DSL Bundling and Cable Restricting: Consumer Perks or Regulatory Relics?

I've been using BroadVoice's VoIP service for my business phone line since last fall, and aside from few minor glitches, I'm quite pleased with it. Last week, my wife asked me if we might be able to ditch our SBC (aka Pacific Bell) personal POTS service and instead get another VoIP phone number running on our SBC Yahoo! DSL line. Unfortunately, I had to tell her that her suggestion (although a good one) wasn't currently possible, and that I didn't know when (or if) it ever would be.

Comcast doesn't demand that I have its cable TV service if I want high-speed Internet, although the monthly service cost for cable Internet is $14 cheaper if I add it to a pre-existing cable TV subscription. SBC, on the other hand, requires that I maintain a POTS account in order to get DSL on that account. Last summer, I entertained hopes that state regulatory pressure would break this bundle-bullying, but a recent FCC decision (along party lines, I might add) puts my aspirations into (perpetual?) suspended animation.

The telcos' arguments are predictable; we've heard them before. That allowing consumers to cancel their POTS service would deprive the telcos of much-needed revenue for R&D. R&D that leads to exciting new products and service cost reductions. Exciting new products and service cost reductions that ultimately benefit consumers. But the service cost reductions never seem to manifest. Actually, that's not entirely fair; I'm now paying sub-$20/month for a DSL account that originally cost me $50/month or so, and that's capable of 1.1 Mbps downstream speeds, but I think that's more the result of competitive pressure from Comcast and from SureWest Broadband, who last summer laid fiber right to my curb.

The exciting new products aren't terribly exciting either to folks, like me, who rarely watch TV. Then again, I did like the recent no-extra-cost DSL upstream bandwidth boost I got, to 384 kbps. There's a related case now before the Supreme Court, regarding whether or not cable television companies are required to open their networks to alternative cable Internet service providers. From the Slashdot post: "The FCC has ruled that Cable High-Speed Internet is an Information Service, and therefore not subject to the same equal access regulations that govern DSL. Brand-X Networks sued the FCC for equal access to the Cable Networks and won. The FCC appealed the decision and next Tuesday the case goes to the Supreme Court. The Telco's have repeatedly used the current FCC stance on Cable Broadband in their fight to get the same monopoly on DSL. This case has the potential to not only open the Cable networks to competition, but also prevent the Telco's from further attempts on limiting DSL options."

What do you think?