| Author |
Message |
Verizon DSL Class
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject:
Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
Does anyone know if a class action lawsuit has been brought against
Verizon for requiring active local phone service in order to utilize
their $29.95/month DSL service? I have tried contacting them several
times regarding this requirement and get bounced from department to
department.
I subscribed to their DSL service for a year, but cancelled it because
it was costing me more than $50/month when combined with the basic
local phone service (in addition to the $55 phone line connection fee).
I didn't even have a phone connected to that line because I rely solely
on my cell phone.
This requirement seems like a mechanism for Verizon to increase their
revenue. If anyone can give me a scientific explanation for why local
phone service must be activated prior to obtaining DSL service, please
let me know. It seems like a clerical requirement on their end because
it's easy to check where service extends by typing in the 10-digit
phone number. It also speeds the work order through their system
because you are relying on one UniqueID (the phone number). But,
Verizon could create a phone number for an account and bill it only for
DSL service.
If there is no scientific reason for requiring this additional service,
I am interested in pursuing a class action suit against Verizon for
this practice.
Jen |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tom Lager
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
verizonDSLclass@hotmail.com (Verizon DSL Class) wrote in
<1107878080.931880.43220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
| Quote: | Does anyone know if a class action lawsuit has been brought against
Verizon for requiring active local phone service in order to utilize
their $29.95/month DSL service? I have tried contacting them several
times regarding this requirement and get bounced from department to
department.
I subscribed to their DSL service for a year, but cancelled it because
it was costing me more than $50/month when combined with the basic
local phone service (in addition to the $55 phone line connection fee).
I didn't even have a phone connected to that line because I rely solely
on my cell phone.
This requirement seems like a mechanism for Verizon to increase their
revenue. If anyone can give me a scientific explanation for why local
phone service must be activated prior to obtaining DSL service, please
let me know. It seems like a clerical requirement on their end because
it's easy to check where service extends by typing in the 10-digit
phone number. It also speeds the work order through their system
because you are relying on one UniqueID (the phone number). But,
Verizon could create a phone number for an account and bill it only for
DSL service.
If there is no scientific reason for requiring this additional service,
I am interested in pursuing a class action suit against Verizon for
this practice.
Jen
Actually there is a scientific reason, that is if you ILEC haters will |
listen to it. All along the way from the C.O. to your premise, there are
mechanical splices in the copper cable. If these do not have current
flowing through them, at least periodically, they tend to corrode from
moisture in the air. This eventually degrades the connection and causes
noise on the line, something you definitely don't want on a data circuit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David H. Lipman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
Good Luck !
I don't think what you propose is actionable.
--
Dave
"Verizon DSL Class" <verizonDSLclass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107878080.931880.43220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Does anyone know if a class action lawsuit has been brought against
| Verizon for requiring active local phone service in order to utilize
| their $29.95/month DSL service? I have tried contacting them several
| times regarding this requirement and get bounced from department to
| department.
|
| I subscribed to their DSL service for a year, but cancelled it because
| it was costing me more than $50/month when combined with the basic
| local phone service (in addition to the $55 phone line connection fee).
| I didn't even have a phone connected to that line because I rely solely
| on my cell phone.
|
| This requirement seems like a mechanism for Verizon to increase their
| revenue. If anyone can give me a scientific explanation for why local
| phone service must be activated prior to obtaining DSL service, please
| let me know. It seems like a clerical requirement on their end because
| it's easy to check where service extends by typing in the 10-digit
| phone number. It also speeds the work order through their system
| because you are relying on one UniqueID (the phone number). But,
| Verizon could create a phone number for an account and bill it only for
| DSL service.
|
| If there is no scientific reason for requiring this additional service,
| I am interested in pursuing a class action suit against Verizon for
| this practice.
|
| Jen
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bert Hyman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
Youremail@isp.com (Tom Lager) wrote in
news:95F77C637Lagertptdnet@140.99.99.130:
| Quote: | Actually there is a scientific reason, that is if you ILEC haters
will listen to it. All along the way from the C.O. to your
premise, there are mechanical splices in the copper cable. If
these do not have current flowing through them, at least
periodically, they tend to corrode from moisture in the air. This
eventually degrades the connection and causes noise on the line,
something you definitely don't want on a data circuit.
|
So how does Qwest get away with offering "naked DSL"?
I suspect it's because the conditions you describe don't really
exist, but I'd still like to hear your explanation.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@visi.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birder
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:54 am Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
Verizon DSL Class wrote:
| Quote: | Does anyone know if a class action lawsuit has been brought against
Verizon for requiring active local phone service in order to utilize
their $29.95/month DSL service? I have tried contacting them several
times regarding this requirement and get bounced from department to
department.
I subscribed to their DSL service for a year, but cancelled it because
it was costing me more than $50/month when combined with the basic
local phone service (in addition to the $55 phone line connection fee).
I didn't even have a phone connected to that line because I rely solely
on my cell phone.
This requirement seems like a mechanism for Verizon to increase their
revenue. If anyone can give me a scientific explanation for why local
phone service must be activated prior to obtaining DSL service, please
let me know. It seems like a clerical requirement on their end because
it's easy to check where service extends by typing in the 10-digit
phone number. It also speeds the work order through their system
because you are relying on one UniqueID (the phone number). But,
Verizon could create a phone number for an account and bill it only for
DSL service.
If there is no scientific reason for requiring this additional service,
I am interested in pursuing a class action suit against Verizon for
this practice.
Jen
The requirement of active local phone service is fully dependent on each |
state's utility commission. I believe there are several states which do
not require the acceptance of phone service. It is on the small print
somewhere on the Verizon site. It shows that some utility commissions
are not swayed by the telcos lobbying efforts.
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DevilsPGD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:11 am Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
In message <95F77C637Lagertptdnet@140.99.99.130> Youremail@isp.com (Tom
Lager) wrote:
| Quote: | Actually there is a scientific reason, that is if you ILEC haters will
listen to it. All along the way from the C.O. to your premise, there are
mechanical splices in the copper cable. If these do not have current
flowing through them, at least periodically, they tend to corrode from
moisture in the air. This eventually degrades the connection and causes
noise on the line, something you definitely don't want on a data circuit.
|
Assuming this is true (Which I haven't bothered to research), so what?
The ILEC could easily leave the line connected to power or even a
911-only dialtone (As is done in many areas throughout the US already)
and run DSL over that line.
Putting a requirement of dialtone plus local calling plus a DID is an
artificial limit.
--
Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently,
and for the very same reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Redelmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:04 am Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Putting a requirement of dialtone plus local calling plus
a DID is an artificial limit.
|
Maybe so, but they _are_ allowed to set their terms-of-service
for unregulated services. Which AFAIK DSL is everywhere
in the USA. They could insist you pay a year upfront.
They don't because it'd cost them too many customers.
Paying for local dialtone mostly covers the cost of
maintaining the local loop. Without dialtone, you'd have
to pay a separate charge. The ILEC probably doesn't want to
hassle for the few customers, and dialtone brings you under
the regs they use for all their customers.
-- Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T. Sean Weintz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:42 am Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
Tom Lager wrote:
| Quote: |
Actually there is a scientific reason, that is if you ILEC haters will
listen to it. All along the way from the C.O. to your premise, there are
mechanical splices in the copper cable. If these do not have current
flowing through them, at least periodically, they tend to corrode from
moisture in the air. This eventually degrades the connection and causes
noise on the line, something you definitely don't want on a data circuit.
|
I'd buy that, were it not for the fact that dry contact pairs for alarm
circuits, which you can still get from most ILECS, would have the same
problem. 99.999% of the time there is NOTHING running through those
pairs. There is only current when the CPE triggers and alarm.
So why is it an issue for DSL but not dry contact alarm circuits? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Abrams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:53 am Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
"T. Sean Weintz" <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote in message
news:110ktedlkjbpk45@news.supernews.com...
| Quote: | Tom Lager wrote:
Actually there is a scientific reason, that is if you ILEC haters will
listen to it. All along the way from the C.O. to your premise, there
are
mechanical splices in the copper cable. If these do not have current
flowing through them, at least periodically, they tend to corrode from
moisture in the air. This eventually degrades the connection and causes
noise on the line, something you definitely don't want on a data
circuit.
I'd buy that, were it not for the fact that dry contact pairs for alarm
circuits, which you can still get from most ILECS, would have the same
problem. 99.999% of the time there is NOTHING running through those
pairs. There is only current when the CPE triggers and alarm.
So why is it an issue for DSL but not dry contact alarm circuits?
|
The initial contention about the dry pair has only a tiny bit of truth to
it........as does your description of alarm circuits. ;-)
Most alarm circuits are closed loop circuits. That is, a small current
flows on the loop indicating "normal" and the current changes or goes open
to indicate an alarm. This is done so that the circuit won't have a
"silent" fault develop.
As for the initial question, the LECs do that because they CAN, not because
they need to (except to keep their cash flow up). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DevilsPGD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:09 am Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
In message <qoxOd.3157$ng6.2107@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> "Ken Abrams"
<k_abrams@[REMOVETHIS]sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | The initial contention about the dry pair has only a tiny bit of truth to
it........as does your description of alarm circuits. ;-)
Most alarm circuits are closed loop circuits. That is, a small current
flows on the loop indicating "normal" and the current changes or goes open
to indicate an alarm. This is done so that the circuit won't have a
"silent" fault develop.
|
So do the same on a DSL-only pair. This isn't hard to figure out.
--
If(tagline = 'funny') steal(); else next message(); |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T. Sean Weintz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
Ken Abrams wrote:
| Quote: |
The initial contention about the dry pair has only a tiny bit of truth to
it........as does your description of alarm circuits. ;-)
Most alarm circuits are closed loop circuits.
|
Not round here. Put a multimeter on it before you hook up the equipment
and it reads 0 amps, 0 volts.
| Quote: | That is, a small current
flows on the loop indicating "normal" and the current changes or goes open
to indicate an alarm. This is done so that the circuit won't have a
"silent" fault develop.
|
No, not the type of alarm circuit I mean. The type I mean is used for
the customer alarm equipment to send current down the line to (for
instance) ring a bell on the other end, etc. In fact the spec for the
type of dry pair circuit I am thinking of specifies essentialy point to
point dry pairs. No loop. Simply patched at the CO. To CO equipment
involved other that a patch panel. Dunno what they are called in
different areas, back here we call them "BAPA" cicuits. The type of
circuiit I am referring to is also commonlly used by folks who realize
these are completely dry pairs to build "roll your own" 2mbps pt to pt
dsl circuits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Lesher
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:51 am Post subject:
Re: Verizon DSL requires local phone service |
|
|
Youremail@isp.com (Tom Lager) writes:
| Quote: | Actually there is a scientific reason, that is if you ILEC haters will
listen to it. All along the way from the C.O. to your premise, there are
mechanical splices in the copper cable. If these do not have current
flowing through them, at least periodically, they tend to corrode from
moisture in the air. This eventually degrades the connection and causes
noise on the line, something you definitely don't want on a data circuit.
|
Sealing current is anti-parallel to dial tone. You can park DC on the
pair with no switch on the CO end...
For more on sealing current, see: <32B1EBAC.17C1@quicomm.com>
<http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=32B1EBAC.17C1%40quicomm.com&output=gplain>
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in