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.
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/
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?
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.
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