FCC Stops "Naked DSL"

No, this has nothing to do with dirty pictures on the internet. They are still there, and are available whether one has dial-up, DSL, or Cable access to the internet. But as ZDnet reports, in a 3–2 decision the FCC suspend public utility commission regulations in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana that had forced BellSouth to sell DSL service to other telephone operators, separate from its local phone service (i.e. "naked" DSL). Now, as inn the past, the two services are inextricably linked, and Bell will not be forced to offer DSL to people that do not have local phone service. So "cord-cutters" (the 20 million U.S. residents who don't have local phone lines and go solo instead with their cell phones) may have to buy a local phone line to get DSL.

I am surprised that the ruling was 3-2. The way Bell's DSL is engineered, it is piggybacked on normal phone service, and Bell pricing just charged DSL customers with the incremental cost of adding DSL to their existing phone service. So people that were pressing for "naked DSL" were really asking for a free phone line.

And "cord cutters", or people that have discontinued their wired phone service and just use their cell phones, can still get broadband internet from Cable Operators. Here in Tulsa, for example, Cox Internet does not depend on a local telephone line. And at least here in Tulsa, cable broadband is faster than DSL broadband.

Bloggers Kevin Werbach and Jim seem to think this decision could effectively end broadband service as we know it.

The FCC granted a petition by BellSouth to pre-empt state regulators from requiring "naked DSL." The procedural aspects are convoluted, so the effect of that action may not be clear. Here's what the FCC is saying. The local phone companies (and, although the ruling doesn't specifically cover them, cable companies) are free to force customers to pay for phone service in order to get broadband. Whether or not you use the phone company's voice service is immaterial -- you have to pay for it. Although there are a few telcos willing to sell DSL as a stand-alone service (notably Qwest), one wonders if they will continue to do so.

The FCC ruling makes broadband an extension of phone service, rather than the reverse. It ties the data applications of the future to the anchor of the public switched telephone network. That's perverse. Voice is the application, not connectivity. We'll never have real competition if the incumbents get paid even when customers want to switch to a competitor.

I want to pay someone for high-speed data connectivity, with the opportunity to use (and pay for) innovative applications on top of that pipe. To me, that's broadband service. After the FCC decision, that may no longer be available. That's what I mean by the end of broadband as we know it. For the privilege of buying broadband, I'll have to buy phone service or something else I don't need, raising the effective price. This is the way to promote broadband adoption in the US?

but I don't see how they could say that since as I indicated earlier, one can get better broadband service from a cable company, and they can get their phone service whereever they want (possibly even from the cable company)