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.
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.
Talk about "know your customer!"
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 predict a huge surge in subscriptions before people realize they misinterpreted the nickname.
Half the stuff I make up isn't even true!
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.
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.
Hey, you know...
...this would be really good for VOIP!
Fnord.
I can't complain.
Yeah- I can't complain about the speed, but when I get my bill and see that the $79.95 per month package I signed up for 6 months ago is now costing me about $107 per month, I CAN complain.
And I do.
Loudly.
And Comcast doesn't give a damn.
"I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress