It is interesting to see the different regulatory approaches adopted in the U.S. and Canada over Naked DSL. In the U.S., the FCC has ruled states can't force carriers to offer Naked DSL - a decision that split the FCC and, not surprisingly, has drawn plenty of criticism as a blow against the freedom to use broadband access without having it tied to a phone line. In Canada, Naked DSL appears to be alive and well based on a recent story by Tyler Hamilton. Bell plans to meet a commitment to the CRTC by quietly offering Naked DSL soon.
Why the difference in approaches?
The biggest issue facing Naked DSL is figuring out how it fits into a competitive marketplace and regulatory mandates. In Canada, the CRTC wants to encourage competition so Naked DSL is another way to make it easier for consumers to use a rival local service while using high-speed service from an ILEC. The question is will there be a point where there is enough local competition to change the Naked DSL rules? And when will Naked DSL will be extended to cablecos.
Personally, I'm in favor of Naked DSL because I believe consumer choice is essential, particularly in a world where bundles are being aggressively promoted. Carriers shouldn't be afraid of Naked DSL but look at it as a marketing challenge. If the rest of their Web-based services are compelling, they have nothing to worry about.

It appears that Clearwire - the latest entrepreneurial offspring of billionaire Craig McCaw - has jumped on the Not On My Broadband System bandwagon amid reports its terms of service agreement prevents the use of high bandwidth applications such as VOIP and streaming audio and video. The heart of the service agreement is the following:
"You may not use the Service or take any action that will result in excessive consumption or utilization of Clearwire’s system or network resources, or which may weaken network performance, or which adversely affects the performance of the Services for other Clearwire customers, all as determined in Clearwire’s sole discretion."
As a result, some Clearwire customers have discovered they are not able to use Vonage - another troublespot for a company in the midst of raising another US$100 million in private equity. Clearwire claims it's blocking third-party applications to maintain the reliability of the network but there is something far more sinister happening: packet favouritism where ISPs give lower priority to traffic piggybacking on their networks. If this anti-competition approach is adopted by more broadband ISPs, it would be a major setback to the Web-services business, which is quickly emerging as high-speed access become more widespread and ISPs look for revenue beyond connectivity. For a sign of things to potentially come, look at how Madison River Telephone Co. was fined $15,000 by the FCC after Vonage complained its service was being blocked. I suspect packet blocking is akin to steroids in sports - there is a lot of activity happening but few incidents get reported or publicized.
The real reasons behind Clearwire's usage policy may not be network reliability but an agreement it recently signed to tap Bell Canada for VOIP technology. Clearwire would obviously prefer its customers use its to-be-launched VOIP service rather than a rival such as Vonage. At some point the FCC and CRTC will have to step into the fray and decide whether ISPs can implement these policies. Until the rules are clear, NOMBS stands a good - and disturbing - chance of thriving.