Dump Broadband, Dig Out Your Modem!

wilstephens writes: "Found this article on CNet about the latest trend of people dumping broadband in favour of their modems. Cheaper, and more reliable service, apparently! 'Katy Ling, a software consultant who had her home wired for high-speed Internet access last year, did what many technology analysts said would never happen: She bailed out of broadband...'"

Comments

cause she is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

She did it cause she is broke so what. If I had no job and had to cut back that is one place I would look at too

dslreports

[psychalgia]

was running this as a story as well, basically most of their users came to the conclusion that the general populous would "sell their grandmas" before returning to a modem. Non-techies don't want to wait for their information, this is the only thing that brought them to the 'net. at least I _hope_ it wasn't for the ads...

Going back

[Alomex]

I'm seriously considering going back to telephone modem. I'm using cable modem here, and the service seems to go down every other day and be no faster than 100Kbps. Before that I had DSL and that worked like a charm, but there's none to be had around my new house.

Re:Going back

[GreyPoopon]

That's the problem with the cable modems, it's a shared line. So you'll notice different times of the day will be faster than others.

I'm not going to dispute your statements, but I wanted to point out that there's much more to speed considerations than the whole "shared line" concept of cable modem. Let me spell it out a bit. Both DSL and Cable employ shared sections of their network. Both can suffer when oversubscribed. The primary difference is that correcting the problem on DSL is easier and cheaper. It involves duplicating the portions of equipment (usually located at the CO) that are overloaded. Cable, on the other hand, requires a trip 'cross country to correct the problem, and could ulimately lead to the need to bury additional cable to meet demands. Cable is divided into different "nodes," which constitute the shared portion of the connection. When cable slows down, it could be (among other things) that the node is overloaded (difficult to fix), or that the pipe between the node and the cable company is not fat enough (easier to fix).

Despite all of this, my experience has been that the single biggest bottleneck for every internet service I have had is the throughput between the provider and the internet itself. Either their pipe to the internet was a "garden hose," or the section of the internet they connected to wasn't exactly running at a spanking pace. Case in point: I used to have double channel ISDN. This is in some ways similar to DSL. Even though I had a capacity of 128 Kbps, I found that I rarely jumped over 64 Kbps unless I was hitting servers at the ISP (who happened to be the phone company). Because of some changes in price structure, I decided to go with another ISP. Under their configuration, I could only achieve 56Kbps on each channel (for a total of 112Kbps), but I found that my connection was usually running at between 90 and 110Kbps. The difference? The new ISP made sure their connection to the internet was adequate for their subscriber base.

Some suggestions:

• See where the bottleneck is first. Try hitting servers located at your ISP. If your throughput to them is good, you can be sure that your shared connection has nothing to do with your problems.
• See if you can find somebody else, preferably in a new neighborhood who has the same provider but is on a different little-used node. If they're speed is good, then you know the problem is in your shared cable. Seek DSL. :)

Not gonna do it

[well_jung]

I can understand how someone could choose between, say, food or broadband. But So long as I have 50 bucks left over after the car and house are paid for, my ass ain't digging that goddamn modem out of the closet.

And frankly, I don't know anyone else that would, either. I supect the Author's sole anecdotel example is also their neighbor. There isn't a story here.

So be a friendly webmaster...install mod_gzip

[baptiste]

It still amazes me the # of users of my websites that still use modems. We are now planning to install mod_gzip for Apache to help modem users download our larger pages faster. It didn't seem worth it at first with folks moving to broadband, but we still found many of our users listing 'modem' as their primary access method when they register. Plus it'll reduce our bandwidth demand for users who have broadband - they'll get larger files faster too. Yeah, it adds overhead on teh server CPU, but for us its worth it since we have headroom to spare.

Re:So be a friendly webmaster...install mod_gzip

[brassman]

Lemme know when I can get something other than a modem or (ugh) GEO satellite, and I'll gladly switch.

I feel your pain. :-) Took flippin' forever for Cablevision to finally get out to Pavement Narrows (which is just north of Bridge Freezes), and they never did follow up on my entry on their waiting list -- I got a little tag hanging on my doorknob from a local sales rep. Called up five minutes later and had it up and running three days later. That was about five months ago, and my DirecPC dish is doing nothing but giving some tired birds a place to sit. I ain't NEVER going back. Death first!

Re:So be a friendly webmaster...install mod_gzip

[cloudmaster]

I've compared the same site with and without mod_gzip over a modem, and mod_gzip is definately faster. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Performance/Compr ession/PPP.html agrees - fewer packets because of smaller data = faster performance on a modem. In addition, V.42bis checks to see if its own compression would be beneficial or not, and if not, it switches over to transparent mode. V.44 does the same thing, and compresses better. At http://www.digit-life.com/articles/compressv44vsv4 2bis/, if you look at table3, you'll see that pkzip compresses everything [that's not already compressed] about twice as much as either modem standard.

So, mod_gzip *does* in fact help out modem users, as it compresses data much more than any modem does, reducing the total amount of data to be sent by a greater amount while simultaneously reducing the number of packets sent.

I use mod_gzip, and everyone else should too. :)

Extremely satisfied broadband customer

[DrySkin]

We must be lucky where I live. I have had DSL for over 2 years now, and I have had almost no problems (well, one modem did die). Almost 100% uptime, on the DSL line and with the ISP (Open World Inc.) Course, now that I've said this, I'll probably get home and find it dead. Some basic info on where my DSL is coming from: Lexington, KY. DSL line provider: Verizon DSL service: 768 down, 256 up ISP: Open World Inc www.stdio.com

Re:Extremely satisfied broadband customer

[scott1853]

Verizon DSL service: 768 down, 256 up

Those numbers don't refer to "days" do they.

reliable?

[Sc00ter]

I have AT&T Broadband and before that MediaOne, and I always had a rock solid connection, and my IP almost never changed.. No way I'm going back to dial-up

broadband is for lazy people

[GunFodder]

With a dialup modem I used to get a lot more done around the house. I could go get coffee while waiting for pages to load, or do some cleaning. And I got a real sense of well-being when I left my machine on all night to download a 100MB game demo and it actually worked!

Broadband situation is generally deplorable

[Ars-Fartsica]

Most people still can't get cable modem or DSL.

Those who can face unreliable service, high prices, and shamefully bad customer service and support.

And its getting worse. Most of the start-ups that may have created competition in this market have gone under, leaving the cable and telephone monopolies in charge.

I don't know if the solution is more or less regulation and/or public involvement, but in the current atmosphere, things are going to suck for a very long time.

Never had a problem with broadband

[joshv]

Once I actually found a reliable provider who could install it I have never had a problem with broadband.

I first got a cable modem about two years ago via RCN. Recently I moved to a new place which is not wired for RCN, so I switched to SBC (Ameritech) DSL. Surprisingly I really have had no major problems with the speed or reliability of their services (though I do take issue with the price).

I did have problems getting DSL service from a few providers, the standard DSL Hell - but they are both now in bakruptcy proceedings or already bankrupt - so go figure.

To go back to a regular modem is just unthinkable for me. Maybe my experience is atypical because I live in a large and competitive urban broadband market.

-josh

Not me I say!

[Com2Kid]

After that time I got those 2MBp/s download speeds over my cable modem, there was no way that I was going back.

I reguarly get 300KBp/s per file transfer from fileplanet.com, and even faster tranfers from other sites.

Being able to download a 5meg Shockwave Flash file in the time that it takes a companies logo to fade onto the screen also helps.

Alot.

Ping times under 100ms are also great. So is that nice west coast backbone that @Home has for its users.

I originaly started out with TCI@Home then AT&T bought them up. Now I have AT&T Internet Access, Cable Television, and Cell Phone service.

And you know what? I am being treated great. The few times that I have had to call text support were great, hell, the tech guy and me were swapping anti-MS jokes back and forth. The uptime is incredible, especialy after AT&T took over from TCI, and I have not had a service interuption for, God, almost a year now! The few service interuptions that I did have in 1q01 all lasted less then 10 minutes except for one that had was 30 minutes. After that there has not been a single problem for ages now.

Hell, when my power went out my UPS kicked in and I was still able to surf the internet. Cable Modem service was still up. Now _THAT_ is what I call robust service.

It's called "ditch the monopoly"

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has access to broadband is lucky, and if you have your choice between DSL and Cable, you are even luckier. But whatever your "choice," you are lucky, and the provider treats you that way -- its as if they are doing us this big favor, and we shouldn't complain because we have no other choice.

I ordered digital cable tv, phone, and internet from the same (nameless) provider. It took two weeks, even though all the cables and hookups were already installed in the house. When they showed up, they said, "whoops - your phone didn't get put in the DB, so I'll hook it up now and all you have to do is call to activate. They shouldn't have to come out here again." After 2 hours on the phone trying to convince them to just activate it, they said, "Sorry, we have to send out another technician, and that will take another week."

"Can't you just try activating it from there and see if that works?" I begged.

"No."

So another week without phone service went by. The technician came and, guess what, it was already all hooked up. All he had to do was call some special number to have it activated.

Then, when I got home that evening, I went to check my email and guess what? My broadband Internet connection was gone. I called tech support again (and waited in the easy-listening queue) only to be told (after reboots and wire reconnecting) that they'd have to send out another technician, and that they didn't have any spots open until TWO WEEKS LATER.

I wanted to tell them to shove their connection and cancel all my services. I wanted nothing more. But I don't dare do it -- I live in a "low" aread where cell phone service is bad, TV reception is bad, and DSL isn't offered, plus I bought my own cable modem.

They know I'm stuck with them, no matter how crappy their service / prices are. Short of disconnecting myself from the world and going back to 56k, I'm there.

This article is crap

[pod]

I read this article yesterday, and it was so painful. The very premise is bogus. You're paying about 2-3 times as much for a cable/dsl line as for dialup. While such a price may be a little hard to justify for people already on a very tight budget, chances are you can spare the dollar a day required to keep your line.

And the value in 'broadband' is not the speed really. We've heard many times now, it's the instant availability stupid. People hate to have to wait (through busy signals potentially) to get online witha modem to check their mail. They like to have ICQ/AIM running all the time to see when their friends are online and to chat. It's all about convinience.

Besides, the article is full of contradictions, for example take this bit:

[ISPs] are looking for high-speed subscriptions' profit margins to bolster their bottom line...

and later:

...operating margins excluding sales and marketing expenses for cable modem subscribers are as low as 5 percent, and they say DSL is break-even at best.

So which one is it? I work for an ISP that does DSL, and let me tell you, there are no margins on DSL. It can easily take a 2-3 years to start making money on a DSL client. Hosting (and dialup to a certain extent) and bandwidth reselling is where the margins are.

And as a later paragraph puts it, high-speed subscribers would "rather sell their grandmothers" than go back to a pokey dial-up connection. It'll be hard for anyone to convert back to a dialup connection.

Quick summary

[Erasmus Darwin]

For people with a short attention span, the article takes a long time just to say:
Economy bad. People out of work. Luxury spending allegedly curtailed.

Is that reliable?

[barzok]

Maybe your users select "modem" with the thought that if they select higher bandwidth, you'll force-feed them a more graphics/flash-heavy site, and they don't want that?

Or maybe they think cable modem == modem?

If I had a dollar for every website form I filled out truthfully, I'd be a very poor man.

56k would be enough...

[geekoid]

...if people would learn how to make a damn web site speedy.
I no longer view /. at home because there damn ad system stalls the whole load.
Not to mention the site that have 1/2 a meg or more index page, sheesh.
Anybody who designs a site for a wide range of consumer customers(as opposed to business cutomers) that doesn't design the index page as a basic, small page that allows the consumer to choose between a high band width page and a smaller low bandwidth page, should be fired and ceramoniously stripped of there editors. I had DSL for a year, then cable for a year, and I gaurantee you if I could get them for a reasonable price, I'd do it again.

original vision of the web

[gribbly]

if this really does turn out to be a major trend, a positive side effect would be a lot more consideration for low bandwidth users. Sites may return to being trimmer, more text-oriented. You know, like the original vision Tim Berners-Lee had for the web!

It's hardly an original point, but it's worth mentioning in the context of this story. Most of the useful information I get from the web is text.
E.g., slashdot, virtua fighter websites, drudgereport, etc.

The main exception to this is probably mapquest. The rest of my browsing is work research and/or entertainment. My point is that very often 90% of the data I download is extraneous images and other content (e.g., ads, decorations, other blah...) that I pay zero attention to. (BTW, I have T3 at work and DSL at home).

On a dial-up connection (and I used to use one, from *Australia*) this is really annoying. With broadband it's not so bad -- but what could be better than surfing a more text-based web with broadband? There wouldn't _be_ download time as such -- the amount of time it takes to d/l a pageful of text is trivial compared to the time it takes to find ther server, and (often) for the server to retrieve/generate the page.

So in some ways a mass defection back to modems would be a healthy thing for the web.

grib.

Missing the point of broadband apparently...

[Arethan]

I used to work in the Cable Modem industry, back when it was "New Technology(tm)". The biggest selling point that I noticed for the tech savvy was the speed. (Obviously.) However, the tech savvy market is smaller than you think. So the real highest selling point was the cost vs benefit. For example:

_Dialup Model_
56k ISP: $20+/mo
2nd Phone line: $20+/mo
waiting 10 minutes/MB: pain in the ass

_Cable Modem Model_
Modem Rental: $10/mo or less
Connection Fees: $30-$40/mo
waiting 30 seconds/MB: less pain in the ass

The point is, for the same price, or even $10 more, people could have the same non-voice-line-interrupting service, and even get some extra speed out of the deal. People that had the more expensive ISPs (AOL comes to mind) were even more prone to make the switch, since they would actually be saving money by switching. (We provided @Home at the time, which provided content so people used to AOL wouldn't feel too out of place.)

Amen

[Christopher Bibbs]

If I was out of work I'd cut the cable, cable modem, Netflix membership, sell my motorcycles, and anything else to keep food on the table (and keep the table). The article states the painfully obvious. Broadband comes out of discresionary spending and when you need to save money, dropping down to regular dial-up is a viable option to many people.

So long as I have disposable income, however, the extra $20/month to have a cable modem as opposed to a traditional dial-up is worth more, than say, my weekly trip to the arcade.

A better (real) story would be about people who aren't worried about their jobs or the economy dropping broadband because they see no value in it.

Blame it on the Baby Bells

[Infonaut]

Two years ago, PacBell was putting out all of these offers for DSL - cheap, fast, etc. The problem was, they didn't have service rolled out yet. The parent company, SBC, was offering something they didn't have the capacity to actually implement. Why? Because they were scared of cable companies and pioneering DSL providers like Covad.

When I first made an inquiry with PacBell about getting DSL service, they told me I was too far out. So I contacted Covad, and lo and behold, they hooked me up. I had service through Fastpoint Communications. It was awesome. I had true, always-on static IP, blazing-fast DSL.

But Fastpoint had a difficult time getting DSL subscribers, due largely to the fact that PacBell was able to jam marketing messages down the throats of phone customers, not to mention TV ads, magazine articles, and the like. Of course, the fact that most PacBell customers were having installation nightmares was beside the point.

I actually had one friend who spent six months trying to get connected through PacBell. FIVE home visits later, they finally got it working. Another friend actually had to contact the California VP of Sales for PacBell in order to get some action on his stalled installation. Talk about a bait and switch tactic.

In any case, Fastpoint went belly-up. So Covad passed me on to Earthlink. Whatever problems Earthlink is having seem to be self-created. Their phone support people are truly awesome - great attitude, very helpful. But it took a while for my service to get started, and I was actually DSL-less for two months. Once it started working, I was moderately satisfied with my new PPPoE (yech!) connection, but not as happy as I'd been before with Fastpoint.

Then I wanted to add a second phone number to my apartment. I had to switch to PacBell for my DSL because since they own the voice line, the only way to get a true DSL Internet and voice on the same line setup is if you use PacBell!

So now I am using PacBell, with an annoying PPPoE, dynamic IP setup. I've just put in an order to convert over to static IP, which means I'll now pay $70/mo., and I'll have five IP addresses, when all I really need is one, perhaps two.

I work from home, so fast, reliable Internet access is key for me. I use PacBell because I basically have no other choice. They submarined the competition, played every stall tactic in the book, and now they're a local monopoly.

Will there be any action on this at the state or federal level? With the current economic and political climate, that's highly unlikely. To me, the subversion of competition in broadband was the real tragedy of the dot-bomb crash. I don't give a crap about pets.com, but we all lost out on a great opportunity when the Baby Bells subverted true competition.

Dump broadband? Uh, no.

[Bowie J. Poag]

The kinds of people who end up dumping broadband fall into two categories.

1) "I cant find anything useful to do with it!"
2) "Oh, help me, my broadband service has been a nightmare!"

Both of which are fairly stupid conclusions. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not there--There are plenty of things on the net for which broadband is perfectly suited for. Here, i'll give you a real world example: I stopped watching TV news about a month and a half ago. Now, I just pull in feed via DSL from CNN and ABC News. I don't find much sense in 24 hour nonstop anthrax coverage, so I omit that crap from my feed. Tipped over vending machines have killed more people in the past 10 years than Anthrax has killed in the past 50 years. I'm surprised the nightly news isn't giving you stooges hourly vending machine updates.

Anyway, onto the second category. Broadband service providers by in large don't have their acts together, but thats not the technology's fault. Its the fault of the people handling it. We as Americans are far too impatient with such things. We just want to plug it in and see it go, and no form of broadband works that way. People who complain about broadband service are the same people who complain that their tires get dirty from off-roading. Wait until the damn road is paved, then travel on it.

For the record, i've had DSL for the past two years or so. I never had a problem with the technology end of it -- But I have had a problem with the human end of it. Namely, inept technical support, and billing, which is to be expected whenever theres a big rush to do anything.

Getting rid of broadband is like saying we should get rid of cars because they cost more to maintain than bicycles. No thanks.

Cheers, and yes, PROPAGANDA is still running,

I am among the luddites!

[peteshaw]

Yeah, I dropped my dsl line back in October. My carrier got bought out by RealConnect and at the end of my one year contract I was notified that my 49.95 128K IDSL line would be *slightly* going up to $169.95!

What really annoyed me was the letter itself. Okay, I can understand if costs go up. But (a) there was no apology in the letter and (b)I was given 7 days to make up my mind on continuing the contract.

So I call up RealConnect and mildly explain my position, which is that you are trying to gouge me with an insanely high price. They in turn blamed Network Access Solutions for ratcheting up the residential rates to match business class. NAS is the only provider to the local switch, so after some research, I figured I was pretty much hosed.

Needless to say I do my big downloads from work and at home I say, "Welcome to NetZero!"

Postscript: After one month plus at 28.8K (my phone lines are &@#'d up buts thats another story) I don't knotice it that much. When I'm online my phone calls are forwarded to my cell, and I can't download ISO's, MP3's, or mulimedia, but who cares? I can easily do without that junk. Email, ebay, online shopping, messaging, you can do 90% of your stuff with a dog slow connection.

Not quite...

[DrCode]

Your numbers are a bit exaggerated. For my dialup:

56k ISP: $13/mo
2nd Phone line: 0
Download time/Mb: ~6 minutes
Time to connect: ~10 seconds (wvdial is great)
Busy signals: Never.
ISP downtime/problems: 0

Plus, my ISP (hevanet.com), whom we've been with for over 7 years, runs BSD, so they provide a shell-login, and have always been Unix-friendly. From what I read here on Slashdot, lots of the broadband companies seem to go out of their way to make life difficult for non-MS users.

One missing fact: 'She' is broke

[rjamestaylor]

She bailed out AFTER losing her job. Duh. As a WORKING professional I cannot do without broadband.

I am an AT&T Broadband customer and am very satisified. Very little down time (much less than PacBell/GTE/Verizon DSL I've experienced). Fast connections. Good tech support (once you get past the 1000th level of voice prompts from the I-wanted-to-be-a-Top-40s-announcer male voice).

Even for a wireless I prefer broadband. Love that Richochet - want it back.

Dialup's better on all counts but speed..

[Myself]

and it's portable, too. You can't take your cable modem out of town and use it in an El Cheapo motel room!

My MediaOne cable modem was horrible. For the 3 months I had it, it was literally down more often than it was up. I spent more time on dialup than on cable during those months, and I'm glad I didn't cancel my dialup ISP in anticipation!

When it was working, the speed was as advertised. No complaints there.

Then MediaOne took it upon themselves to portscan my machine. They found FTP open, which I'd set up the previous day so I could get to some files from a friend's house. Anonymous access was disabled, I made sure of that. They then proceeded to try standard guest and visitor logins, which of course didn't work. Then MediaOne (this is all in my logs, coming from their machines!) started guessing common words, one of which worked. Well duh, I hadn't exactly locked the box down like Fort Knox. I just wanted to set myself up a little remote file dump! So MediaOne gets in, notices I have some MP3s on my drive, and proceeds to yank the plug.

I get a nice letter in the mail a week later, saying I've been terminated for violating the service agreement. Because they hacked _my_ machine. The RIAA has like-minded friends already if they plan to move in this direction.

Needless to say, I've been on a POTS line with a v.90 modem ever since. The account goes with me when I travel, it's never down for more than 5 minutes at a time, and in the extremely rare event that my favorite POP is busy, there are two more within my local calling area. Cable just can't offer that reliability or portability.

Not that phone lines are perfect! The Ameritech bozo who installed my line "buried" it so poorly that it got hit by a lawn mower. The resulting splices in the line keep me down to about 33.6 most days, slower if it rains, but it always gets me to my mail, at least.

VPN: The Killer App

[StevenMaurer]

I'll never go back to dialup. Ever.

Why?

Simple, both my wife and I use it to connect to each of our corporate intra-nets using VPN. And if you want to do any real work, NFS mounts, Windows junk, remote compiling - anything - you really have to have enough speed to make it worthwhile.

It's not different for non-technical people either. If you use accounting programs, inventory tracking, anything else using a client-server model, broadband speeds are the only way to go for any real work at home.

just cancelled DSL, have yet to sell grandma

[dR.fuZZo]

I was using Qwest as my DSL provider and my ISP. Well...they were just doing that little deal where their ISP customers were being switched over to MSN. So I wasn't that crazy about that. I considered finding a different ISP and keeping the DSL, but I didn't for two reasons.

1. Thought it would be good to spend a bit more time offline.

2. Qwest's service sucked.

To give you an example of 2, here's how it went when I called Qwest to cancel my service.

First person: Wants to go over all my personal info to make sure it's up to date. We do so. He says he'll transfer me to the folks who can cancel my DSL.

Second person: I get a paragraph of Spanish before I can make it clear that speaking in English works much better for me... Turns out the first guy transferred me to the wrong person. This is the Spanish Repair line. I get transferred.

Third person: Says she cancelled my ISP service, but not my DSL service. Says she'll transfer me to appropriate dept, but she disconnects me instead.

Fourth person: I call back. I can barely understand this person through her Ebonics. She transfers me without telling me that's what she's doing.

Fifth person: He tells me that it doesn't make sense that the third person cancelled my ISP service. He's supposed to do that. He finally (I think) takes care of everything.

The thing is, this wasn't too bad considering how some of my other calls have gone. Anyway, now I'm on a dirt cheap intro sale for dial-up with a company that's actually local. As opposed to doing anything with my Qwest account, I actually did all the sign-up stuff online.