Slashdot Mirror
Qwest To Offer 'Naked DSL'
hussar writes "Qwest is expected to announce today its plan to delink telephone service from its DSL offering. Given some comments I have seen in /. discussions of broadband issues, the plan, nicknamed 'naked DSL,' should be a welcome change." Update: 02/25 13:55 GMT by T :
cpfeifer points to the
Wall Street Journal's coverage.
I stopped getting access at home because I got an 802-ready laptop.
Now I just go to cafes and such. It's great, and FREE!
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
... so is it optimized for D/Ling pr0n?
-m
#
# Modus Ponens
#
Expect about fifty redundant comments about how great this will be if all you want is VoIP.
I've been harassing my dsl provider for it for a while now.
It's simple I say, either I drop my landline and get rid of my DSL, or drop the landline and keep the DSL.
Do you want some of my money, or none of my money?
They still dont seem to get it though. Good for Qwest customers.
This will be very welcome in areas where qwest is the ONLY dsl provider. I know someone in just such an area who was almost ready to go back to dialup just because the dsl package was so overpriced.
DSL strips naked, /. morphs into Fark & boobies hilarity ensues! (geek style)
And to think, last Friday I switched from dsl to cable because I didn't want a land line anymore, and Qwest required one to have DSL.
Too bad, for me at least, this doesnt solve the issue with their high latency, and mediocre speed (relative to their cost). I hate to be a jerk but honestly, I've had nothing but bad luck with their service, and tech support.
I am not an expert on bandwith deistribution amongs different types of conectivity. But is this better then standard cable for a medium-traffic website?
I pay 52$ right now for a Comcast cable connection, and they do not give me enough upstream bandwidth for my website. I would like to buy DSL for a chepper price, but would have lower downstream (DSL from these guys is 1 megabit down IIRC and comcast gives me 3 down).
Would DSL be a better choise for me?
Talk about "know your customer!"
I wonder if the next step for Qwest is to offer VoIP "phone" service on naked DSL and then claim that subscribers don't have to pay all those nasty federal, state, and local taxes. This tactic could level the playing field between VoIP upstarts like Vonage and RBOC behemouths like Qwest.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
We didn't want to see that!
The original generic sig.
I thought this kind of option was standard everywhere, but I guess I was wrong. 'Force-Bundling' normal voice connection with DSL is quite ridiculous in my opinion.
With more people using cell phones, this should have been in the plan from the start.
Plus most cable companies around me allow you to get just the internet for a base rate.
Keeps the market open for people who don't use your primary service.
I really hope this catches on so others such as ameritech follow suit. I know many people without a land line and don't want to put one in for dsl. So they go with cable.
ALthough I don't know which is the less of 2 evils... the comcasts or the ameritechs.
Evolution or ID?
...why this has taken so long?
What exec needed to be hit over the head with a pie chart to understand that DSL often just isn't competitive with cable because of the need for a landline?
(also, i doubt that $14.99 a month for a landline includes taxes)
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
that's right: keep the broadband and forget the landline... it's much cheaper to have a cell phone.
Efren Belizario
headspeak.com
I predict a huge surge in subscriptions before people realize they misinterpreted the nickname.
Half the stuff I make up isn't even true!
our cable service here is awful. The channels are fuzzy, it's expensive, it takes 2 weeks for anyone to come out here to look at any problems. I would get rid of the cable TV service in a heartbeat if the tv and internet service could be seperate. btw, the internet service is awful too, but it's better than dial up.
Adelphia knows they have a shitty cable service and most would gladly switch to satellite if they didn't need their internet service.
I would like to see some sort of regulation of this. This is not fair to the consumer. It's like how PC OEM's won't usually sell a PC without an OS. Did I mention I hate adelphia?
To making VoIP the broadband killer app. Basically, being able to have a broadband connection without needing a phone line lowers the price of using VoIP to the extent that you can make a noticeable saving (assuming you can contact thsoe you need to via some VoIP service). This will possibly see applications like Skype taking off that little bit quicker.
As Forbes is now crying:
Qwest to offer DSL without voice, national mobile
Reuters, 02.25.04, 1:22 AM ET
NEW YORK, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Qwest Communications International Inc. (nyse: Q - news - people) will reveal plans on Wednesday to become the first major U.S. telephone company offering broadband Internet separately from traditional phone services in a bid to hang onto customers in a cutthroat market.
The fourth biggest U.S. local telephone company and the dominant provider in 14 states from Minnesota to Washington also plans to launch flat-rate nationwide mobile phone services, using Sprint PCS's (nyse: PCS - news - people) network next Monday.
Qwest and bigger rivals such as Verizon Communications (nyse: VZ - news - people) have been trying to expand their product lines amid growing competition as local, long-distance and wireless companies battle it out in each other's markets with new packages of service, discounts and heavy advertising.
Qwest, which faces a lingering accounting probe by federal regulators, reported a wider-than-expected quarterly loss last Thursday as local telephone sales dropped.
From Saturday Qwest customers will not need to pay the company's monthly telephone service fees of $14.95 if they only want to subscribe to its broadband or Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) customers in a service it nicknamed "Naked DSL".
Local phone providers such as Verizon require DSL customers to also subscribe to at least basic telephone services.
"We're in a competitive situation in all our markets," said spokesman Tyler Gronbach, noting that Qwest is losing local phone line sales as some customers prefer to have just a cellphone or others favor cheaply priced Internet telephone services.
"If we can keep a customer by giving them a broadband service that's what its all about," he said.
The company, which also runs a wireless phone service in its 14 operating states, plans to move local consumer and business clients to Sprint's mobile network in these states.
It will let these customers roam onto Sprint's national network outside of its states for a flat fee and will offer them Sprint's fast wireless data services in a month's time.
Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service
Sig it.
I wonder if there'll be messages exchanged between Jamie Oliver's law-brains and Qwest's regarding use of the term "Naked". Hopefully the brits aren't quite as touchy about trademarking as some are.
DSL unplugged...?
when you get the bill, youll be looking like the goatse guy.
In Holland, KPN and resellers of their local loop have offered DSL service without POTS from a long time. There is talk of this happening in the UK too, but the BT (UK local incumbant) ordering process uses the subscriber POTS number for order provisioning and customer pinpointing, a new method using post code and house number is going to be used. Methinks that this will take 2 years to get right.
You buy the DSL, and you have to also buy an "ISP". You end up spending as much as a faster cable modem.
The Qwest phone line I have is useless. Whenever I go to make a call I get a female voice telling me "We can not process your custom calling request."
In another words, they don't have a dialtone. This happens a lot.
Does anybody want to join me in a class action lawsuit?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
what is the price of dsl before and after you take out the land line? with verizon i pay 35 for 1.5/128 dsl and 12 for a land line. oh, and i have a verizon cell phone for 36 a month, 500 minutes. let's talk prices, people.
Now if BellSouth would follow suit and do the same thing. There are cable users in our area who get twice the speed for half the cost.
In the UK you need a phone line with any ISP, even cable since the cabler operators expect you to have the phone line with them too.
although compared to the USA, the UK is a sick and twisted joke of pricing and speed, 2MBs for $120 anyone?
You basically don't have any leverage at all with the phone company as an individual. Only in large groups can you get them to pay attention. One individual's subscription is an amount that can't even be found on the telco's balance sheet.
I live in a major metro area. I keep reading about the new DSL plans, I get at least one DSL come-on in the mail every week, and see things like FTTP being rolled out in Podunk, but I'm stuck here with no access to DSL, and as near as I can tell, no plans to provide it here, ever. About once a month, I go online to check the DSL availability in my neighborhood; no joy. They won't explain why; I'm within the distance range, but apparently there is a repeater in the way, or the line guage is too small.
My only economical (?) choice for broadband is Comcast's excuse for cable service. I keep a dialup ISP account as a backup, because dialup is not only more reliable than Comcast, it's occasionally FASTER.
I've even thought about starting a community ISP and getting a T1, but that's way too expensive... Turns out that getting T1 in my neighborhood is about three times as expensive as it would be just five block away!
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
...120 dollars is just over 60 quid, I can get a 2 megabit service from my ISP (freedom2surf) for 40, granted thats still a lot in dollars, but thats partly due to the monumentally weak dollar more than anything else.
I am NaN
Did I understand this correcly? Until now, you had to have a phone line and a subscription with a phone company to get DSL in the US? Wow, that must really be inconvenient.
This has been possible for years in Denmark. How come the US is so far behind?
(this post brought to you by a 3072/512 ADSL connection from a home that never had a phone line)
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
We're switching from Comcast to Qwest DSL. You can get 1.5 down / 867 up in my area for $28 a month in my area. Qwest will try to sell you MSN, but here's a secret: ask the CSR for "Qwest.net" internet service. The basic package (just connectivity and DNS) is $7 a month. Renting a modem is $3 a month. There are no restrictions on running a server, and the faster upstream is nice (Comcast is capped at 256K up).
Recently, Qwest has done a much better job. Their customer service is decent. They let you do a self install. The modem has a NAT box built in. They even have cheap, no-monthly fee long distance. Oh, and fast DSL now too.
because I use my land line so little that it took three months for us to notice that our telephone is broken.
I have naked DSL from Verizon. I thought this would be a slam dunk with Vonage (better overall rates, keep my old area code, etc.). But Verizon's service seems to include a great deal of latency and packet loss that makes VoIP not so much fun to use. I never had these problems with my Time Warner Cable Modem. It makes me wonder if the Telecoms are deliberately providing this slightly degraded service, knowing that it won't affect most Internet usage (web, email), but will hose their IP-based telephony competitors.
How come the US is so far behind?
Because the phone companies are greedy, and rich enough to be able to sway the people who regulate them.
They can thus prevent sensible options like allowing customers to just order a "dry pair" connection and can tie phone service to the physical connection to the switching office.
If the choice is between technical advancement or something else that will better serve their customer, or profit, U.S. companies will pick profit every time-- even if capital outlay to improve their offerings would generate much more long-term profit. U.S. companies don't look past the next quarter.
Back when I had Earthlink DSL, my phone service was cut off for a few days and I was still able to use DSL although the phone line itself was dead. BellSouth was my phone provider. I didn't know it was any different with other providers. Or perhaps it was only becuause I had service that was suspended, thus never being fully cut off. Dunno for sure, but naked DSL service may not be completely unheard of.
"Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
"Spirit of Service"...oh, that type of "service"...well then, you must be Spirit
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
My first reaction to this annoucement was "Great, I can finally ditch my phone that I never use, but keep my DSL!" But on a second's more thought, I think I'd rathre keep the phone line. I don't use it much, and I have my billing set up so that I pay per call (even local calls). Because I don't use the phone much, my phone bill is ridiculously low, like less than $16 a month (including taxes and fees but not including the DSL charge). Now, even though I don't use my phone that much, my friends and family call me on it all the time (what can I say, people around here just have not adjusted to the idea of cell phones being the number one form of voice communication). I don't get charged for incoming calls, and, as a matter of convenience, it's easier for me to keep the voice line and the number.
...telewest wanted near on 200 quid a month for a business 0.5 megabit line, no service guarantess whatsoever. All you got was the right to use the line for business purposes. Freedom2surf supply my ADSL line for 19 quid a month (plus vat) and I can not only use it for business use but can also run my own servers on it, that's why for me adsl (and freedom2surf in particular) have my vote.
I am NaN
A couple of weeks ago I wanted to switch my local phone service carrier from Qwest to USTel because they offer better features for the price. I was (and still am) a Qwest DSL subscriber. When I talked to USTel on the phone they said that they couldn't switch me over unless I suspended DSL service for a few days then had it restored once the switch-over was done. When I called Qwest to have them do that the Qwest sales representative said that unless I had local phone service through Qwest I couldn't get DSL. I mentioned to him that USTel had told me a different story and he insisted that it couldn't be done.
My next call was to Qwest DSL tech support and I asked them the same thing -- they said it shouldn't be a problem at all to have a different local phone service provider as well as Qwest DSL since the other provider just leases their lines from Qwest anyway.
The press release sheds a lot of light on the whole situation -- it isn't physically impossible it's just a business decision.
I wonder if this might backfire as they gain DSL customers but lose local phone service customers?
Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon
... tends to have the absolute worst backbone routing flaps and congestion problems of all the major network service providers.
i had cable until they decided that because i didn't
want their tv service they would charge an extra $12 ( from 43 up to 55). basically they're charging for broascast tv and not delivering it. and if you want broadcast tv they add another $12 (55 up to to 67) on top. you either get their basic cable package or get screwed. i chose dsl. now qwest will be forcing dsl's to come up or lose biz. why can't these companies just do the right thing from the start?
although i know the fat cats in washinton and your state capitol will never part with that sweet pork barrel called telcom.
i've already had verizon dsl at my apartment for a couple months without paying for a phone line, i didn't think this was anything new. no charge or anything (though there was like a $3 discount if you paid $20 for a phone line). of course it sucked so i switched to comcast.
Of course this is nothing new for those of us who get our DSL from networks that are not telcos (e.g. Speakeasy.net)
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I first thought they meant 'naked' as in, we won't force you to use an account on some dumbass OSP like MSN.
I have comcast, and even they still have an 'account' for me, with attendant mailboxes and stuff. I don't use them. I wish they had a separate pricing structure for those of us who just want 'speed and feed'.
Oh, but there are. Where and during how long a period of time did you look, and what sort of subcultures did you want to find?
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
And the cheap subscription plans, like demon's 20 euro per month DSL express or surfsneladsl from interNLnet, require you to have a POTS from KPN (The phone company).
InterNLnet will allow you to get ADSL without POTS, but you pay EUR 9,40 extra per month.
Demon won't even connect you (though, if you get ADSL from them and cancel the POTS afterwards you pay the 9,40 per month just like with InterNLnet)
The more expensive DSL plans either go thru KPN (most plans), so you do end up paying KPN, or the provider swallows up the extra costs themselves.
So though you can get ADSL without POTS, you can't get it without paying atleast 9,40 to KPN.
Could you still get it without having local phone service? For instance, where I live, Speakeasy.net, Earthlink, et. al. use BellSouth for their "last mile carrier." I want to be able to ditch the local telco for one of those VoIP soulutions where I pay a flat fee for unlimited local and long-distance, AND when they advertise the fee... that's what's on my bill, not any of those crazy "FFC Fee" and "Tax per Blah,blah,blah, ACT" fees.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
I had Qwest Pro 1Mb/1Mb DSL. Every Monday it would quit working. At first, I would call the NOC in Phoenix and they would reboot the DSLAM. This wasn't a major inconvenience until they routed all the support calls to India where you would have to go through their scripted drill of re-entering the router configuration before they would put in a trouble ticket. This took at least 1/2 hour and then they wouldn't get around to rebooting the DSLAM until the next day. Qwest and their DSL service are the worst. When I canceled the DSL service they kept billing me and I had to call the State Attorney General to step in. Now they claim to have cleaned up their act but buyer beware.
As if Verizon could do anything else?
This service is just data only, you still need a pair from the phone company you just don't have a dialtone on the line. . .
The company I work for has been offering this for ages, I'm surprised Qwest took so long to offer this.
That's not a troll, that's pure fact, the dollar is at its weakest for a long time and I can indeed get a 2 mbit internet connection for 40 quid. Ah well, hopefully metamodding will strip that braindead moderator of his privs.
Back a few years ago when I was building out for an ISP we decided to roll DSL. The LEC is SBC in this area, and they were JUST getting to where they understood what needed to be done for a reseller to use their ground copper, DSLAMs and Redbacks. We basically beta tested this for SBC in this area and for a while they coundn't get the lines conditioned right so they would deploy an unbundled loop (a pair with no tone) at every install for DSL to ride on. They still required a working SBC phone number to provision the loop, but once it was installed you could cancel the phone service. I had a working unbundled loop at my house untill 6 months ago when I switched to cable. Now they no longer allow it....I think McLeod still rolls this way and Speakeasy used to allow it too I think. Most require a working phone # to provision, which can be canceled at a later date. Of course, this could all be changed now.
nb
nb
I'm sure all geeks are getting pissed off at the increasing port blocking imposed by ISPs (IMHO they're not really providing 'Internet' service if they're filtering your packets at the TCP level). I want a service that provides me with real IP connectivity. This means I can send and receive any packets I want -- why not throw this in with the 'Naked' service and advertise it as real Internet
If so please let me know where so I can signup! ;o)
I am NaN
to do the Superbowl commercial for the new service?
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
(10:43:29) Jesus: hey do you still work for qwestm l
(10:43:37) Person: yes
(10:43:58) Jesus: do you know if they offer VoIP with DSL package
(10:44:19) Jesus: for residential customers
(10:44:31) Person: i think only in MINN
(10:44:34) Person: so far
(10:44:39) Jesus: i seee
(10:44:40) Jesus: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/02/25/1325214.sht
(10:44:41) Person: but the goal is everywhere
According to http://www.qwest.com/, you just get DSL connection (256/256 ~$15/month, 1.5/896 ~$28/month) fom Qwest. You can select an additional cost ISP from a list. http://www.quest.net/ is on the the list and offers a no-frills type account (no e-mail, web space, whatever) for $6.99/month.
I want bandwidth to be a utility like the water that comes from the tap or the electricity from the wall socket. I don't want to have to care who "provides" it. Sure, there must be an option to play the market and get the best price if you're so inclined, like you can do for electricity in many European countries, but the whole infrastructure should be interchangable. When you change electricity company, you don't get an outage of a "few days"!
In short, I want an Ethernet socket in the wall, that's all. No PPPoE, no "services", no ISP specific software. I want to plug in any machine, as many machines as I want, and it should just work. On the monthly bill the "provider" can be mentioned on a single line somewhere, just for the record, the rest of the time I want them to stay the hell out of my face. If I use more bandwith I should pay more, and if I use less I the bill should be adjusted accordingly. What the hell is up with these arbitrary limits. If I want to download a few gigabytes one evening, so what, I'll pay. Just like for the damn water.
I just talked to a Qwest operator and she told me that the service will be starting monday.
I'm a little surprised more people aren't hopping on here to howl with delight. Maybe they're off disconnecting their phone lines and signing up for Qwest DSL though.
Comcast doesn't let you host a site or server of any kind on any Residential connection. That said, they'll never bother you, judging from those I know who have Comcast (myself included), unless you suck a lot of bandwidth - then, they'll start poking. If what's your hosting is important to you, this could really hurt whatever business you're maintaining online.
The sad thing is I wanted to upgrade my connection to Business so that I could legitimately host a website or 2 from home, and the only upgrade Comcast cable internet offers is a very small upload bandwidth upgrade - still too hopelessly small to host a legitimate site - for more than double the price.
So, DSL will offer you higher upload rates. If the site(s) you want to host aren't crucial, Residential DSL or Cable won't matter much as you're probably using little upload for the site(s). If they are crucial, I'd recommend a high-end Business DSL connection, both for the site's speed, and so you can sleep at night knowing your site's not being taken down and replaced by a breach of TOS page.When i worked for a large ISP in MN, we were providing DSL from Qworst and Northpoint. The biggest battle back then was that you could NOT get a line without voice services for DSL. Who pushed that? QWEST. Now they're going to do it? Go figure. On the upside, if they wanted, they could use the entire copper spectrum for the DSL instead of everything below 25khz, thus opening up the floodgates, as it were. But i think that's the part they don't want you to know... (Think northpoint, who just rented copper from the CLEC/ILEC and ran a virtual T1 over the pair) The other big players were wholly against this as well, since it'd cut into the cashflow... Then again, this was in the era of one-way cable modems, and DSL was the best bang for the buck... Just a thought...
Ok my turn:
:)
So I had a professional DSL line. Their pro 640/640 service, bussiness class internet account, and static IPs. One would think you might get a little bit of competent service at that level... er no.
I start to notice the line dropping out. Happens little at first but ever increating until it is happening all the damn time. Layer-1 outage, no signal at all. Well I work in networking and I know precisely what is happening (espically since it's happening to others as well) the DSLAM is going bad.
I call Qwest and try an play the tech support game. First thing they insist is that a home network isn't supported. That's right, they'll sell me 8 IPs, but insist that I use them all on one computer. I try and explain that it CAN'T be my network, since I can telnet to the router. I further try and explain that when I do telnet to the router, it claims the physical link is down. No dice.
Ok so now when I call I lie and claim I don't have a network. Every time I call they insist I reprogram my router. No dammit! It's not like I just randomly change the config for fun or anything. I try and explain that it works, then stops working, then starts, no change in config, just the physical layer going up and down. No dice, they insist.
So I lie about reconfiging my router. Good thing too, the config they give me is the WRONG one. They kept giving me the one for a router getting a DHCP address, and then NATing the systems behind it, not for one that routed static IPs to the systems behind it.
After we go through all this, they claim it's my equipment. Fine, so I swap it for two different routers, I have a backup on hand and borrow a different kind from work. Same result. They claim it must be the line, allegedly send a guy to test it, claims not their problem, must be inside. Get a guy from work to test my lines, etc, etc.
Well they never would be convinced it could possibly be their problem. I just gave up, and worked at getting bussiness class cable. Unfortunately, the cable company is highly competent for consumer lines, but highly incompetent for bussiness lines. Finally one day, Qwest put in a new DSLAM.
The most infurating thing though? They'd never admit they'd done anything. Claimed it had been my problem all along. Never mind that everyone who had the same problems as me cleared up at the exact same time.
Supprisingly enough, I don't have Qwest DSL anymore. Gee, wonder why?
I'm a dissatisfied cable customer who has looked into DSL several times, only to be told that I HAVE to get phone service as well. Furthermore, they would tell me this is a "Business requirement," and not a "technical requirement" (ie, you don't HAVE to have it for DSL to work, they just force it on you so they can make more money.) It's about time that someone got some common sense.
Very ugly - they sold their subscribers to MSN. And no, you did not really have a choice. This happened in the Seattle area.
Don't be surprised if they do this for a few months and then sell your ass off in a similar deal. They are scum.
Bigger news for me is the new DSL Deluxe plan. Right now I have a 640 Kbps symmetrical DSL. I pay over $150/month today for the Qwest fee and my DSL provider (the highly excellent Spirit One).
With the new DSL Delux plan, I'll more than double my rated and actual speeds, and for me uploads are really important. Plus it'll be way cheaper - only $78 total for a corporate grade account (8 static IP's, 8 mailboxes, web hosting, professional grade support contract).
It's really, really good stuff. And it certainly had the intended effect of getting me to stop thinking wistfully about cable.
Only drawback is I'll have to switch from my ancient Cisco 675 in CAP mode to DMT, which will add 16 ms to my ping time. But I think 16 ms is a fair price to pay for more than doubled bandwidth and saving $80/mo.
My video compression blog
I work for an ISP in central MN and we just received an information release from Qwest about their new service. They are calling it "Standalone DSL", and here are some of the preliminary information:
Monthly rate: $33 (plus ISP)
Nonrecurring charge: $99
DMT only - no CAP orders
Available only with Qwest Choice DSL Deluxe (up to 1.5M)
Address loop qualification required; no phone number to qualify
This is all pending FCC approval, with a tentative effective data in March
What happened to Qwest? They're actually offering good services and more options lately... Was there some change of management?
I'm actually happy with Qwest for once... in the past 3 months: they have lowered my DSL costs by 3 bucks, cut my long distance to 5 cents/minute with a cap of $20/mnth and no monthly fee, raised my DSL speed from 640k/256k to 1.5mbit/1mbit for no additional cost, and now give me the option to cancel phone service altogether.
At one time I REALLY wanted this option because I was so fed up with them. However, with the current changes they've been making lately, I think I'll be keeping my voice line for now!
The first question they ask when you try to sign up is "What is your phone number?". If you don't have a phone (through any company) you cannot order Speakeasy DSL. That makes this Qwest service different.
Monthly charges with QWest:
$28: 1.5/0.875 MBPS connection (Actually the upload is usually running at 1.0)
$17: Best ISP in area with up to 12GB/month each direction during business hours (after hours and weekends is free) and very reasonable rates for more GB/month, includes Unix shell account, Hosted Web server, etc.
And now, I don't even have to pay for the land line. That is $45/month for all the bandwidth I need for web servers, name servers, mail servers, etc.
DSL outages and slowdowns are practically non-existent (unlike cable in the area which goes down for hours every week). QWest is really starting to compete.
The problem is people who know what they want (e.g. You) are a very, tiny, miniscule part of the population that's listed in the "Other" category on the exec's pie charts. When an ISP is offering a service labeled "residential", they're envisoning thousands of unpatched Windows boxes with stock IIS 5.0 and wide-open SMB ports. They _have_ to block ports to protect clueless users from themselves, as well as protect their own infrastructure from the next Code Red/Slammer/SoBig/etc.
The service that you want (not tied to a landline, no port restrictions, etc.) is widely available, but you'll be paying for it. Most ISDN for example will give you 128Kbit, no port restrictions, no land line required, etc., but you'll be paying $150/month for it.
Yes, it sucks that many DSL providers will drop an incoming TCP SYN packet before it ever reaches your home server, but they've got to pick their priorities and "unlimited TCP" got thrown out.
This sounds like a breeding ground for VOIP.
arrrrr
But at my house I have no voice lines, but I do have a DSL line. Advanced Telcom Group (www.callatg.com) set me up with it. It's $79.00/mo and they have no cap on your service speed. Speeds are based on whatever you can get at your location. So if you qualify for 7mbit service, you get it at that price. Unfortunately my line only qualified at 3mbit/768kbit. Wait, unfortunately? Hahaha if I got DSL like that from Qwest it would be a few hundred dollars per month. Haha Qwest suXors!!
The tech help people are great- that's the one thing the company definitely has going for it. If you need to call though, I'd advise calling from a non-qwest phone (like a cell)... every time I have, I got transferred to a rep. right away. When I called from my home phone I got put on hold for a half hour before I just set the phone down and called on my cell and of course got someone immediately... when I finished my other phone was still on hold!
As far as the rest of the company goes, yeah they seem to have problems actually getting orders put in right. Even asking about the possibility of getting dsl was a hassle.
me: "Will I be able to get dsl in my apt?"
Rep: "We can't tell you until we install your home phone service".
me:"you have no idea? does anyone else in my apt have dsl? am I close enough to the station?"
rep:"we can't tell you until we install your phone line"
me: "the phone line is already there, you just need to turn it on!"
rep: "I can't tell you until we install your phone service"
me: "okay thanks, I'm getting cable internet"
Not to mention when I did have a phone line hooked up they connected the wrong apt and it took 3 SEPARATE VISITS to get it right. And they tried to charge me for each of those visits.
So Qwest has definitely got some issues they need to work out with their service. They should put the person that hires their technical helpdesk people in charge of their whole screwed-up operation.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
[Jeff is watching one of Patrick's home porn vids]
.....naked...Susan....Susan...naked...Susan....
..Nah.
Jeff:
[Susan appears over his shoulder. He stops.]
Susan: Not going to finish your song?
Jeff:
Susan: Why not?
Jeff: I've forgotten the words.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Where I am I don't actually deal directly with Qwest I have to deal with the local companies which provide the service over Qwest lines. These local companies are downright horrible, so bad that I have actally switched to MSN DSL provided by Qwest because the service is better. My wish would be to cut out the local morons and allow me to deal with on company for my DSL instead of two.
My wife 'owns' the pair i have.........
But in the end I went for a provider with but phone and ADSL anyway. Kind of regret it, but that's life.
Anyway, what I can't get is a really vanilla offering, just the bandwidth. Now I have to pay for five e-mail addresses that I don't use, 50 MB webspace that I don't use, anti-virus that I don't use, etc., etc.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
But if there is a figleaf over port 25 and tassles over ports 21 and 21 and a gstring covering 80...I'll go pick up a girlie magazine instead.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
We had DSL and phone for about $65 a month, 512x256 at best. I repeatedly asked to drop the phone line and keep DSL. Now we have Comcast 3000x256 and basic cable TV for $54. Yes, there's a prime-time speed dip but it's still way faster than our DSL was.
Qwest tech support was a nonstop nightmare of finger-pointing and waiting. I've only called Comcast once, but the guy who answered dropped the script when he realized I'd already done some troubleshooting, then found and fixed the problem -- the whole call took under 10 minutes.
I know many people aren't lucky enough to have broadband choices, but for me it's cable, hands down. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect competence and willingness to work for my business.
Thats wierd, my comcast rocks. Its only been down once in 3 years and I actually get the 3.5 downloads speeds. Oh yes, its nice.
After working in broadband tech support for 6 awful months I discovered that the quality of your internet has nothing to do with the company you buy it from and everything to do with were you live. E.g. if you have crappy phone lines your DSL will suck. If you live around a bunch of AIM and pr0n kiddies then your cable will suck from around 3:30pm-9pm. Its just the way it goes.
Anyway, I do have a semi-answer to your problem... This is extreme, but you could cancel your phone service and order ISDN. ISDN is a digital phone network and thus a lifeline service. If you have the money to pay for it your local telecom is required by law to build the facilities. Im not sure if thats 100% true in your state, but it is here in TN. When they build th facilities for the ISDN 99.99999995% of the time (at least with the ISP I worked at) they go ahead and make DSL available in the same area. So basically, ask for ISDN, they have to give it to you, keep it a while, and then ask for DSL. I bet they will have it.
Just make sure of two things first, 1) none of those stupid old AT&T signal repeater things are on the line. If you live in a metro area thats not likely anyway.
2) Make sure your not right across the street from the CO. If you are you probably wouldn't want the DSL anyway because the signal would be too strong to sync up without you putting 90000 filters on the line going to the modem, doing a rain dance, and praying to some heathen gods of DSL.
Matt
You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
I then called my local ISP and they told me that they would charge me $100 for a 1.5Mb connection...up from $25 for my 640Kb. So I checked with Qwest about Qwest.com. Took several calls to find out the magic words are "Qwest Choice Internet Basic"...that's the $6.99 ISP service. Once I got to a Qwest.net guy he seemed very helpful and knowledgeable. I do have to get a new modem to replace my Cisco 678, but even with the $3 rental charge my DSL should now be much faster and cheaper.
Old Service (640/256)
Qwest $28.00 Local ISP $25.00
Total $ 53.00
New Service (1.5/896)
Qwest $28.00 Qwest.net $7.00 Modem $3.00 (I can buy for $60)
Total $38.00
If I have problems I will just switch back to my old setup.
Comcast sucks with anyone doing anything more than rudimentary web surfing and email... mainly because of the limitations of cable upload speeds, and compounded by the fact that Comcast's infrastructure varies WILDLY from area to area; try telling Comcast internet is reliable to anyone in Chicago or the surrounding suburbs, and they will laugh you into oblivion.
Whether they "get it" depends on you--are you actually dropping these services or threatening to do so but never acting on the threat? Threats mean little when they're not carried out. If you don't follow through on your threatened cancellation, your provider learns that you are a complainer they can afford to dismiss; they don't need to change their behavior because you'll keep paying the bills.
Digital Citizen
I have digital phone through my cable company... DSL through my phone company, and TV through my satellite.
Seems odd, but in my area, this is how the competition shakes out, and I save about 20-25% over having traditional providers provide the service!
Anyway, I was there when the technician came over to install my DSL and, as expected, the inside wiring would not carry the signal.
So what I had him do instead was run a line directly from the phone box outside the building, and ran the wire through a window. Perfect. No phone service, just DSL.
If you live in a building where you can run the wire right to the box, talk to the tech when he gets there. If he is competent, this might work out for you.
Thx the Janet, there will probly be an ammendment to the constitution to stop such things as 'naked DSL'. Good idea, bad timing!
(Go GW)
Someone obviously isn't a qwest customer.... they'll bill you for it anyway, they are the target of a lawsuit filed by the state of Arizona for their radical billing practices. I had them for landline, and it was a flat line, no bells, no whistles, no LD, and my bill always fluctuated by 2 or three dollars a month, apparently they tack on a buck or two, and if you don't catch it and call them, they take it, multiply that by several million customers a month, thats a fair ammount of cash to swindle... Their cust. service BLOWS too. Needless to say, I use the QWEST phonebook for a booster seat for kids, and thats about all QWEST is good for....
...for their cable modem service. I'm sick of having to pay $100 damn dollars a month for cable and internet. I'd much rather pay $29.99 and get more channels from Dish Network than put up with Comcast's rape-you-repeatedly-in-the-ass pricing tactics. (example: I used to pay $89/month for the same expanded basic cable/internat that I have now... I moved across town, and now the bill is $98.00 per month. WTF?!?) If I could just get the cable modem without the B.S. "$5.00 surcharge for not having cable TV," I'd be a much happier consumer.
I could probably count the number of times I've used my landline on 1 hand. DSL is the only reason we haven't gotten rid of our landline.
Personally, while I really like this idea, I'd rather keep my land-line, at least for now. I can use it to dial in to my LAN from my laptop if there's no WAP coverage where I am, as well as being able to dial out to my ISP if there's a DSL outage. Also, a simple $5 corded phone is quite useful if your power goes out, as it will run off the phone line. A cordless obviously won't work properly, and your cell will eventually need to be recharged.
But I am glad to see that there are more options. Qwest seems to be gunning for the cable data services. They are (or were) offering an upgrade to 1.5mb/896kb service for a one-time $10 setup fee, and the same cost/mo as my 640/272k service. Score!
nuff said.
Excerpt...Qwest Media Press
OK, I share a house with 5 other people as we're all in college. We all have cell phones and use those for just about any call we make, but in order to have DSL, we HAVE TO subscribe to a landline phone. This means that we pay $17 total more a month for DSL. I would LOVE to get cable, but Comcast won't get off their arses and install cable modem service in this city.
Qwest VDSL has allowed this for at least a year.. I switched my phone to Cox and kept the VDSL service uninterrupted. They seem to work as a totally separate company that has unrelated policies and procedures but happen to share the name Qwest.
.. That's another thing, it's not (or wasn't until recently) linked anywhere on their home page, isn't searched by the DSL checker.. you have to know it exists to get it.
They also lowered the price $10/mo last month, and increased the speed to 1.5/1mbps (from 1/1). http://www.qwest.com/vdsl/
--
-- V
i dont live anywhere near chicago. i live in suburbia-hell-tennessee in one of those stupid golf-country-club neighborhoods filled with old people. so basically everyone here has comcast and none of them use it for anything other than email and checking stocks. its great :) i have lans all the time at my house and we get like 10-15 people sharing my connection and playing in a game of Day of Defeat or Counter-Strike and I still ping around 90. By myself I usually get high 20s-low 30s.
also my upload speed is awesome. im in the test area for increased upload. i pull speed test results (and i actually upload and download) around 3.5x1. I realize thats not everywhere, but its what i have :)
Basically their are groups of people who have crappy service from some ISP everywhere. That doesn't mean they are a bad company, it just happens. The only time my comcast was down I called in a 1am and a guy came out the next day at 1pm and gave me a new modem and reran the coaxial to my house. not bad. i know when i worked at bellsouth dsl our best dispatch time was 3 days.
Matt
You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
Cable internet either rocks or sucks. For power users, it mostly sucks. Most providers will not hand out static IP's, the TOS forbids servers, the the upload speed blows. Add on top of that the unspoken download cap that may get you terminated, and it is no longer a viable solution.
In my area, we have Adelphia, and the service just blows chunks. I won't go into the details, but trust me. It's just not usable for power users.
I work from home, and a good connection is VITAL for my job. I've had to get an over-priced "business dsl" that is basically no different than residential DSL except 384K up instead of 128, and a static IP - but costs 4 times more.
We have another local telco wiring the city with FTTP, but my latest check of their website revieled that they were only going to offer 1M down. WTF??? Are they high? What is the point of FTTP if you are going to have pathetic speeds?
Anyway, I still need POTS service anyway. I need reliability. Every VOIP provider I have tried is unreliable. Reading the * mailing list, it's normal. I run Asterisk on my linux box for my phone system with a couple Cisco ATA186's for analog phones and a 7960 as my main desk phone (spendy, but Wicked nice.)
Reason: I moved and the my new home is too far from the local switch for DSL.
Other comments: With QWest I had a regular ISP, not MSN. In order to use with Linux howerver, I needed the Cisco external modem and the "deluxe" package. It was around $30/month for speed closer to 640/256. I've found customer service and reliability to be pretty good with both Qwest and Comcast.
I'm hinting at the Mac specs
Reference Documentation from QwestAs an ISP, I used to sell DSL to customers using bare copper rented from the telco, with ADSL and no dialtone running down the line.
The problem we had with this is that the lines would often get "accidentally" cut. Telco field techs hunting for free pairs in a cable bundle would often listen in, find no audible signal whatsoever, assume the pair was free and hijack it.
We considered building some hardware to inject bogus audible tones into the lines in order to prevent this from happening but never got around to doing it.
(We also sold other types of DSL (like SDSL) using the same bare wires, but there's no problem there because SDSL sounds like something if you listen in)
You do know that both the CMUX and modem (should) auto-train their line levels, etc, don't you?
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
I've had Naked DSL since it was installed. Isn't that why Everybody gets broadband?
Signed on with VISI in August, they've been great to work with. I've had maybe one hiccup since I've had them, and as soon as service came back up, they e-mailed everyone about what had happened, whether all of us were affected or not. They'd also been sending out status reports along with ETA's for repairs. That's good service in my book.
My system depends on a POTS phone line for notification/remote access by the service provider (I highly recommend them). When I asked them about DSL compatibility, they said it wouldn't work, and there were no supported DSL-to-POTS doohickeys that would make it work.
Of course, I'm a satisfied cable customer, but at $15/month, this might just be the excuse I was looking for...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
omico--
It's probably better not to have to deal with those idiots on a regular basis, but Covad sure is damned expensive ($200/month for 768K SDSL).
Oh yeah, I also have @Home^H^H^H^H^H ATTBI^H^H^H^H^H Comcrap, and it's OK. The price is climbing steadily though.
It's all a secret plan to get the Republicans so upset at the name that they'll get Michael Powell to "force" Qwest to cancel the service and tie it back to phone line usage again.
No, no Br'er Fox!
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
KPN, a telecom provider in the Netherlands - and partner of Qwest in the failed KPN Qwest venture - just did the same over here (in the Netherlands) a few months ago. They call it "Direct DSL", or "DDSL" for short.
Heres something allot of people tend to overlook in this arguement. Most cable companies don't bother to try and keep thier network up if a power outage occurs, atleast in this area. I mean really how many people would keep their TV on a backup powersource. Telephone systems on the other hand are much more hardened. Most slashdotters i am sure have above average computers/networks and i am sure allot of them have a UPS on thier equipment. With DSL when the lights go out you can continue browsing the internet without a problem. On the other hand, your power goes out and so does your cable service, sure none of your equipment powered down, but your ISP's routers and the such sure did.
It's an honest question. I don't know of any cellphone company that would provide a good number of minutes for even a small family for the cost of a landline which for us is $32 after some extra services and all taxes and fees. This is for unlimited calls and minutes too.
Hmmm... Pie...