Slashdot Mirror
FCC May Push Bells to Unbundle DSL
Carl Bialik writes "The FCC is nearing approval of two big phone deals -- Verizon-MCI and SBC-AT&T -- according to people familiar with the situation cited by the Wall Street Journal. But regulators are considering requiring asset sales and other moves, including the offering of unbundled DSL, 'without requiring consumers -- mostly home users -- to subscribe to phone service. Verizon already allows some customers to do that, but SBC doesn't. ... Patrick Mahoney, an analyst at Yankee Group, said that traditional phone lines are cash cows, so allowing customers to buy Internet access without traditional phone service would be costly to telecom providers.'"
Sure you *can* get it unbundled, but you would loose out on the special $100 per month discount for having both services... and who wants $140 per month DSL just so it can be unbundled??
I need this as soon as I move into my new apt. in New York. Cable has the same bundle requiment for home users! Sweet!
But what is Verizon, et al. going to do? They won't be able to win on the price war vs. cable when they can't subsidize the cost of DSL with the phone line... they will be forced to show DSL really costs $40 just like cable.
this is supposed to read "FCC May Push Bills to Unbundle DSL"
Only if you add a bunch of features. I have a land line for a security alarm system. Local incoming free, local outgoing $0.02/minute. No voice mail, call waiting, caller id, long distance, etc. $12/month.
...why is it still so damned expensive? is pricing arbitrarily?
Well, I know quite a few people who would get DSL without the phone service. And I'm one of them.
We all use our cell phones to make all our calls, local and long-distance. We don't need a land line anymore. Yet we're forced to pay for one because of our DSL. Sure, there's cable, but I (we) don't want to pay $40+ a month for cable internet when we can get SBC DSL for $15 a month.
http://www.speakeasy.com/ already offers a "naked DSL" option, but they do charge a premium for it over standard DSL-- and they're not even a phone company.
Ideally with companies being required to separate the two there will be companies like Speakeasy that are now able to offer unbundled connectivity without charging extra for it.
We can but hope, anyway...
And if you get a phone, the Feds take away some money, and blow it on stupid projects.
They say it is for subisdizing phone service in hard-to-reach places, but that's not all. E.g. buying a bunch of computer networking crap for schools that don't/can't use the stuff.
Phone service is encumbered with layers of pork and regulation. DSL is relatively free of that crap, right now.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
As far as I'm concerned for the company's own self interest, SBC SHOULD unbundle it.
After all, how many people order phone service in order to get DSL? Don't most people who have the option of DSL also have the option of cable?
I know plenty of people who only have cell cervice -- no land line -- and who by default get cable just because DSL (in our area) always implies existence of phone line first. Which is -- in their view -- an unnecessary expense.
Especially in light of the fact that we're hearing more mutterings lately about TV-via-Internet which might in the future give the cable networks a run for their money (or provide an alternative distribution channel for them). Which would make DSL vs. cable a tougher choice (if DSL were unbundled and Internet content were richer).
A timeline of how big telecom has hindered broadband in the US is one day going to be as funny and shocking (in a quant corruption kind of way) that reading about the building of the Brooklyn bridge is today.
...
From the baby bells in the early 90s to the
ouch
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
I highly doubt that these companies lose money on their DSL offerings. I categorically refuse to get a landline, so when it came time to get a broadband solution in my new apartment, the cable modem won out.
If DSL were available by itself, I'd have gone with them instead, given that it's generally a cheaper option. So at least in my case (and I'd imagine I'm not the only one in this position) they'd gain a customer by offering the two services separately.
try this one, instead: Speakeasy.NET -- NOT computational econometric software... but, as you say, naked dsl.
Anyway isn't this another one of those Rhythms/Covad/Northpoint etc. companies. They collocate in the Central Offices and rely on the Bells if some particular piece of fit hits the shan. I NEVER understood how that model could work; dsl service is basically a commodity meaning: no room for a middleman reseller.
For all I know SpeakEasy has its own copper wire loops and central offices, though...
If my $12.99 POTS contract results in a $127.01 discount on my DSL, I'm thinking this action will have roughly, oh I don't know, a $12.99 effect on their bottom line.
I'm not entirely clear how dsl/cable access is achieved for customers in the u.s.... up here in canada it's sort of a monopoly for cable access, depending on which region you're in. For DSL, I believe many companies offer service in the same localities.. service is good, I get mine through cogeco cable, downtime in the last two or three years i could count with one hand (in hours.) The speed is decent as well, I regularly get 500KiloBytes/sec download from torrent sites and my upload speed maxes out at 85 KiloBytes/sec (very easy to keep my ratios at 1.5:1 or better.)
Many of my friends have experienced the same with DSL, although it doesnt seem as robust as cable when I'm using it... maybe responsive is a better adjective to use.. Even people out in the small towns from the cities, 40-100 miles still have decent broadband service.
...which is FAR more useful than a POTS phone, which is probably why the company I work for, which has about a quarter million employees, has nothing but IP phones.
Since a land-line here doesn't save you from per-minute charges, half of them don't even bother and just use the mobiles for everything.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This might be beneficial to the consumer! Has it come to this, that the FCC is floundering so badly as to do something that might actually be good for the consumer?
But then again, is it beneficial? Or fair? Damn... all this stuff having to do with the power/communications infrastructure stuff is too darned complicated. My last dealings with the FCC were when I got my CB radio license back in, oh, 1980. What have they done for me lately? (cue Janet Jackson)
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
Some good news coming from the FCC for a change. As an independant ISP using SBC transport it's been a huge pet peeve that they subsidize their DSL costs with their phone service(s). Until this new jerk got into the FCC it was actually illegal subsidization that was putting an unfair advantage in the hands of the telcos.
Of course the fact that DSL is provided over a phone network that was built with tax dollars then handed over to the telcos to be maintained doesn't mean anything anymore...so why shouldn't they have a government sponsored monopoly.
Of course this is flame bait for people who don't understand the way the economy works and how people like myself are important for getting services into remote areas that neither cable or the telcos actually care about until people like myself start complaining that we have large amounts of customers that went it in that area.
...on who's lighting your fiber.
That way, nobody worth worrying about will even consider alternatives. That keeps the alternatives from getting big enough for network effects to make them attractive.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Do you honestly think it takes MORE power to send a photon down fiber than it does to send an electron down copper? Seriously. What the #$#ck do you people think powers POTS?!?! AIR?!?
Geezuz. If people with this asinine notion of "golly, Ma Bell werks fer me, yer stupid wich yo IP fone" had any clue how much infrastructure runs on very, VERY well redundantly powered IP lines (like, for instance, your analog calls once they travel 50 feet past your #@#$ing driveway), you'd not even think of uttering this silly meme.
I doubt if it will stay at 15$ a month after the comptetion(read cable) has been stangled.
http://www.rajeshgoli.com
No. I think that if YOUR network craps out, and YOUR internal voice traffic goes over that same network, the effect of this is left as an exercise for the reader. :-)
Look really good in that situation, don't they?
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
nobody wants a land line.... so the mandatory bundle is really just a higher price for DSL.
So...."allowing customers to buy Internet access without traditional phone service would be costly to telecom providers."
Wrong. They are not entitled to profits. McDonalds doesn't lose money if you don't buy a hamburger. A business doesn't lose money if you buy the competition's product.
On the other hand, we all get screwed when businesses look at consumers as owing them profitablility. These Telecom's are the same folks trying to prevent cities from providing public internet access. As Joe Consumer, what costs them neccessarily pleases me.
Analog lines have power for your phones built into them. This is maintained by generators at the switching station if the power goes out. If you have an IP phone at your home, you need another source of power.
Furthermore, the technology in your IP phone is much more complicated and error-prone than the technology in conventional circuit switched telephony. A big reason for this is that conventional telephone reliability was historically and continues to be highly regulated. 5ESS switches actually achieve six nines reliability. IP is much newer, more complicated, and has not been subjected to the same degree of regulation, and so the reliability standard is lower.
Not when Time Warner won't sell me the cable connection without taking up cable service!
At least my phone bill hasn't gone up 40% in the past two years. I'm not making the typical antiCable complaint here, I'm just saying that for the record my phone bill hasn't gone up since 2000. They've added features and even thrown in free long distance (30 minutes per month) but they haven't raised the price.
Vonage isn't even old enough to tell what they will do. Besides, we get a lot of bad storms here - I'd like to talk on the phone when the power goes out without using a UPS or gas generator.
Get your Unix fortune now!
"allowing customers to buy Internet access without traditional phone service would be costly to telecom providers."
The same assholes provide cellular as provide land lines - and the only threat to landlines is cellular right now - VoIP is not yet a threat (but will be.)
They're gonna charge you up the yin-yang either for cellular or landline, so who cares which it is? DSL is not relevant to that. Anybody who has DSL probably has cellular anyway - albeit perhaps in addition to landline. If they dumped landline, said customer would stop paying $15-20/month for his few landline calls, and make up the difference on his cellular anyway. It would probably be a wash.
The only reason landline is a cash cow is because they've paid for the infrastructure long ago. In a few years the cellular towers and systems will be paid for as well - or be replaced by wireless nodes anyway, probably hanging on the same towers.
The only thing not paid for is wireless (which is cheaper anyway) or fiber to the home (which isn't cheap at all, but critical to delivery of media content - unless wireless can hit 100MB to the home soon, in which fiber to the home might as well be dropkicked.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
From what I can tell, if you have an active DSL line provisioned by them, you're good to go. Back when I had my naked DSL installed, I plugged in a borrowed ADSL modem into the test jack in the wiring closet, plugged it into my PDA, and got online. This was a week before my line was officially activated by Covad (who did the internal wiring).
In Finland there was a law change which forced the telephone operators to lease their wiring to anyone who wanted. In my area I can get unbundled DSL from around 20-ish competitors, and in fact we don't even have a regular phone, only cellulars.
Even the pricing is OK these days, I pay about 20 EUR / month for 1Mb/512Kb. Faster rates are available, up to 24Mb ADSL2 for those who want/need it.
.: Max Romantschuk
My wife and I use cell phones, we only have a phone line only for DSL. DSL costs us $43 a month. BUT in order to qualify for the PRIVILEGE of BELL SOUTH DSL we have to have the 40$ phone service. So yeah I can get a phone for 12 bucks but then I dont get DSL. Phone services are a big cashcow for these companies. I think I'll piss on the bell south tower at Phreaknic again this year. Since I have given bell south almost $500 since last year for the privilege of DSL.
You pay $29 month for a fixed landline, nothing included. Cant get DSL if you dont have a landline, and then they want $30 month for 600megs, and extortive per Mb after that.
Bundles are cheaper, but the regulator is blind that $348 year for a copper wire is excessive.
Lemme get this straight. In 1982, AT&T divested itself of its local services by "agreement" with the US Department of Justice. This led to seven "Baby Bells". Three of those Baby Bells have merged and are now going to re-merge with former parent AT&T. Two other of those Baby Bells have merged and are going to merge with MCI.
How soon before MCI and AT&T merge and we're back where we were before 1982? Sure, they'll have to unbundle some more services, but such a merger is entirely plausible.
I thought deregulation of 1982 and the Telco Act of 1996 were supposed to give us choice. A choice of two or three should still be better than a choice of one, but when the Big Three (in whatever industry) offer the same products, services and customer service, is there really a choice?
with Comcast, you dont need to buy the "Bundle", but if you buy internet without TV, it costs more than getting internet with TV.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Verizon will sell you a dry loop but you must ask for it. I already have dsl and phone service with them and wanted a dry loop for a voip phone. What their site doesn't tell you is that they will charge a $199 "rolling truck" fee for running a new line to your address. Hardly worth it if you ask me, considering my old line handles dsl just fine. You can't tell me theres no other way around this.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I've ran into this issue recently when I moved and wanted Verizon DSL. First I was told that it was not possible the get DSL without paying additionally for a wired telephone landline. When I finally asked to speak to the supervisor it was suddenly "no problem at all" and I got my DSL. This way I am saving quite a bit of money since I am using VoIP anyways. Asking and being determined always pays. Literally.
Please don't cue Janet Jackson. The FCC becomes far less sensible in her presence.
In eastern PA, where I live, Verizon is rolling out a fiber optic network. Up to 30MB downstream, 5MB upstream. http://www22.verizon.com/FiOSforhome/channels/FiOS /root/faq.asp
They also have been quietly offering $14.95 naked DSL as part of a deal with Yahoo. http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/352935 1
I tried to see if I could sign up for this services and drop my dial tone, but they are only offering it to new customers. I ended up ordering Comcast cable at a promotional rate of $19.95 with the idea of switching again to whatever is the best deal.
Last month I ordered unbundled DSL from Speakeasy in NYC. It cost $100 extra for a technician installation (mandatory) and a bit extra per month, but I figured no biggie.
One month later the Verizon technician had failed to set up the wiring necessary to provide this line. In exasperation I ordered a land line and changed my DSL order to piggyback on top of it. Within a week Verizon had set up the wiring for the phone line, and a few days after that Speakeasy had the DSL up, with self-install, no technician necessary.
I'm so mad at Verizon I am going to cancel my cell service with them... what else can I do; I want to keep my DSL!
It's realy quite easy. Call up SBC and tell them you're moving. Where you tell that you're moving is the key. You have to pick a place that does not have ANY SBC service. Rural areas work well (such as my tiny home town of 231 people). If SBC does not have coverage in that area they have to let you out of the contract. That's their policy and they adhere to it. I've moved twice now to areas that didn't (yet in some cases) have SBC coverage and was let out of my contract. I'm considering doing that right now even though I'm really not moving. They've raised my DSL and phone prices 3 months in a row. The only downside to "moving" like this is that you lose you telephone number. If you're like me that really doesn't matter. Only a handful of people call me and I can just as easily tell them all the new number. Moving forward I think I'm going to use Vonage.
How much does that bundled telephone line cost you on top of that $15? Include all taxes and surcharges.
No WE all don't. Some of us don't have cell phones and don't a want cell phone. Some of us don't even have long distance service because we don't need it or have other ways of calling long distance.
We don't need a land line anymore.
You may not but I can guarantee that there are millions of people in this country who, for various reasons, do need a landline.
Don't make such broad assumptions simply because of your needs. Contrary to popular opinion there are those of us who don't give a shit about being connected everywhere and at all times.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
My ears cannot hear light, my mouth cannot speak it. It's not about power level, it's about complexity, or, more precisely, lack of complexity. As long as the local phone co. has that room full of tractor batteries down at the central office I don't have to worry about not being able to use the phone if my power goes out.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
As a matter of fact since I have SBC phone service anyway I just, two days ago, upgraded my dial-up to SBC/Yahoo DSL service for only $14.95. So far I just have an old and very temporary Windows system up but the DSL modem takes care of the PPPoE connection. I'll soon have a SmoothWall firewall up and my Slackware Linux systems back on the internet. My biggest problem right now is with Yahoo. There is some kind of self helper that is trying to install an updates already. I think the type of web space with this account is just what Yahoo allows me to 'custom design' on my site. I could not find any datails on where to ftp my existing web pages. I might loose my web presence on the internet - no great loss to the internet I'm sure.
zenray
Being a UK resident, I just find this highly amusing. Our phone and internet access have always been seperate items. Before broadband took off, there were a bazillion isps out there, and indeed British Telecom's own service was one of the most expensive. Even now we have DSL, you can buy it from any one of a dozen or more providers (and again, BT's openworld service is more expensive than some)
It just find it hard to beleive that the US telecom companies are in a snit about it.
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Wow, that's an amazing interpretation of what he said. I read "We" as "My household", not "Everybody in the freaking world".
Looks like somebody needs to take some reading comprehension classes...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Lets think about this. Company runs millions of dollars in wire all over the city and into your home. Why is the Internet a regulated service? Why should they provide one service without the other? They say it's 'fairness to other phone providers', but what about fairness to other ISPs as well? Why is one service regulated and the other not? Is it just for legacy reasons?
How does the consumer benefit from this? I've done this before as a temporary measure, and paid an extra $10USD/mo for a 'line fee'. But when you can get BASIC service on that line for $20USD, why are we bothering (sans caller-ID, call waiting, long distance plans, and maybe even touch-tone)? What gain is there for a consumer on the other end. You're letting them get their phone elsewhere, but it's obvious that big bell will have the best phone service.
Just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Seems to be artificially controlling a market that doesn't need controlling.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Few folks have the equipment and desire to set up local 2-day backup power for their VOIP setups: at the building level, it's usually much cheaper and safer to keep a pair of analog phone lines for emergencies, and rely on the Telco backup power systems (which tend to be massively over-supplied, for lots of very good reasons).
I live in Rural Vermont and even though I live near the popular Stratton Mountain Ski resort I cant get Verizon DSL and its well known in the area that its because of Vermonts low population density.So I reaserched my options when switching over to cable and VOIP to convince the Mrs it was worth swiching .
.So what I was paying for unlimited local phone service in the area costs the same as the $45 minimum phone bill.On top of that you still have to pay dial up acess $15 so $60 for dial up and telephone or $45 for VOIP and Cable thats a
:) .
I changed to Adelphia cable and thier cheapest plan is $29.00 per month unbundled plan @ 256kbps up and down and you can get Vonage for $14.95 per month
A company that I do some consulting for now pays for a nice fat residential pipe so I dont have to worry about the cable bill anymore and pay $24.95 for Vonage
and I read it as the royal We
Only old women pay about 20 EUR / month for 1Mb/512Kb.
5ESS switches actually achieve six nines reliability
/got Vonage, and BellSouth can kiss my ass for a variety of reasons
It's great that Lucent can offer such impressive availability numbers, but it's too bad that you'd never know it from dealing with the phone company itself. Those six nines don't do you any good when, for instance, the idiots swap your pairs because they don't verify the address of a new customer that carelessly gives them *your* address, and you don't find out about it until a week later and every single person that's tried to call you in the meantime has been told your number is disconnected.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
No kidding. At first, I was going to write this effort off after reading the Slashdot summary. The FCC has done everything in their power to pay back all of the campaign contributions made by the Phone companies, at the expense of the consumer.
The reason why these changes are being proposed is that the Justice department "had some concerns" about the monopoly effects of these proposed mergers. Ahem. This is the same Justice department which deliberately let Microsoft off the hook with its monopoly. So pardon my extreme doubt that anything would happen here to benefit the consumer.
So at first glance, it would seem that this is all fluff, and the Bush administration would be able to hand the TelCo's a major deal.
But, from the fine article:
"The FCC's two Democrats -- Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein -- may extract significant concessions in approving the deals since Mr. Martin needs at least one of them to vote in favor."
This is due to a vacany on the board. Plus, one of the current Republicans on the board is leaving at the end of the year; so there's a big impetus to get this wrapped up by December.
Also, the push for this isn't coming out of concern for the consumer; but by lobbying from other big companies, like Quest.
So maybe there's a chance we'll see this unbundling. I'll believe it when I see it. But if it happened, it might actually create much more competition in certain areas, and speed the adoption of VOIP.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
What is true is that local phone services were given power by local and state governments(right-of-way and monopoly status) in return for universal service requirements and the right to regulate the prices charged. In a separate initiative, areas that were simply uneconomical to wire for phone service (farms basically, on which only a small part of the population lives) at normal prices had their construction subsidized by federal funding. The federal spending certainly was a subsidy, but it's no where near the level you assert.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Unbundling would be the first step. The next I would like to see the FCC push for would be true competitive DSL reselling. Right now, people reselling DSL have to be looking at the approach the FCC took with the CLEC industry. After several years of more or less real competition the FCC cut the legs out from underneath the industry claiming that real competition is provided by cellular and voip (ha!) and that the UNE-P pricing structure was antiquated. Instantly, the CLEC industry imploded, local competition vanished and prices have gone up. Here's to hoping that the FCC doesn't Indian-give unbundling to the consumer only to see it created in words but not effect. Martin Tibbitts
not even close to first. hehe!!
this right here is exactly my point..you get your dsl + a phone line for about the same damn price you only get hi speed cable line...It is called sacrificing profit off one thing but gaining it back on another..just like the games industry...
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
For starters, the Bells do not own the copper. Our tax dollars paid for the infrastructure, and the government only gave them maintenance control over the lines. The people own the copper, not the Bells.
With that being said, The service is not necessarily shoved down the same two wires. Ever wonder why phone jacks have four wires instead of two nowdays, and that two of those four are (usually) never hooked up?
Our DSL runs thru the outer pair of copper wires in our phone line, and the phone runs off the center two. No need for silly filters.
I'm straying. We own the copper. We allowed the government to give control of what we paid for to another company, and now they're charging us out the yin-yang for something they would not have without our tax dollars.
I'd be pretty ready to petition the government to completely take the control of the lines away from the companies, and give control back to the people instead. Sadly, the only waywe'll be able to do this is by having more money than the telco... I don't think even Bill Gates has that much.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
In some parts of my town, we have competing phone/cable/internet providers. It's eye opening how much better phone and cable rates folks there get even if they stick with the old monopoly. It'll probably be while before they come to my neighborhood. Since the new guys are not a monopoly, they get to do some "cherry picking" when choosing where to offer service.
I am not a crackpot.
It's called a Dry DSL. Available from several providers and does not require phone service. Lighting Bolt Technologies is one such provider, they act as a middleman between SBC, Verizon.... and you. The FCC ruling would cut out the middleman, but not neccessarily lower the cost of it.
Do you honestly think it takes MORE power to send a photon down fiber than it does to send an electron down copper? Seriously. What the #$#ck do you people think powers POTS?!?! AIR?!?
Bzzzzzzt
I am so sorry, the correct answer was Telephone Central Office Power, which doesn't power the cable company's line equipment nor does it power people's home networks.
Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you...
Granted, I'm living in Tokyo where the population density is about 137 people per square foot, but it can't be that hard to string optical fiber alongside the phone lines . . .
"Patrick Mahoney, an analyst at Yankee Group, said that traditional phone lines are cash cows, so allowing customers to buy Internet access without traditional phone service would be costly to telecom providers."
Cry me a fucking river, ILECs. Since this is supposedly a capitalist society, why don't you get off your lazy asses and provide some value and customer satisfaction to get your business instead of whining about all the people who want to desert your broken ship?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
CavTel is best deal going, if available in your local CO.
I love it. $25 for phone and $25 for DSL. Yes you must get phone service to get DSL.
I am doing research on the subject of local loop unbundling and I think you are right, the business models are pretty peculiar.
There are differences in US vs. Europe in how this is done, but the basics are pretty similar.
Two most common ways to unbundle a local loop are to force the incumbent to offer bitstream access or local loop for the entrant. The price is calculated for the access are calculated by the regulator. Two common pricing methods are engineering models / long run incremental cost and cost plus pricing. In the engineering model, the regulator tries to calculate what it would cost to set up a similar service now and gives it a payback time of say 20 years. In the cost plus pricing, the incumbent will give information about its marginal costs to the regulator who will add a premium on top if this to account for future investment costs.
Long story short, the access price set by the regulator does not equal the true price and there is possibility for arbitrage.
Of course, in the US, the FCC has changed its mind on the subject of should LLU be done at least 4 times.
So, there was some background as I see it. However, I have just started researching this subject so I still might have some stuff mixed up.
In most of the U.S., there are two ways to broadband: The Cable Monopoly, and the Bell Phone Company Monopoly. (Which may actually be an independent, non-Bell company in some areas)
In some rural areas, the Bell Phone Company doesn't even offer DSL, because it figures the few, far-between customers wouldn't offer enough return on investment to extend the DSL loops.
In some densely populated areas, the Bell Phone Company has competition from Competitive DSL companies like Covad and Speakeasy. They provide service using the Phone Company's copper lines to your house, but connect to their own network on the other end.
So depending on where you live, you might have
- Cable only
- Cable or Bell DSL
- Cable or several DSL providers
The Bell Phone Company often requires you to maintain a landline telephone connection, whether you use it or not, if you want a DSL connection. That's what TFA is about.
With cable, they will usually sell you just broadband if that's what you want. It might not be worth it, though. my cable company charges $10 for "basic" TV (around 12 channels) and $40 for broadband-with-existing-TV. Or you could pay $60 for broadband-only service.
Acme Bell is pleased to announce our new "naked" DSL product! for the first time, you can subscribe to high-speed DSL without the need for a landline!
Acme DSL-only Service: $5,999,999,999/Month*
* Additional taxes and fees may apply. Call for details
Or, SAVE MONEY with one of our exciting Packages!
DSL+Landline: $69/Month
DSL+Landline+Long DIstance: $89/Month
There are three components to DSL which I'll call physical, transport and access (my terms I made up). The physical component is the actual copper wire over which your signal travels. It can and often does also have voice on it. Transport is the layer-2 DSL stuff, the actual signaling that makes it DSL. Access is where that gets routed to another format and on to the Internet.
So, a company can provide anything from 1 to all 3 of those. The phone company always provides the physical wire. They own it, there's no one else laying it, done deal. However they often have people who compete on the access level. These are companies like Covad and Newedge. They lease space in the telco's data centres and equipment bozes and install their own DSLAMS. They are then the one who provides you DSL, and who controls the other end (DSL is point-to-point basically).
Now the company that provides you transport can, but not not have to, provide you access. If not, they send the DSL signal over to another company, who then has routers connected to other providers to get you on the Internet.
So here's some possible setups where I live:
DSL through Qwest (the local phone company):
Physical: Qwest
Transport: Qwest
Access: Qwest
DSL through a local ISP that uses Qwest:
Physical: Qwest
Transport: Qwest
Access: Local ISP
DSL through Covad:
Physical: Qwest
Transport: Covad
Access: Covad
DSL through Speakeasy.net:
Physical: Qwest
Transport: Covad
Access: Speakeasy