View Single Post
Unread 06-12-2007, 02:49 AM   #4
DracoFelis's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 188
Thanks: 4
Thanked 64 Times in 41 Posts
DracoFelis is a jewel in the roughDracoFelis is a jewel in the rough

Originally Posted by andy View Post
I don't see how people can have broadband without a phone line, and therefore paying BT for it. Some of the proponents of this idea seem to gloss over that.
DSL does require a "phone line", in that you need the physical wire from the phone company. But it's only marketing/rules of the phone company that says you also need "telephone service" on that wire. From a technical standpoint, it's quite possible to have DSL on a "phone line" that doesn't also have "phone service" enabled.

Originally Posted by andy View Post
Some of them have also claimed that such products exist in USA and Australia. I read replies on one forum that this was untrue for USA
Yes and no. It really depends upon the provider. Some telcos (and especially some 3rd party DSL providers, that rent the "phone lines" from the telcos) will sell "Naked DSL" and some don't offer that option. My telco doesn't offer that option, but that doesn't mean that some don't.

NOTE: Most (USA) providers that offer "Naked DSL" do charge a little more for their "Naked DSL" offerings than they do for DSL riding with a telco/phone line (because they don't have the phone service subsidizing the costs of the wire). So some people have found that it's sometimes cheaper to get regular DSL with a minimal phone plan (and just not use the phone), vs paying extra for "Naked DSL". However, in most cases the costs of DSL+phone are still more expensive than the surcharge for "Naked DSL" (without any phone). And so if you really don't want/need the "phone", "Naked DSL" (if offered in your area) can sometimes be a good idea.
DracoFelis is offline   Reply With Quote