dslreports logo
Getting Naked is Expensive in California
When just DSL costs more than DSL & local phone service

As a condition of the AT&T and SBC merger, California regulators required that AT&T offer California consumers "naked DSL," or DSL without force-bundled local phone service. Except, when released last June, AT&T actually charged customers more in some markets for the stand-alone DSL service than it cost to get DSL bundled with local phone service. AT&T at the time said setting that price "is a way to let customers know that buying several services at the same time is always the best value."

Six months later and the Sacramento Bee is annoyed, noting that naked 1.5Mbps DSL there is $50 (after fees), while a local phone and DSL bundle costs $40. "This is not a disincentive," an AT&T rep tells tells the Bee. "We have always been committed to delivering a choice of services." The paper notes that it's not just AT&T:
"The company isn't alone in charging higher rates for naked service. In Sacramento, Comcast charges $43 for its 6-megabit Internet connection when purchased along with cable TV service. Without cable, it's $57 a month. SureWest Communications in Roseville charges about $14 a month more for naked DSL than it does when the connections are bundled with regular phone service."
It's a matter of perspective: Are the lower prices an effort to reward bundling, or an effort to punish customers for refusing to bundle?
view:
topics flat nest 

DreamWraith
Premium Member
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA

1 edit

DreamWraith

Premium Member

not the same

What AT&T is doing is far different from what *edit* comcast *edit* is doing.

Their bundled phone and internet (att) costs less TOTAL than just standalone internet, while comcast, when getting a bundle, even with limited basic cable, costs MORE total.

*edit* for clarity

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

tiger72

Premium Member

Re: not the same

said by DreamWraith:

What AT&T is doing is far different from what cable is doing.

Their bundled phone and internet (att) costs less TOTAL than just standalone internet, while comcast, when getting a bundle, even with limited basic cable, costs MORE total.
don't lump Cable together. TimeWarner is significantly less when bundled.

DreamWraith
Premium Member
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA

1 recommendation

DreamWraith

Premium Member

Re: not the same

that was a mistype on my part. as you can see, in the second sentence i clarified by referring directly to comcast.

SammyBK
I'D Rather Be Skiing
join:2000-09-07
Los Angeles, CA

SammyBK to DreamWraith

Member

to DreamWraith
For me, unbundled, Comcast was $56.95, and was limited to 4mb/384k. If I added limited basic for $10.50, I was paying $53.45 and getting 6mb/384k, plus TV. So yes, worse internet by itself costs more than cable TV + internet through Comcast.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: not the same

I would agree...

Comcast HSI = $56.95 + fees
Comcast basic + HSI = $10.50 + $42.95 = $53.45

AT&T DSL = $49.95
AT&T POTS + DSL = $ $10.30 + $ 19.95 (standard monthly price) = $ 30.25

Comcast basic (not even available in my zip when Comcast was here !!!)

Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26

Fatal Vector

Member

Re: not the same



And all this is news because...? AT&T was doing this the last time this subject was brought up here. At which time I opined that they were doing it to keep it from being used by many customers untill the time came when they dont have to offer it any more, at which time it will simply disappear and AT&T will carry blythely on the way they want to.

Face it. No matter what, they are going to do what the hell they want and you end up screwed. It's as simple as that.

toby
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

toby to en102

Member

to en102
said by en102:

I would agree...

Comcast HSI = $56.95 + fees
Comcast basic + HSI = $10.50 + $42.95 = $53.45

AT&T DSL = $49.95
AT&T POTS + DSL = $ $10.30 + $ 19.95 (standard monthly price) = $ 30.25

Comcast basic (not even available in my zip when Comcast was here !!!)
BUT what taxes and bogus fees do you have to pay when you get dry DSL? It might be cheaper to get dry DSL considering.

DreamWraith
Premium Member
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA

DreamWraith to en102

Premium Member

to en102
LIMITED basic cable is 14.95 here, not 10.50. 10.50 is a steal for limited basic.

Naked cable internet is also only 52.95 plus fees here, so:

hsi = 52.95 + fees
basic + hsi = 42.95 + 14.95 = 57.90 + fees
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

brianiscool

Member

Never got the idea of dry dsl

I never saw a purpose of it cause in Florida also it cost the same if you got the phone line and DSL.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Never got the idea of dry dsl

said by brianiscool:

I never saw a purpose of it cause in Florida also it cost the same if you got the phone line and DSL.
You can't get naked DSL in FL.
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

brianiscool

Member

Re: Never got the idea of dry dsl

Rob you can with Covad.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Never got the idea of dry dsl

said by brianiscool:

Rob you can with Covad.
Not I.

phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

phattieg

Member

Re: Never got the idea of dry dsl

said by Robert:
said by brianiscool:

Rob you can with Covad.
Not I.
Kendall Florida, hmm, lets see, I grew up in Florida, and have never heard of Kendall, I guess that means you're out in the styx.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

3 edits

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Never got the idea of dry dsl

said by phattieg:
said by Robert:
said by brianiscool:

Rob you can with Covad.
Not I.
Kendall Florida, hmm, lets see, I grew up in Florida, and have never heard of Kendall, I guess that means you're out in the styx.
Nope. I live in Miami-Dade. But I live on Kendall. Kendall is so big that is is considered it's own community. I work on Kendall. 'm far from the styx. I'm in the heart of Miami-Dade County. See here: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke ··· _Florida

The reason I can't get Covad is because I have FTTP (Fiber To The Pedestal).
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL

Zoder to brianiscool

Member

to brianiscool
I thought you were going to say it's because it's always raining in Florida

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

woody7

Premium Member

hmmm.....

My DSL is through Earthlink,installed by Covad in SBC territory, I have Cingular as my wireless,ATT as long distance and SBC for local phone,Dish for TV, in RR cable territory (their digital cable is terrible here)...I pay $50 a month for DSL,only cause I don't want to change, cause dsl has been rock solid for over 5 years and am afraid to change, and bundling doesn't save me that much.My DSL is on its own line and if I go to SBC it will be on my regular line and will be crappy service..My city is divided up between SBC and (H)orizon a hold over from GTE Days, so my choices are limited.

Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI

Alakar

Member

Re: hmmm.....

said by woody7:

My DSL is through Earthlink,installed by Covad in SBC territory,
You do realize that your DSL is through AT&T (formerly SBC)? Covad is buying the service from AT&T and reselling it to Earthlink, who sells it to you. That is why your paying $50 a month.
I have Cingular as my wireless,
That's AT&T
ATT as long distance
That's AT&T
and SBC for local phone,
That's AT&T
Dish for TV
AT&T partner, AT&T owns a portion of DISH.
in RR cable territory (their digital cable is terrible here)...I pay $50 a month for DSL,only cause I don't want to change, cause dsl has been rock solid for over 5 years and am afraid to change, and bundling doesn't save me that much.My DSL is on its own line and if I go to SBC it will be on my regular line and will be crappy service
Give AT&T a call. They can bundle everyone of your services together and probably save you a good deal of money. And your DSL should stay just as rock solid.

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

2 edits

woody7

Premium Member

Re: hmmm.....

yes I know, and I will....Do they still do DSL on a separate line? I don't pay extra for it, that is what they did when I first got my dsl...At the time I had Mindspring good ISP, and Covad was doing the dsl for them, will I have to reprovision the line etc?

DSLTech5
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA

DSLTech5

Member

Re: hmmm.....

I'd stick with Earthlink/Covad; at least you know they probably can't afford to give the government a 24/7 backdoor into your data.

LBDSL
Lightning Bolt
join:2002-01-07
Auburn Hills, MI

LBDSL to Alakar

Member

to Alakar
said by Alakar:
said by woody7:

My DSL is through Earthlink,installed by Covad in SBC territory,
You do realize that your DSL is through AT&T (formerly SBC)? Covad is buying the service from AT&T and reselling it to Earthlink, who sells it to you. That is why your paying $50 a month.
Actually that isn't really correct.

If you have DSL through a Covad Partner, it is NOT resold ILEC (at&t) dsl service.

Covad does lease the copper from the ILEC, but that is it, Covad owns their own DSLAM, and has their own IP network.

So an Earthlink/Covad ADSL line, is 100% different then at&t ADSL. Just an FYI.

DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium Member
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA

DaneJasper to Alakar

Premium Member

to Alakar
said by Alakar:

said by woody7:

My DSL is through Earthlink,installed by Covad in SBC territory,
You do realize that your DSL is through AT&T (formerly SBC)? Covad is buying the service from AT&T and reselling it to Earthlink, who sells it to you. That is why your paying $50 a month.
I have Cingular as my wireless,
That's AT&T
ATT as long distance
That's AT&T
and SBC for local phone,
That's AT&T
Dish for TV
AT&T partner, AT&T owns a portion of DISH.
in RR cable territory (their digital cable is terrible here)...I pay $50 a month for DSL,only cause I don't want to change, cause dsl has been rock solid for over 5 years and am afraid to change, and bundling doesn't save me that much.My DSL is on its own line and if I go to SBC it will be on my regular line and will be crappy service
Give AT&T a call. They can bundle everyone of your services together and probably save you a good deal of money. And your DSL should stay just as rock solid.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Using other providers like Covad, Earthlink or Sonic.net is not the same as working with AT&T directly. The copper in the ground is the only AT&T component that Covad uses - DSLAM, backhaul, etc are all their own. Similarly, ISPs that use SBC-ASI or Covad provide their own aggregation termination, IP transit, services, support, billing, etc.

Just because the only copper in the ground is incumbent copper doesn't mean you need to buy the whole kit from them. Be a wise consumer, and shop around.

Here's another way to look at it. By discouraging diversity in the marketplace, you're likely to end up with only one option and no choice. Is that what you'd prefer?

-Dane

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme

MVM

Re: hmmm.....

Dane,

Does ATT/SBC publish the wholesale rates anywhere?

Meaning, what's an ISP wanting to do their own aggregation/transit/customer support/billing pay per line, and how does the discounting go as you buy more lines? What's a DS3 or OC-3 backhaul into their ATM network cost per month (zero mile loop)?

Would I be shocked if the wholesale was near the retail cost? No.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: hmmm.....

"Would I be shocked if the wholesale was near the retail cost? No."

Thanks to the FCC the ILecs could double and triple these rates and NSPs can't do anything about it.

»www.att.com/public_affai ··· r_30.pdf

.............Download.........Upload...........Monthly
Primary+.......Up to 1.5M.....128k to 384k.....$24.13
Basic I......384k to 1.5M.....128k to 384k.....$24.13
Basic +......768k to 1.5M.....256k to 384k.....$37.13
Symmetric....384k to 416k.....384k to 416k.....$57.63
Advanced.....1.5M to 3.0M.....384k to 512k.....$53.13
Premium I....1.5M to 6.0M.....384k to 608k.....$74.34
Advanced+....3.0M to 6.0M.....512k to 768k.....$65.43
(Sorry for all the .s I seem to have failed Tabbing 101 in the forums)

Then you must add the transport from the SBC/ATT network to your aggregater (router) and your bandwidth, and your support, and your modem, and your mail servers, and your web servers, and your dns servers, and don't forget it's about 60 bucks to install it. I didn't keep reading but I believe they will charge you for customers who don't keep the dsl service for x number of months.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Regulators didn't read their own fine print

They said that AT&T had to provide naked DSL as a merger condition. But they didn't say it had to cost less than a package with voice. Sounds to me like the regulators had crappy lawyers and AT&T had good ones. This is an easy decision - you want DSL then get the bundle. You pay less and get voice thrown in for free.

Sircolby450
join:2005-11-26

1 recommendation

Sircolby450

Member

Re: Regulators didn't read their own fine print

"Getting Naked is Expensive in California"

Interesting choice of title lol.

DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium Member
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA

1 recommendation

DaneJasper to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

They said that AT&T had to provide naked DSL as a merger condition. But they didn't say it had to cost less than a package with voice. Sounds to me like the regulators had crappy lawyers and AT&T had good ones. This is an easy decision - you want DSL then get the bundle. You pay less and get voice thrown in for free.
I met with the California regulators prior to this decision, and it was clear that they understood that by failing to set a price requirement on standalone service that they were not achieving anything by requiring it.

It was a political decision, "Look, we did something!", when in fact they did nothing.

-Dane

Mactron
el Camino Real
Premium Member
join:2001-12-16
PRK

Mactron

Premium Member

Re: Regulators didn't read their own fine print

said by DaneJasper:

I met with the California regulators prior to this decision, and it was clear that they understood that by failing to set a price requirement on standalone service that they were not achieving anything by requiring it.

It was a political decision, "Look, we did something!", when in fact they did nothing.

-Dane
Yup that's our wonderful Kalifornia PUC.
Aren't they great...

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

1 recommendation

ropeguru

Premium Member

Re: Regulators didn't read their own fine print

said by Mactron:
said by DaneJasper:

I met with the California regulators prior to this decision, and it was clear that they understood that by failing to set a price requirement on standalone service that they were not achieving anything by requiring it.

It was a political decision, "Look, we did something!", when in fact they did nothing.

-Dane
Yup that's our wonderful Kalifornia PUC.
Aren't they great...
Don't you mean Mexifornia???

TigerNutz
Laissez les bons temps rouler
Premium Member
join:2000-12-23
Little Rock, AR

TigerNutz

Premium Member

well...........

AT&T has to have a little extra coming in from somewhere to compensate poor Mr. Whitacre Jr. ($19.46 million annual)

beck
MVM
join:2002-01-29
On The Road

beck

MVM

Hmmmm

Two months ago I asked to get naked DSL in CA. ATT said they didn't DO naked DSL and I had to pay for phone service too. $5 a month for basic dialtone.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

It's called "Penalty Pricing"

Basically, they want to charge you extra. Hell, they don't want you to have naked DSL at all, but, if you insist, sure, they'll give it to you. Literally. They are going to make sure they take the profit even if you don't want, need, or use the service. I would dump POTS service in a heartbeat if AT&T would let me. It's an extra $30 expense I don't need, but if I want DSL, I have to pay the $30.

Basically, you will pay, or you will pay more, but never will you pay less.

•••

DSLTech5
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA

DSLTech5

Member

a result of no competition

this is exactly why we need competition, so that some other company can provide naked dsl for 40% less than AT&T and that will force them to stop with these ridiculous antics.

if there was only ONE car manufacturer you could go to and they charged you MORe to not have the sunroof option, would you get the option? of course. however, if the same vehicle was available for LESS without that option, then you could forgo the sunroof and save money, if you wanted.

in this case we have a monopoly and there's really nowhere else you can go to get straight copper and dsl on it.

the underlying issues here are that people, by not choosing the bundle, are making a statement about the direction of voice services, and AT&T wants to quash that statement by forcing people to see the bundled service or their voice service as the only logical option. in the end this slows the move to VoIP or cell-phone-only homes, which is a trend AT&T has nightmares about i'm sure.

and soon we'll be able to welcome this practice to all areas that AT&T covers, including bellsouth territories.

another important aspect is what does AT&T charge their competition for that same naked dsl line, in bulk? is it the same as just placing dsl on the voice or is it the same? what do the CLECs pay?

rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA

rahlquist

Member

Re: a result of no competition

DSLTech, I agree we need competition but lets face it until cable and phone companies both offer 100% equivalent services there wont be competition.

As for dialtone/DSL service competition will always be limited to who owns the copper and those who compete on the wholesale level for access to that copper.

Maybe one day we will have a huge wireless mesh network and wont need the telcos at all. This is what I have been hoping will evolve for the past 5 years, a large network of low power wifi like machines interconnecting. This could lead to a new internet evolution and a truly free (as in beer) internet.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

tiger72

Premium Member

Just "some" markets?

I tried signing up for DSL, and they said i would have to either get local service for $12/mo, or pay almost $20/mo extra for their "dry" DSL.

No thanks, I'll keep cable

•••
telcogod9
join:2006-07-07
Houston, TX

telcogod9

Member

it's the surcharges and fees on the landline

after taxes and surcharges and fees the bundle will be what, $70 bucks? And of that additional 30 T keeps maybe 25? That's why they want you to get the phone. Not to mention CABS.

Anonymous88
Premium Member
join:2004-06-01
IA

Anonymous88

Premium Member

Reg required

Man I hate those sites! Next time please add 'reg required' or similar.

Or even better provide bugmenot.com login info

I'll do it this time, but this time only!

user bugmenot
pass bugmenot

»www.sacbee.com

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

Kardinal

Mod

Difference in market, regulatory rules and approach

In Bell Canada territory (Ontario and Quebec, soon to include most of the Maritime provinces as well), naked DSL (aka a "dry loop") costs about $10 when you buy it from a provider other than the ILEC (Bell) along with their DSL service (there are a bunch of providers that offer this, several of whom have reps that regularly post in one of the forums here) while Bell will waive the charge if you take their DSL service (many of the other providers charge less than Bell though). Cablecos were supposed to offer open access to their network but have fought it tooth and nail and, 6 years later, there is one provider using some cableco networks but not all of them by any stretch.

Bottom line: the cost of naked DSL is far less than taking a voice service and a voice service cannot be bundled with DSL due to regulatory restrictions (again, to foster competition). This might be changing in 2007 but that's the way it stands now.

I think the FCC really dropped the ball on this one as making a service available to consumers at a rate higher than the current voice service cost is lip service to the idea of greater variety for consumers but nothing more than that.

•••

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins

MVM

Yeah...

" ... naked 1.5Mbps DSL there is $50 (after fees), while a local phone and DSL bundle costs $40."

Suddenly, Comcast doesn't look all that bad. LOL!
dentman42
Premium Member
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH

dentman42

Premium Member

Re: Yeah...

said by dadkins:

" ... naked 1.5Mbps DSL there is $50 (after fees), while a local phone and DSL bundle costs $40."

Suddenly, Comcast doesn't look all that bad. LOL!

Yeah, but when did AT&T ever blow up somebody's modem, computer, and peripherals?
squid7
Premium Member
join:2006-09-02

squid7 to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
Except here Comcast HSI was $56 to near $80 unbundled depending on the plan.

Titus
Mr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26

Titus

Member

Seems pretty simple

Are the lower prices an effort to reward bundling, or an effort to punish customers for refusing to bundle?

I'd say in the case of naked DSL it's a form of punishment that the marketing bozos would prefer to call incentive; telcos are withing on the vine from competing services/ technologies and when a business gets nervous they show their colors.

With cable it's raw greed because they have no direct competition in the vast majority of markets. Want the Dish but our HSI? Guess what, you're gonna pay more than Carla Cable next door with the goldenboy package spinning up her backside at a C-note a month even though we've got to run the f'n cable anyway no matter what you want.

The bottom line is that there's no viable reason either can't offer naked HSI without price penalty when compared to their bundled pricing except that they can. When more people START unbundling as services become available (read: if we get someone advocating for us w/o their head up the backside of business) maybe these mega-crooks will lower their prices and cut the CEO's comp package from double-digit millions to single digit millions.
squid7
Premium Member
join:2006-09-02

3 edits

squid7

Premium Member

Re: Seems pretty simple

Yep, absolutely it's punishment. Look at Comcast as an example. Where I lived, Comcast after the ATTB takeover raised HSI rates $15 (calling it a "discount') for anyone who has HSI and no CATV. However there was no such $15 increase for those with CATV who didn't have HSI. Why? Because their HSI service was desirable and easy to sell while their CATV service sucked ass and was overpriced. So they fought DBS competitors by making peoples HSI rates high enough to offset any savings CATV customers would get from switching to DBS.

This is no different. By charging more (because they can, not because it actually costs them more) some of these providers are able remove the incentive for customers to move to dry-loop (perhaps to save with VOIP) in the first place.

rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA

rahlquist

Member

Re: Seems pretty simple

Exactly, this is just like the law preventing charging a surcharge for credit card versus cash purchases. Some companies got smart and offered a cash discount but I havent seen that happen for a while either.

dslextreme2
Premium Member
join:2001-02-23
Canoga Park, CA

dslextreme2

Premium Member

The regulators know they are leaving gaping loopholes

They just require naked DSL to look good to consumers. They know full well that the loop holes will be fully utilized.
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA

GhostDoggy

Member

California cost of living and reality check.

If the cost of living in California is twice that as anywhere else then I presume household incomes are inline with that cost of living condition. As such, the price in and of itself is meaningless until you compare it to the average household income.

For instance, if the average in CA is 2.5 times higher than GA while they pay about the same price as I am, then I would find it difficult to sympathize. Its not that I do not get the point of naked DSL being more than bundled, but Californians voted on their politicians, which are responsible for appointing the regulators.

Tough cookies.

••••

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

CylonRed

MVM

Around these parts...

Dry pair has ALWAYS been more expensive - ever since line share DSL was even available. How is this even news...???? This is un-news.

SolarPup
Office365 Rockstar
Premium Member
join:2002-03-07
Windsor, CO

1 edit

SolarPup

Premium Member

Qwest Bundled is worse...

Here's one..

DSL with Qwest and FRII (Local ISP) = 45.95 after fees, regular price.

DSL with Qwest, FRII and Local Phone service bundled = 68.95 after fees, regular price.

I'll stick to the Standalone DSL instead of pay for a phone line through them, and keep my VOIP through an asterisk server.

EDIT: And that's with 7mb down/860 up.