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 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.
...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.
If you don't already know, then you should probably be looking at hosting your website with an actual web hosting provider. I don't know about the situation in the US, but in Canada most of the ISPs have provisions in their contracts forbidding you from running websites on a residential/consumer connection. Of course lots of people still do, but those with websites that get any significant amount of traffic are usually targetted.
that's right: keep the broadband and forget the landline... it's much cheaper to have a cell phone.
Efren Belizario
headspeak.com
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.
It definitely is about time. I wish Qwest was available in the Houston area -- I would switch over to their service in a heartbeat. I currently have to pay SBC $15 a month for a voice line that I have absolutely no use for, just so I can get DSL. And I don't get DSL from SBC either (I hate PPPoE), I get it from a local company called Oplink.net. Vonage provides me with my primary phone service at $24.99 a month. My combined phone and DSL bills are still like $20 less than what it used to be with SBC, but why should I be throwing away $15 for no reason every month for a service I don't need?
:(
Then they call me every other week asking me why I switched over from them to Vonage. It is really annoying.
Here's to hoping SBC eventually follows suit. You Qwest customers are lucky.
Am I a hipster-doofus?
dhcp? dns? free webspace??? All I want out of a provider are two wires and four numbers which stay the same. Well ok, a couple sets of numbers but I could make due with one set.
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.