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.'"

Comments

But what of the terms?

[6th time lucky]

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??

Re:hmm

[phalse phace]

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.

I feel your pain

[Anonymous Coward]

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.