Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | FTTP?
Is this only for DSL customers or can FTTP customers order it also? |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
1 edit | ATT naked dsl
i tried to get naked dsl from ATT but they upped the price 20 bucks more per plan. thats no help. and if not the minimum phone plan i have to get is 13$ and i don't use a home phone. i said forget that and got "naked cable" from time warner. they think they are pushing people to their other plans, they actually pushed business away from them.
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com
Help me get free trades.3 free if you sign up, $7 after. PM Me |
|
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
| This absolutely pisses me off. AT&T is doing a "trial" of naked dsl? WTF does that mean? They have always said that they were unable to do dsl if there was not a phone line. What does one have to do with the other? There is copper to 99% of the houses in America!! This is FORCED bundling!!!! Its unethical and unnecessary.
So now we are suppose to be happy becase they are considering naked dsl where they see it will be profitable? Where is the PUC on this?
I hope the cable companies beat the hell out of both of the telcos. And naked dsl has always been a really sore spot with me. It's forced bundling to make sure that the telcos dont lose as much market shre to cell phones and VOIP and it benefits noone but the telcos so that they can kick more money into the lobbyists and attack vertical markets rather than improving the telecom infastructure. |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | Very sketchy practices...
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...?
And second of all, the merger terms are disgusting. They needed 12 months to unroll naked DSL? BS, you could unroll that in 24 hours after the merger.
Finally, it's ridiculous that the price of the current "hidden" 768kpbs is $10 with phone service and they're claiming "nobody wants it", while the naked tier they're planning to roll out is $20/month. Double the price!? Brilliant, that will have the customers running to you in hordes!
Crooks.
--
....where's my fiber? |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| 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...? And second of all, the merger terms are disgusting. They needed 12 months to unroll naked DSL? BS, you could unroll that in 24 hours after the merger. Finally, it's ridiculous that the price of the current "hidden" 768kpbs is $10 with phone service, and the naked tier they're planning to roll out is $20/month. Double the price!? Crooks. A warning against setting up a dsl line just so you can do an end-run around getting phone service from them.. they double your price to make there less of an incentive. However.. there's nothing saying you couldn't subscribe to a cablemodem for another $20 and have bandwidth to spare with some QOS under their competitor. |
|
dot_null
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Kennesaw, GA
 ·Callcentric
·Comcast
·VoiceStick
·AT&T Southeast
| Very Smooth Transition
I posted the screenshot attached above after switching to BUN97.  I called up at&t and the CSR knew exactly what I was referring to when I said "BUN97". Since the description has "retention" in it, I'm thinking it may have something to do with the CSR waiving the $5 fee associated with the naked DSL. |
|
cysco24
| Would have been nice
This is why I got cable when i moved into a new place. Don't need a phone line.
If they would have offered naked DSL and just adding 5 bucks I would have jumped on that in a second.
But they didn't, and now comcast is getting my money. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| I disagree with Comcasts assessment
I think that Stand alone DSL is a threat to their business and why the Telco's haven't really pursued it before now is really beyond me.
And, the even bigger question is, why comcast hasn't realized this and gotten agressive with a lower tiered structure of their own is also beyond me.
For whatever reason, comcast has simply refused to come down and play hardball with DSL at the lower tier levels.
Unless, of course..you refer to their 384k (some say it might be now going to 768k soon) tier..that they sell at a whopping value price of about 25.00 per month.
And, it's been the most untalked about tier i think in the history of cable..often times reserved only as a last resort for folks who don't want to pay 43 to 53.00 per month for their regular and enhanced package.
Meanwhile...AT&T and others, out of necessity..have been all about their low speed..low priced tiers.
10.00 ~ 25.00 for 768k to 3Mb.
Not a bad deal at all..until you factor in..the dreaded landline.
Really, what AT&T and others need to do..today..is to just drop that requirement..realize that many people are not using their DSL service BECAUSE of that..and basically..get with the program.
There ARE cable customers out there who want a lower bill...and who wouldn't mind taking the slower speeds to go along with it.
Just as there are cable customers like myself..who see the value in staying with the higher tiers.
Is choice really such a bad thing for these companies?
What comcast needs to do..right now..is recognize this..
and start to compete on the lower end as well.
Get with the 768k to 3Mb programs...at competitive prices.
And, what Telco needs to do is to drop the landline requirements.
And just face it. Lot's of people will never go back to them.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to tmc8080
Re: Very sketchy practices...
Its not always about the bandwidth... but about the price.
$120/year vs. $360/year.
For some that do basic email / eBay and are dialup converts.. they may not want to pay extra for something they don't really use. How many out there take FULL advantage of the more than 6Mbps on their plans ? |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to T1 Rocky
Re: ATT naked dsl
said by T1 Rocky :This absolutely pisses me off. AT&T is doing a "trial" of naked dsl? WTF does that mean? They have always said that they were unable to do dsl if there was not a phone line. What does one have to do with the other? There is copper to 99% of the houses in America!! This is FORCED bundling!!!! Its unethical and unnecessary. So now we are suppose to be happy becase they are considering naked dsl where they see it will be profitable? Where is the PUC on this? I hope the cable companies beat the hell out of both of the telcos. And naked dsl has always been a really sore spot with me. It's forced bundling to make sure that the telcos dont lose as much market shre to cell phones and VOIP and it benefits noone but the telcos so that they can kick more money into the lobbyists and attack vertical markets rather than improving the telecom infastructure. On the flip side you have cable companies either charging more for their service if you don't have basic cable OR they say they won't add cable internet if you don't already have cable. Seems that both broadband providers are doing their best to fleece consumers. I suppose if you just want to use a cell phone and if you have satellite TV, then you are going to be paying more for broadband one way or the other. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Rick
Re: I disagree with Comcasts assessment
said by Rick :I think that Stand alone DSL is a threat to their business and why the Telco's haven't really pursued it before now is really beyond me. And, the even bigger question is, why comcast hasn't realized this and gotten agressive with a lower tiered structure of their own is also beyond me. For whatever reason, comcast has simply refused to come down and play hardball with DSL at the lower tier levels. The main reason why is because the technologies are so different. DSL is not available as widely as cable is. Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better, but its got the distance factor on its side which means it can get access to more customers. Take my parents for example. They live in a very small town and have no DSL options. They do have cable internet though, but they must pay the $42.95 for it.
Now if SBC figured out a way to increase their distance on their DSL or some kind of other fast internet, then you would see a price war. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs: | well ya know
if comcast saw me naked they might consider it a terrorist act, and a threat. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to Rick
Re: I disagree with Comcasts assessment
All companies want $$$
It comes down to what service people will pay for.
MOST people will pay for TV service (HD service for those that paid for HD sets).
Some people will pay for phone service - many think its overpriced... VoIP is basically killing POTS. POTS is regulated, so it won't change, and Telco isn't profiting. Uverse (i.e. no connection to the CO physically) removes the regulated part, and Telco can attempt to make $$$ if they do their job right.
DSL on its own, HSI on its own ? It exists, BUT, there's a cap on profits (i.e. no 'PPV' add on, no HD add on, no DVR), and none of these companies break out the basic infrastructure costs (i.e. the cost of maintaining the line).
AT&T is attempting to have their cake and eat it too...Uverse + DSL and POTS/LD. They haven't marketed CallVantage VoIP with Uverse AT ALL, most likely assuming the average person would keep their POTS line. BAD
None of the companies want 'lower' prices.. but they'll combine items to give you a lower per item cost, as long as they get more money, they'll be happy.
If AT&T offered 'naked dsl' here for $5 more than the existing, I'd take it, and keep my TV service on DirecTv.
Monthly bill:
DTV (3 tuners +package): $50.40
DSL $29.95
VoIP $24.95
Cellphone (already have it): $60 (after taxes on 2 lines) |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Nightfall
Re: ATT naked dsl
6 of 1, half dozen of the other.. Some say charing more for their service with out the CORE BUSINESS product, but many, outside of BBR, will say it's a discount since HSI service is the higher price. But, I know that people like to view the lowest price (no matter what you have to do to get it) as the actual price.
At least with cable, you can get "naked" service... to date, the ONLY real company that offers naked DSL is Qwest. Like them or hate them, Qwest has always provided a rock solid DSL service with out any of the bullSh*t troubles, hassle, port blocking, stipulations, and they also did away with contracts.
So.. where is Verizon and AT&T on this one?? playing games.. that's where.
TRIAL of naked DSL?? For what reason... technical reasons?? Qwest already did their trial.. they want to see how this will harm them IF they go stand-alone DSL.
Again, like or hate cable, they are not using HSI as a retention tool like AT&T and VZ is doing... those two phone providers see their DSL as a way to keep a customer on their phone service and away from cable.. that's all.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
Re: I disagree with Comcasts assessment
"Cable providers have always known that their technology isn't better"....
.. are you kidding me with that? You're in MI and I know the service up there via cable isn't the greatest.. however, there are MANY locations where cable service is rock solid where the system is well designed, well maintained, and operated correctly. I have my hands on and access to hundreds of different HSI installs including both cable and DSL from all providers from Comcast, TWC, Cox, Charter, MediaCrap, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Huxley Com, SureWest and others... and to be honest, I've seen PLENTY of cable accounts that have better speeds, faster ping times and just all around more reliable than other DSL installs.
The moral to the story is that ANY 'network' connection is only as good as the individual installation and ANY WAN connection can suck under the right conditions.
But to say that cable technology isn't better?? that's reaching.
As for your parent comment.. let me counter that to you.. in the middle of Wisconsin, just east of Wassau, the ONLY internet connection, way out in the boonies, IS DSL.. cable is almost non-existent. But, $42.95 for HSI? A drop in the bucket. Back in 1999, I was paying $300 to install DSL, 1 Year commit, $150 for the modem, and $89.99 a month for the service.. all for an up to 1.5 x 128 line. $40 a month for service is MORE than a good price for what you get.
SBC can increase their distance on DSL.. install remote terminals! They don't want to ... in Sacramento CA.. the capitol of the 3rd largest state in the nation, there is a HUGE black hole in South Sacramento / Freeport-Fruitridge area. There are three COs that serve almost a 12 mile linear range.. and both COs are at opposite ends of town.. They've promised RTs for about 7 years now and still nothing.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
Frank H
@undencontroller.de
| American Supersizing
Bill Ferry said: "We welcome any competition, [we] have a superior product at a competitive price. Our product is much faster."
Mr. Ferry, what you fail to realize is that I don't care for a faster package. Basic Internet service for $20 is enough. Unfortunately, this "supersizing" has become a familiar experience for me in the US, where the cheapest cell phone plans costs $40/month and half my minutes go unused every month and where a cup of coffee is $3 and takes me hours to consume. Were you to live for a few months in Europe (and, I suspect, in many other places), you would see that with prepaid SIM cards it's typical to pay $15/month for cell phone service and a small coffee can be had for $1. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| reply to en102
Re: Very sketchy practices...
said by en102 :For some that do basic email / eBay and are dialup converts.. they may not want to pay extra for something they don't really use. But when you actually look at the prices, you have to decide if you want to pay LESS for something you don't use, or MORE for something you don't get at all.
Here in Austin it is cheaper to get metered rate phone PLUS DSL than it is to get naked DSL alone. And even if you are insane enough to pay more for less, they don't offer the top tier naked.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
Zerny
join:2007-05-04
Fort Gratiot, MI
| reply to Raptor
I wish they would rule about cable doing that, I was in a pinch with my money recently and i called comcast to elminate my TV service for awhile to save money, the lady on the phone told me that if i didnt have TV service on the line the price of the internet service would go from 29.99 to 60 bucks a money.
seems like complete BS... |
|
David803sc
Premium
join:2001-02-22
Charleston, SC
| South Carolina
Me and my neighbor switched and got Naked DSL here in South Carolina from AT&T I have DSL xtreme 6.0 and he has xtreme 3.0 with either xtreme package they take $10 off the naked line charge of $15 making it just $5 extra dollars. not bad.
--
Cable Modem 7 Mbps x 768 Kbps, Linksys RVS4000, 2 Linksys 5 Port Gigabit Switches, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP Media Center Edition, MAC OS X, MSNTV2, Xbox 360, Vonage Linksys PAP2v2. |
|
fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering | I agree with Comcast on this one!
With AT&T's current offerings, Comcast will step all over them. Just my 1 cent.
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary. |
|
