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.