Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

Qwest To Offer 'Naked DSL' 306

Posted by timothy from the marketing-ideas-are-too-easy dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Qwest To Offer 'Naked DSL' More

Qwest To Offer 'Naked DSL'

Comments Filter:

  • Naked DSL... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lacrymology.com ( 583077 ) <nospam@minotaurc ... m ['omp' in gap]> on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:46AM (#8385145) Homepage
    ... so is it optimized for D/Ling pr0n?

    -m

  • Great! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:46AM (#8385149)
    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.

    • Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)

      by josecanuc ( 91 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:04AM (#8385293) Homepage Journal
      Well, if you've been harassing them "for a while now", it appears that they get all of your money.

    • I wish... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hlh_nospam ( 178327 ) <instructor@c e l t i c - f i ddler.com> on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:07AM (#8385314) Homepage Journal
      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!

      • Re:I wish... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Karl Cocknozzle ( 514413 ) <kcocknozzle@hotma i l . com> on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @10:20AM (#8386075) Homepage
        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!

        Perhaps you should look into finding a partner with a business closer to the "Cheap" T1 area, and use a high-gain directional antenna and tunnel ipsec over 802.11g to your physical data center? If its a "Community ISP" people won't mind the slight reliability problems that using unlicensed spectrum as part of your critical data path presents.

        • Re:I wish... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by petecarlson ( 457202 )
          If its a "Community ISP" people won't mind the slight reliability problems that using unlicensed spectrum as part of your critical data path presents.

          Oh yeah they will. I run a similar "comunity ISP" in Baltimore using two DSL lines. Every time it rains I get calls from people with wireless connections because their connection slows down or dies. Going back to the parent topic, I have to pay Verizon for a "dial tone" on both DSL lines even though my DSL lines are from Speakeasy and Covad. The Covad li

      • Re:I wish...mabe this will help (Score:4, Informative)

        by MattyCobb ( 695086 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @02:08PM (#8389411)
        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.

      • Re:I wish... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by The Wing Lover ( 106357 )
        One individual's subscription is an amount that can't even be found on the telco's balance sheet.

        Actually, an old boss of mine ran the numbers on this once, for a local cel phone provider. He's a business/financial kind of guy, so I didn't understand his whole methodology, but it went something like taking the market capitalization of the telco, subtracting out the net liabilities and all of the value in fixed assets (repeater towers, phone lines, etc. as well as things like office furniture). The left

      • Re:I wish... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DonGar ( 204570 )
        I've played this game for our office for years.

        My best advice is to carefully look at any very small phone companies that might be in your area. We eventually got a deal on a fractional T1 (1 Mb) + 2 phone lines for $300/month. The phone company in question was bought out two months later, but our deal is still good, and will be for years.

        THAT would be cheap enough to share with neighbors. It seems to be really stable, really reliable, and (for us) really cheap.

        Every DSL company we dealt with before had

    • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xcomputer_man ( 513295 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:10AM (#8385340) Homepage
      It definitely is about time. I wish Qwest was available in the Houston area -- I would switch over to their service in a heartbeat. I currently have to pay SBC $15 a month for a voice line that I have absolutely no use for, just so I can get DSL. And I don't get DSL from SBC either (I hate PPPoE), I get it from a local company called Oplink.net. Vonage provides me with my primary phone service at $24.99 a month. My combined phone and DSL bills are still like $20 less than what it used to be with SBC, but why should I be throwing away $15 for no reason every month for a service I don't need?

      Then they call me every other week asking me why I switched over from them to Vonage. It is really annoying. :(

      Here's to hoping SBC eventually follows suit. You Qwest customers are lucky.


      • Here's to hoping SBC eventually follows suit.

        I think SBC should first see to the basics: service quality, customer service, and so forth

        • Re:Great! (Score:4, Informative)

          by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @12:51PM (#8388387) Homepage Journal
          Trust me, no matter how bad SBC's service ... ... Qwest is worse. I'm glad they're doing this, but as a Denverite (who well remembers the days of Mountain Bell, and then USWest, and now Qwest, and nothing's changed) I have to say that they have a looong way to go before anyone thinks well of them.

      • Re:Great! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Creepy ( 93888 )
        Qwest customers lucky, huh? In my experience, they move slower than a dead cow, so it's nice that they finally are making pre-emptive moves rather than following the pack.

        The best service I could get from them is 640/256, and then only in selected areas, which didn't include mine until about 2 months ago (actually, it supposedly did, but the area was "saturated" with an expected 2-4 year wait for service according to the Qwest rep I talked to several years ago). They started caring and added hardware when

      • Re:Great! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by homer_ca ( 144738 )
        "I currently have to pay SBC $15 a month for a voice line that I have absolutely no use for"

        Ha, you're lucky to pay only $15 a month. After taxes and fees my $18 a month landline was $29. That was for unmetered local calls with no features and no long distance. I paid $.10 a minute if I called more than 12 miles away which was just about everybody except my dialup ISP. Add another $3 if I had long distance on the line even if I never used it. Cable from Adelphia is overpriced too, but at $58 a month it's o
    • It's simple I say, either I drop my landline and get rid of my DSL, or drop the landline and keep the DSL

      I argued this with QWest several times and finally gave up just last month. I cancelled the land line and DSL, since both were tied together, and got 900mhz wireless. Now they offer this; but it still would cost me more per month and the wireless is faster.

  • Nice (Score:4, Informative)

    by deraps ( 756393 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:47AM (#8385155)
    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.

  • Mwhahaha (Score:5, Funny)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) * on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:47AM (#8385158) Journal
    DSL strips naked, /. morphs into Fark & boobies hilarity ensues! (geek style)

  • just a couple days late (Score:5, Funny)

    by meadowreach ( 661299 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:47AM (#8385159)
    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.
    • Aha, so you're the one that made all the difference, feel special! :D
    • Gah. Wish I had your problem. A phoneline is cheap. I have to pay $82 a month for my cable modem because they require extended basic cable at my ISP. They're worried about people stealing cable if they just sell cable modem service. Nevermind the fact that I've got DirecTV with superior channels...

  • Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by Epyn ( 589398 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:48AM (#8385161)
    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.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)

      by jdunn14 ( 455930 ) <jdunn&iguanaworks,net> on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:51AM (#8385702) Homepage
      Oh feel free to be a jerk. Qwest has got to be the most incompetent company I've ever dealt with. When my roommate and I moved (about 200 yards) we warned Qwest 5 weeks in advance to ask if they could switch the DSL service within the 7 day window that we had both apartments. The answer, "No we can't do anything to the line until you have the new apartment, and then it will take 10 days." Alright, fine, 10 day window then....

      Then about 2 weeks after moving we call again, the phone service switched right on time, but we heard nothing of DSL. "Oh, sorry, no one ever actually put that order in." Alright, could you please? Call back in a week and ask about progress. "What order?" I called Comcast on that Friday afternoon, and they asked "When do you want us to come by? Saturday, Sunday?" A cable tech was here the next day around noon, and in 30 minutes we had cable access.

      Got some great stories from my girlfriend's apartment too. Basically, you can ask and ask for DSL, but they'll help you when they damn well please. Never had a company so reluctant to take my money.

      On a positive note, the tech help, and service people are very friendly, and positive, positive they can't do anything for you. Real nice about it though. Still, I'd go around with Qwest again if the naked DSL would be cheaper than this cable bill. As long as I still have my cable access Qwest can screw up a few times without pissing me off too much.

      • It's the Qwest sucks thread! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @11:13AM (#8386879)
        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? :)

      • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)

        by ScuzzMonkey ( 208981 )
        Same story here, multiple times. Moved about a year ago, had almost an identical experience--requested that they transfer DSL service at the same time as the phone service, they say, "Sure, no problem, it should be up and running when you move in!" And I can still use my existing equipment? "Yes, just take everything with you and plug it in, it will work just the same!"

        I move, the phones are up, but no DSL. I call back--"Oh, sorry, DSL service was never ordered for that line! Would you like to order i

  • Is this good for websites? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by after ( 669640 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:48AM (#8385164) Journal
    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?
    • I think it'll be a more reliable bandwidth with DSL, because it's very consistent. But I had more outages with DSL and also had much slower speeds than with cable. Then again, that's here and you're wherever you are with different providers and different infrastructures and all. Every place could be different.
      -N

    • Re:Is this good for websites? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by leerpm ( 570963 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:52AM (#8385215)
      If you don't already know, then you should probably be looking at hosting your website with an actual web hosting provider. I don't know about the situation in the US, but in Canada most of the ISPs have provisions in their contracts forbidding you from running websites on a residential/consumer connection. Of course lots of people still do, but those with websites that get any significant amount of traffic are usually targetted.

      • most of the ISPs have provisions in their contracts forbidding you from running websites on a residential/consumer connection

        Qwest doesn't. Many things about them suck -- particularly customer service -- but they give you a pipe and pretty much allow you to do what you like with it. There are some specific provisions in the terms against sending or relaying spam, and some generic words that allow Qwest to suspend or cancel your account for excessive usage that interferes with their ability to provide t

    • Neither ADSL (most common form of dsl provided to the home at decent prices ($40ish) nor cable is good for anything that requires a decent amount of upstream bandwidth.

      SDSL may fit your needs but more then likely you'll have to pay more... In many cases more then twice as much. Might as well spend a few bucks a month (usually ten will get you a good amount) for web hosting.

  • Qwest To Offer 'Naked DSL' (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:49AM (#8385174)
    Talk about "know your customer!"

  • Next step: Sidestep FCC Telco regs with VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:51AM (#8385194)
    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.

    • Re:Next step: Sidestep FCC Telco regs with VoIP (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      During the last all-employee conference call, Dick Notebaert (Qwest's CEO) made statements suggesting more or less what you're saying.

      [Mostly paraphrased, though some of it is word-for-word.]

      "The government and the mark

  • That's normal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rdx2 ( 648043 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:51AM (#8385197)
    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.

    • Re:That's normal (Score:4, Informative)

      by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:32AM (#8385491)
      It's not that suprising if you know how your DSL "connection fee" is spent. Telecom companies have large racks of switches that your phone line physically plugs into near where you live. All a company has to do to give you DSL is pull the plug out of the "phone only" card and plug it into the "DSL too" card (which has all the phone-handling capabilities of the simpler card).

      That's it. Every now and then, as enough DSL customers sign up, they replace an empty "phone only" card with a DSL card. Since the DSL card has all the voice handling capabilities built into it, it's not like you can truly have a DSL-only connection. Also your DSL connection is addressed by a phone number (if I recall correctly). So, the phone companies see no valid reason to disconnect the services.

      I wonder if Qwest's idea will result in "dead" phone numbers that aren't used being taken up.

      Would someone with more knowledge of telcom hardware please correct any misconceptions that I might have?

      • Re:That's normal (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @10:39AM (#8386335)
        You've obviously never worked in a central office, or with DSL Directly before.

        About the only thing you got right was the fact that cards are involved.

        On 6100 and 6160 Cisco dslams (as well as FullSize Lucent Stinger systems), the wiring comes off of a real live switch, and the wire is run directly to the dslam equipment, and then back around out to the frame/cablehead.

        Secondly, the system already supports phone-numberless operation, each "curcuit" has an ID. Each circuit, just happens to be attatched to a phone number.

        I don't get into the politics and whining about paying an extra 15 bucks. Although Qwest may have its issues sometimes, the local cable providers where I am suck complete ass compared to them.

        Secondly, in response to some ass hat's comments about "Manditory ISP" above: Ask for something else....ass hat.... its that simple. Lastly, but not leastly. My experience with their DSL tech support has been fairly good. Although they can't always immediately accomplsih what I want, or satisfy every whim. They do their absolute best to resolve my issues. I for one applaud their new spirit of service campaign, and hope that the service continues to improve.

  • About time, this should be an obvious choice. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mobiux ( 118006 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:51AM (#8385207)
    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 really hope this catches on so others such as ameritech follow suit. I know many people without a land line and don't want to put one in for dsl. So they go with cable.

    ALthough I don't know which is the less of 2 evils... the comcasts or the ameritechs.

  • does anyone care to explain... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mattkime ( 8466 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:52AM (#8385212)
    ...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)
    • I pay $17 a month for my landline in NYC. No long distance, no voicemail, caller id or call waiting. Obviously it's just for dsl and ordering delivery... and the occasional 911 call :)
    • (also, i doubt that $14.99 a month for a landline includes taxes)

      Nope. My Qwest bill goes something like this: $15 for basic phone service (just so I can have DSL, of course), $15 for DSL (cheap because I use my university as my ISP), and $15 in taxes on the phone line. As far as I can tell, all of those taxes are associated with the phone line, not the DSL. So when I cancel my phone service, my bill will be $15 instead of $45!

  • naked dsl (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shmuc ( 70684 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:53AM (#8385216) Journal
    that's right: keep the broadband and forget the landline... it's much cheaper to have a cell phone.

  • DSL Gone Wild (Score:5, Funny)

    by big_O_of_n! ( 712136 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:53AM (#8385222)
    I predict a huge surge in subscriptions before people realize they misinterpreted the nickname.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:54AM (#8385225)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'd love to see my cable company do that, too. Not because I get bad cable service (actually, it's pretty good IIRC), but because I *don't* watch TV. Period. If there's something I absolutely have to see, I'll watch it somewhere else.

      Now, I don't have a landline, either, though my roommate does (nobody calls me there). So I'm forced to choose between paying ~$20 a month for useless cable service and ~$20 a month for useless phone service. And that sucks.
    • Adelphia is the only Cable company in my aarea, and they don't even ofer internet around here. I love how they periodically take away a couple of channels and slighty raise the price around the same time. The channels are still there, you just have to pay the extra $20 for digital cable.

    • Re:now if my cable company would only do that.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by The Pim ( 140414 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @10:09AM (#8385936)
      I have Comcast cable in the Boston area (Somerville). They used to give a small ($5?) bundling discount if you had cable TV in addition to internet. Now, it's $15 (internet is $43 with TV, $58 without)! And guess how much "basic" TV (just over-the-air channels) is? $14 and change. So I save money by buying TV. I pointed this out to the rep, but she didn't find any wonder in it. The competing cable company (where "competing" here means they both send me flyers every week), RCN, has nearly identical rates.

      I'm encouraged that there is a bit of an ad war between DSL (Verizon) and cable. Hopefully that will lead price competition and unbundling one of these days.

    • Heh, i've got GMP Express for my cable modem. They require extended basic cable to have cable modems...brings the total for my broadband to $82 a month. For shitty cable modem service. And DSL isnt available, and never will be.

      I'm very close to just getting satellite internet and accepting those lag issues, just to stop feeding my money to corrupt cablecos.

  • One step closer... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aphrika ( 756248 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:54AM (#8385231)
    To making VoIP the broadband killer app [theregister.co.uk]. 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.

  • Article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AbbyNormal ( 216235 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:55AM (#8385233) Homepage
    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

  • law suits (Score:5, Funny)

    by midg3t ( 724635 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:55AM (#8385234) Homepage
    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.

  • Available in Netherlands for a long time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nexUK ( 575458 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:57AM (#8385250)
    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.
    • Actually in 'backward' India too :-)

      For example here in Hyderabad, I don't have a landline at home, but have a DSL line from Tata Indicom, and have 512/512 service from my ISP Dishnet DSL. (Actually, they have a mutual agreement with Tata Indicom... pretty much OK cuz we have got Dishnet DSL only as ISP who provide service over DSL in this city).

    • In Holland, KPN and resellers of their local loop have offered DSL service without POTS from a long time.

      Available here in Sweden also. I now get DSL via Bredbandsbolaget, and they also provide IP telephony (via a Cisco analog to IP box).

      The best thing about the arrangement (except the cheaper phone service) is the higher sound quality of the phone, we have crappy lines where I live, and the fact that I got about 0.5 mbps more bandwidth. Since I don't have to use the extra line filter anymore the whole

  • Where I live (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @08:57AM (#8385252)
    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?
    • Ture. But in my area, your cable service really isn't any faster after they start draconian capping (no, not after gigabytes, after about 5 minutes of high-spead downloading of something) and you aren't allowed to run servers and things, and it goes down at the drop of a hat.

      Qwest DSL is a better option here, or to be more specific, Qwest DSL + VISI.COM services. If you're in the Minneapolis area you should give VISI a try if you don't needs lots of handholding, they've been wonderful and let customers

      • I don't do a lot of large file downloading. But the few times I did speed was consistent. And I don't need to run a server, so that's not a big deal for me.

        They have upped our speed from when we first signed on. When we left qwest the dsl was 50 Kb/s. Cable is consistently 300 kb/s. Cable is about the same cost, so it's worth it. We dropped qwest when they switched to msn dsl and forced us into webmail. There are outages 1-2 times a month (and usually in the middle of the night). But DSL had them all the t

  • Phone line required in US? Really? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jonasj ( 538692 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:08AM (#8385324)
    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)
    • My understanding is that it isn't because of a technical issue, it's a snide anticompetitive dig by the incumbent phone companies. They're required by Federal law to allow other companies to use their physical lines, but Qwest (at least) has required competitive companies to use your phone number as a key into the billing/service/whatever databases. That requires you to have a phone number, which requires you to pay Qwest about $20 per month ($15 plus some taxes and fees), which is shady but good for Qwes
    • Umm, unless everyone who's explained DSL to me is lying, you have a phone line. You just don't have voice service on it. This hasn't been possible in the US before simply because there wasn't much demand. Before cell phones really started to catch on and begin fully replacing people's landline, it was unthinkable not to have a phone line with voice because nearly everybody used it. Now, that isn't so much the case.
      • Umm, unless everyone who's explained DSL to me is lying, you have a phone line. You just don't have voice service on it.

        Depends on your definitions, I guess. In my world the voice service is what makes a phone line a phone line, as opposed to just some copper wire in your apartment that happens to end up in a phone central of some sort. By that definition I have a DSL line, not a phone line, though the same wiring could just as well be used as a phone line instead.

        In other words, everyone who's explained

  • Switching to Qwest (Score:5, Informative)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:16AM (#8385373)
    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 had Qwest Pro 1Mb/1Mb DSL. Every Monday it would quit working. At first, I would call the NOC in Phoenix and they would reboot the DSLAM. This wasn't a major inconvenience until they routed all the support calls to India where you would have to go through their scripted drill of re-entering the router configuration before they would put in a trouble ticket. This took at least 1/2 hour and then they wouldn't get around to rebooting the DSLAM until the next day. Qwest and their DSL service are the worst. Wh

  • My nakes is DSL bad for VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:23AM (#8385422)
    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.
    • I've got DSL from Wanadoo (France Telecom), and they do things like forcefully change my IP address three times a day, which sucks great big donkey balls if I'm in the middle of a phone conversation. (I use Vonage to talk with friends and family in the States) I pay 13 Euro every two months for the phone line I don't use, and 80 for each month for 1024/128 (I just found it was 128 up, they sold it to me as 1024/256).

  • That's odd.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wynterwynd ( 265580 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:29AM (#8385468)
    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.

    • Re:That's odd.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ckpurvis ( 410517 )
      I used to have BellSouth DSL service, and had the same issue. There's nothing that technically requires them to enable voice when they activate a DSL circuit. The line techs I (finally, after a few weeks' downtime) spoke with said that their customer management system requires a BellSouth phone number for a DSL record to be created.

      Didn't we have a little lawsuit about this sort of behavior a few years ago? Something about unbundling, perhaps? Anyone remember that? :)

  • Cool, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by {tele}machus_*1 ( 117577 ) * on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:42AM (#8385569) Journal
    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

  • non-telco DSL (Score:4, Informative)

    by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @10:01AM (#8385837) Homepage
    Of course this is nothing new for those of us who get our DSL from networks that are not telcos (e.g. Speakeasy.net)
    • 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.
  • This service is just data only, you still need a pair from the phone company you just don't have a dialtone on the line. . .

    The company I work for has been offering this for ages, I'm surprised Qwest took so long to offer this.

  • SBC used to do this.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pillar ( 227782 )
    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

  • Make the service truly naked (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @10:35AM (#8386274)
    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

    • The problem is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by germinatoras ( 465782 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @11:52AM (#8387439) Homepage

      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 funny... (Score:3, Funny)

    by LamerX ( 164968 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @12:25PM (#8387951) Journal
    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!!

  • Naked is good! (Score:3, Funny)

    by bluethundr ( 562578 ) * on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @01:44PM (#8389102) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • You may be able to get this anyway (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MBraynard ( 653724 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @02:45PM (#8389841) Journal
    I use to live in a small building with bad inside wiring for telephones. I didn't use the phone and was canceling phone service.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Close