Bellsouth celebrates annoying 8000 customers

....if the Bells just want to be re-regulated.

Well if you people in the south can stand for a cheerleader in the whitehouse, you got exactly what you deserve, too little too late....
the bible thumpers down in the south don't need no broadband, they've got high-speed access to god! Go south!!!
That's right, pollute the envrionment, create war and havoc and get it up the kazule by the most powerful biggest corporations 24/7 faster than you can say republican. All you small fry busineses better watch out, they're gonna build a walmart right in the middle of disneyworld!, woops too late!
And you just wait, we've got a few choice words for OHIO in 2007/8

Wow, that was a pointless rant from a bitter person. Take your political crap to your own blog or where ever you frequent. All of nothing that is being discussed had anything to do with the last paragraph.

I understand the frustration in your post. But to label people in the south as "bible thumpers" and then blame them is ridiculous. It is just as much the democrats fault for catering to too many special interest groups, nominating weak candidates, and isolating the average american. Yes i am sick of the Republicans (i thought i would never say that), but where is the alternatives???

Agreed, hell let's look back previous to the first gulf war, and you'll notice that the house and senate was majority democrats for about 30-40 years. (who cares about the pres, the real law makers are in the house/senate). Not that it matters, Bellsouth has always had it's way with customers.

... can this place get? I mean, the people writing these headlines don't even pretend to be non-partisan and legitimate anymore. This is now just a forum to whine about the incumbents.

Where is the headline saying that BellSouth is field testing 6 megabit service as we type?

Where is the headline saying that they're currently working on changing their accounting systems to support "naked" DSL?

Where is the headline saying that BellSouth just signed their 100th agreement with CLECs to provide shared lines at a cost negotiated by both parties, instead of by the government?

Gee, if you believe the drivel in this headline, you might think that CLECs are being killed off by the Bells. "Zero access for independent ISPs?" What a load of crap.. Anyone who has any tiny bit of understanding of the situation knows that the Bells need the CLECs. Cable is the real competition.

And it sounds like we're getting REAL competition, if you ask me. The markets decide instead of some hacks at the FCC...

Anyone else think that the writers here should at least be SOMEWHAT responsible for what they write? This kind of junk just misinforms and incites the ignorant masses around here.

Adam

Nobody's forcing you to come. You can go to a pro BS site if you want.

What, a site about broadband is supposed to be anti-Bell? who made that rule?

Choose Cable, because the best the protest is not to buy. I wish there was a 3 choice whether it be wifi, or bpl.

And have server ports blocked, invisible caps, and speeds dependant on your neighborhood use? Thanks, but no thanks.

(PS. Yes, I know that properly configured cable networks should have no problem with users, nomatter the neighborhood data traffic load. However, I have come across enough family & friends' receiving "cable leftovers" to steer me away from using cable for my ISP.)

I'm now in the 2nd year of cable, and totally free of BS telco ...and still going strong. There is an alternative to Bells....

In the long term, it doesn't matter if Bell is forced to unbundle or not. If customers really want Internet sans phone, they (or at least the majority) will get it through the local Cableco, so eventually Bell will have to offer DSL naked or have only the relatively few customers who cannot get cable Internet will get it from the Bell.

Maybe one day they will wake up and realize how much money they are losing on VoIP customers and cell phone only customers that would actually pay them for their DSL connection but can't because they don't have a need for POTS.

Here's what it boils down to. BellSouth (or any Bell for that matter) is prolly not going to offer naked dsl until they have the "triple play" infrastructure in place. As soon as they have their own VOIP service worked out, and they are done testing IPTV, then you will see naked DSL. I would venture a guess to say it will probably be about 2 years.

I know a few friends that came up to me and said something the effect of "you know have to have a phone line to get DSL with BellSouth? My roommate and I called Cox instead for our internet." Most of the college people around here in BR don't have a need for land line so BellSouth ends up losing money on not being able to sell them DSL. Oh well...their loss.

... on our way to the bottom, thanks to our government.

Right here in the good old US of A....

And many industries are doing just that--just ask the MPA and RIAA, the oil industry, etc., etc., etc.

No kidding...get in line folks.

Maybe we can make things more efficient, and offer official corporate sponsorship of public officials? That way we at least get to vote on which corporations will be representing "our interests", rather than having to do research or suddenly be "surprized" that they're a puppet for big-donor CorpCo.

While other countries are getting 100 mbit connections, japan working on gbps connections, we're still stuck with 1.5 mbit DSL.

You use DSL, you're forced to buy phone service and usually(not always) have a slower downstream than cable. If you get cable, you have companies such as Comcast who'll send abuse letters, and OOL who'll cap or throttle you if you dare use your connection.

In terms of broadband, we are so backwards it's depressing.

The only downside to all those 100mbps and 1000mbps connections is when they start spewing spam and DDoS attacks with even more ferocity... especially against the comparatively tiny U.S. connections.

If you ask me, a 100 or 1000mbps connection at home is a ridiculous idea in today's world of irresponsible Internet users.

Now if only Verizon could unbundle their service. I can't wait to drop the acid eating my wallet (landline + 20% taxes) of around $50 a month.
Anyway, I believe that Gov't is doing good thing to regulate telecom industry. Imagine what would happen if gov't didn't regulate at all. Probably you would still be browsing at 768/128 and bells would only roll higher speeds if they see enough profit from it.
Competition is good, even if it's forced.

_PROBABLY_ would? Some of us *ARE* browsing at 256/128 @ $40/mo because of this mess.

I wrote them a letter... maybe if more do this will change.

Can someone explain this to me? I am on fiber and while I am not smack in the middle of starter-home, USA I certainly not smack in the middle of multi-million dollar planned golf communities either.

Also, the fiber in my lawn PREVENTS me from getting the forthcoming IPTV, or even BellSouth's XtremeDSL! And for what it is worth, I have a good friend that is in a starter-home community on the same fiber platform that I am on and with the same restrictions.

Sounds like a comment by agenda-driven individuals if you ask me.

I can already get IPTV - »www.iptv.org/

Seems the FCC is still seeking comments on this issue and how it could "adversely effect Consumer choice or competition."

»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_ ··· 78A1.pdf

IV. NOTICE OF INQUIRY
37. The Order, set forth above, addresses a discrete issue of broadband policy relating to section
251(c) obligations for unbundling.120 However, our disposition of the section 251 question does not address broader questions regarding the tying or bundling of services in general that have been raised in the record of this proceeding. In this Notice of Inquiry, we seek to examine the competitive consequences when providers bundle their legacy services with new services, or “tie” such services together such that the services are not available independent from one another to end users. We seek comment on how such bundling might affect both intramodal and intermodal competition and the effect that it might have on the public interest, including benefits to consumers.121 Several commenters in this and other proceedings have raised the possibility that bundling services potentially harms competition because consumers have to purchase redundant or unwanted services.122 As the communications marketplace continues to move

toward bundled solutions for consumers, we ask commenters to address specifically whether competition is supplying sufficient incentives for providers to disaggregate bundles to maximize consumer choice.
We seek comment on whether such bundling behavior is harmful to competition, particularly unaffiliated providers of new services, such as voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), and if so, how this is related to several previous decisions or ongoing proceedings relating to dominance and classification issues.123 Finally, we seek comment on our authority to impose remedies, the adequacy and costs of any potential regulatory remedies, and the least invasive regulations that could effectively remedy any potential competitive concerns.