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.
... so is it optimized for D/Ling pr0n?
-m
#
# Modus Ponens
#
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.
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.
...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.
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"
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Lucky bastard then, Where I live in S. MN its about 30 for the landline after taxes and such and anywhere from +50 to +80 for the DSL connection. I was floored when I got the bill for the first month(135 total). It seems the local phone company (Frontier) charges for the first month of DSL service before you even use it! The real kick in the head part is when I talked a supervisor about why my bill was so high and told them I didn't want the high speed DSL(2 mg) just the basic (384kbs down), I was told that I was misinformed, not mislead and that I was stuck with it for a year because I was getting a deal. (15 /mo off). I am prob stuck with the bastards for a year, but It sure has motivated me to find out what cable access / wireless is in my area. Bare cable internet access through Mediacom(TV - cable or otherwise is all crap) is 55/mo. Add a wireless phone for 35/mo and I am looking at 90 mo for my communications needs. It may not be much cheaper, but dammit, the local telco has pissed me off.
The problem is choice..
Hey, you know...
...this would be really good for VOIP!
Fnord.
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/
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
to do the Superbowl commercial for the new service?
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
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?
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.
You can pay $30/month for unlimited which works at all T-Mobile hotspots like at Starbucks and Borders. Some local cafes have free wifi for customers too.
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.
You know...
I was thinking...
This would be REALLY cool for VOIP!
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
That's pretty funny. Rebooting the DSLAM will knock more customers offline than just you. Go Qwest Customer service!
Reminds me of the time Qwest "lost" the information that tells them what port my line was plugged into. To find it, they had me on the phone asking me if my modem's link light went off as they started unplugging cables one by one.
I switched soon after that.
-B
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?
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.