while there is more choice, it amazes us where DSL is offered, like us, deep in the woods, yet others, just across the street from us, no DSL, not even BellSouth, but Alltel.
The Montgomery LATA and Columbus LATA exist here in Lee County, it's long distance if you call your next door neighbor, and no plan they offer can change that, except their unlimited long distance plan, yet if you live in Montgomery and you live where I do, it's free of charge.
I get that where the lines are drawn, what border you live on, etc. this sort of stuff happens.
But it seems to me, every attempt to streamline, make this technology acceptable to all is deliberately made difficult unless you live in big cities.
I understand costs, I really do, but when you sit down and really crunch the numbers, and your neighbor happens to be the last run for CATV and you're not, and the difference in cost is well over $50 a month...it will drive you nuts when you're forced to do things their way.
Naked DSL shouldn't cost $60 in Georgia, when with local service it cost as low as $25, depending on what bundle you have, but my main problem with this tactic is the same as having a food coupon that's worth $1 off. If I buy the product, I save a buck, if I don't buy the product, I save even more. I don't understand the logic Telco use to make you buy their products, when it seems to me all the common sense in the world is to make different technology available...aka choice!
It never seems to matter who it is...like taxes, doesn't matter what state you go to, everybody has a tax or a fee for something...same with the Telcos...everybody has a USF, and there are only subtle differences between them, and only a few dollars when you really do the numbers from one Telco to the next.
And about that AT&T BellSouth merger... amazing to think it was only 20 or so years ago Ma Bell (AT&T) was broke up into all the baby bells and why was it broken up? Have we not learned the lesson...aka Microsoft...it doesn't create software, they buy out smaller and innovative companies and then sell their software under "Microsoft."
I'm done ranting.... Y'all be good! | |
| | | roamer1sticking it out at you join:2001-03-24 Atlanta, GA |
Re: Naked DSLsaid by SnittyKitty2:If you live in Auburn & Opelika, while there is more choice, it amazes us where DSL is offered, like us, deep in the woods, yet others, just across the street from us, no DSL, not even BellSouth, but Alltel. To their credit, BellSouth (and Windstream) do have more rural DSL than some other phone companies, particularly Verizon. The Montgomery LATA and Columbus LATA exist here in Lee County, it's long distance if you call your next door neighbor, and no plan they offer can change that, except their unlimited long distance plan, yet if you live in Montgomery and you live where I do, it's free of charge. The Alabama PSC, who has jurisdiction over intrastate LD, could fix that by passing a "countywide calling" bill similar to what exists in Georgia, Tennessee, and other states...but they won't. Many other areas in Alabama have small/oddly shaped calling areas; Jackson County comes to mind as an area that's a total mess. Naked DSL shouldn't cost $60 in Georgia I could see it costing $5-10 more than DSL with a phone line, to cover the costs of the loop...there's no reason for naked DSL customers to be paying the same they'd pay for DSL and a full phone line, as naked DSL doesn't use the POTS switching infrastructure, only the last-mile copper. -SC | |
|
| |
|
Whats the point...it was a condition of the last merger!Forcing them to offer naked DSL didn't work out so well last time. It was a condition of the SBC/ATT merger, yet few if any have seen it. And those who CAN get it, find it costs more for naked DSL than for DSL plus metered rate service, so its still a pointless concept. | |
| | |
Re: Whats the point...it was a condition of the last merger!Verizon was forced to offer naked DSL as part of its approval to acquire MCI. You can get the fastest (up to 3mbps/768kbps) for $34.95 per month which is $5 more per month than the same speed bundled with telephone. In the long run, you save because even the lowest no-feature telephone plan costs like $17.60 (at least in Baltimore) after those taxes surcharges and fees were added in. So in effect, I was saving $12.60 per month with naked DSL (also called dry-loop dsl) You have to ask to be switched from regular to naked DSL and they make you change phone numbers (which is like a virtual phone number anyway since there is no dialtone). I liked it but I decided to go back to Comcast and pay more for the greater speed (8mbps/768kbps plus the new powerburst with up to 16mbps) (at least until FIOS is available). But anyway, dryloop DSL plus voice over IP is a very economical way of combining internet and umlimited local, long distance and even international phone service (due to the virtually total elimation of taxes surcharges and fees). Wayne | |
| | | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2006-Oct-15 3:52 pm
Re: Whats the point...it was a condition of the last merger!said by wayne8888:Verizon was forced to offer naked DSL as part of its approval to acquire MCI. You can get the fastest (up to 3mbps/768kbps) for $34.95 per month which is $5 more per month than the same speed bundled with telephone. In the long run, you save because even the lowest no-feature telephone plan costs like $17.60 (at least in Baltimore) after those taxes surcharges and fees were added in. So in effect, I was saving $12.60 per month with naked DSL (also called dry-loop dsl) You have to ask to be switched from regular to naked DSL and they make you change phone numbers (which is like a virtual phone number anyway since there is no dialtone). I liked it but I decided to go back to Comcast and pay more for the greater speed (8mbps/768kbps plus the new powerburst with up to 16mbps) (at least until FIOS is available). But anyway, dryloop DSL plus voice over IP is a very economical way of combining internet and umlimited local, long distance and even international phone service (due to the virtually total elimation of taxes surcharges and fees). Wayne Naked DSL may be offered, but it isn't cheap. To get a "naked" DSL line here in KC, i'd have to pay around $15 in other fees. Alternatively, I could get a pay-by-the-minute phone for $7/mo. Add on top of that the $34.95/mo, + taxes and other fees, and my DSL bill would come to $48.17/mo. Add onto that the cost of the modem and installation, and that's more expensive than the 44.95 I pay for cable. Naked DSL comes at a premium, and until I can get DSL without paying an extra fee for "naked" dsl, then i'm stickin with cable. I don't need a goddamned landline. | |
| | | | |
Re: Whats the point...it was a condition of the last merger!I guess the cost of naked DSL depends on where you live and which phone company you have. Here in Baltimore, naked DSL costs exactly $34.95 with only shipping charges on the free modem added if you sign up for a year (month to month is probably $8 more if they follow the pattern of what they charged regular DSL customers for month to month service). Verizon finally eliminated the Federal Universal Ser vice Fund recovery fee, which was $2.83 per month for the 3.0mbps/768kbps plan. At the same time they eliminated that charge they added the Supplier Surcharge of $2.70 per month. After the outcry against this newest charge, they decided to roll back this Supplier Surcharge. So now naked DSL from Verizon costs exactly $34.95 and not a penny more. I hear that Cavalier has naked DSL in areas where they have their IPTV but charge $40.00 compared to $25 for standard DSL. However, as I mentioned above, since I am spoiled by speed, I will stick with Comcast highest speed tier for now (I dropped my naked DSL). But for those who can settle for 3mbps down (with a nice 768kbps up), (and if you are close enough to the CO to actually get nearly those speeds, dry-loop DSL (naked dsl) is a good option at least in this area.
Wayne | |
|
1 recommendation |
Conservatives?Karl,
They're called Republicans. We don't have a Conservative Party here in the US. | |
| | SD6 join:2005-03-26 Pittsburgh, PA |
SD6
Member
2006-Oct-15 12:53 pm
Re: Conservatives?said by rdmiller:Karl, They're called Republicans. We don't have a Conservative Party here in the US. There is a Conservative party in New York State. But unfortunately, most states' political systems are skewed against any party other than Dems or Repubs. » www.cpnys.org/history/hi ··· ory.html | |
| | | |
Re: Conservatives?Is the FCC a New York state organization? No. | |
|
| pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
to rdmiller
said by rdmiller:Karl, They're called Republicans. We don't have a Conservative Party here in the US. Karl should have used a lower-case "c." | |
| | | |
Re: Conservatives?No. He should have used an upper-case 'Republican'. It is the name of the party. | |
| | | | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2006-Oct-16 7:11 am
Re: Conservatives? Conservative is a dirty word to those on the left. Kinda like liberal is a dirty word to those on the right.
| |
| | | | | |
Re: Conservatives?said by morbo:Conservative is a dirty word to those on the left. Kinda like liberal is a dirty word to those on the right. Liberal is a dirty word to most of those on the left as well. Most of them that I hear won't even admit they're liberal. Or they'll hedge it, as in "I'm, you know, kinda liberal." | |
| | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2006-Oct-16 9:35 am
Re: Conservatives?said by footballdude:Liberal is a dirty word to most of those on the left as well. Most of them that I hear won't even admit they're liberal. Or they'll hedge it, as in "I'm, you know, kinda liberal." strange! conservatives i know are doing the same thing with the word conservative. especially now that conservatives are associated with (1) pedophilia with Foley scandal, (2) incompetence in war planning with Iraq/Afghanistan, and (3) fiscal irresponsibility in record deficit and debt. | |
|
|
Naked is RequiredNaked DSL is required to be offered but they have a certain amount of time to offer it and only for one year or two (not sure how many). So what's really the point of having it offered if they're just going to say you only have to offer it for X amount of years and that's it? | |
| owenhomekeeper of the magic blue smoke Premium Member join:2002-07-13 Bentonville, AR |
owenhome
Premium Member
2006-Oct-15 12:39 pm
Hold on a second....Wasn't naked DSL for 2 years a requirement of the SBC/ATT merger????????? | |
| | |
Re: Hold on a second....It was 1 year i thought and they had to install it within 2 years of the merger. | |
| | | Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO something Premium Member join:2004-05-26 Greenwood, IN |
Re: Hold on a second....said by hottboiinnc4:It was 1 year i thought and they had to install it within 2 years of the merger. The SBC/att and Verizon/MCI rulings came with the same requirement. FCC's press release attached for folks with nothing better to read. They had one year to make the offering and had to maintain the offering for two years after it was introduced. There is no requirement for what speeds are offered and at what price. FYI | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to owenhome
said by owenhome:Wasn't naked DSL for 2 years a requirement of the SBC/ATT merger????????? Yea... and I believe some areas got it.. it's all of a $1 savings over having dial tone. | |
|
SD6 join:2005-03-26 Pittsburgh, PA |
SD6
Member
2006-Oct-15 1:00 pm
Divest Wireless SpectrumThey are not going to use it. The other options are just contract/ToS provisions that are easily minimized. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Naked DSL costs more with AT&T already....No point in getting naked DSL. They offer it but it costs more. They should be forced to offer it at a slightly cheaper or equal price as non naked DSL and phone. | |
| jgkolt Premium Member join:2004-02-21 Avon, OH |
jgkolt
Premium Member
2006-Oct-15 3:00 pm
abovei agree | |
| |
3 recommendations |
Re: above
Obviously, they are charging the same for naked DSL because they dont want large adoptation of it during the period they have to to offer it. When the time comes where they dont have to offer it any more, they will just cut off whoever has it by saying it has been a failure and stop offering it.
This is traditional classic Ma Bell at her worst. Some people here are allways blathering how there is comprtition and things have changed. Well, it aint so, pilgrim and nothing has changed. As long as Ma owns all the infrastructure and "long lines" (including satellite links), there IS NO COMPETITION and, when she is back together again, she will show you what monopoly means.
And, this time, there will bo no stopping her, or, breaking her up. Ma is wily and learns her lessons well.
Mark my words and I'll be the first to say "I told you so" when it happens. We are about to get it stuck to us from the rear and it wont be long now.
The only way to stop mega corporations like AT&T is for all of us to band together and that isn't hapening any time soon.
United, we profit, divided, we get dicked. Simple as that (even if it is a bit lurid).
| |
| | | MIRV join:2000-12-01 Louisville, KY |
MIRV
Member
2006-Oct-15 10:44 pm
Re: Post your upgrades/planned upgrades due to BF2'Ding! Ding! Ding!' - We have ourselves a winner. | |
|
Rob AAdjusting Premium Member join:2005-01-17 Pompton Plains, NJ |
Rob A
Premium Member
2006-Oct-15 11:19 pm
Naked DSLShould be enforced on all telcos. | |
| POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA |
POB
Premium Member
2006-Oct-16 12:56 pm
The more things change the more they stay the same-The only entity a merger of 2 behemoth telcos will benefit are the respective criminal CEOs and the shareholders of each corp. The consumer, OTOH, always gets shafted when competition is consolidated. Of course, Bell South and AT&T will peddle the appropriate snake oil and most consumer sheep aren't sufficiently awake to realize how bad they're getting screwed until they realize they're paying $200.00/mo. for basic phone service. | |
|
| |
|
|