Report: Broadband Too Expensive For Many

An anonymous submitter writes "This AP article, citing a study from the U.S. Commerce Department, reports that "Almost all U.S. families live in areas where a high-speed Internet connection is available, but many see no compelling reason to pay extra for it." The article mentions a survey that found that "more than 70 percent of dial-up users cited cost as the main reason they aren't upgrading to faster access."" It's much like digital cable - the cable networks ratch up the price for...music channels? But broadband is a chicken - egg problem. You won't get people signing up until they see a reason, and you won't get compelling reasons until more people have signed up.

Comments

Broadband cost

[murcon]

Digital cable made inroads around me when they started offering free installation and 3 months at a reduced rate. (Of course, after three months in our house where the only show that got serious attention was "Farscape", we determined that even that wasn't worth the full price, and we disconnected.) So maybe DSL and cable providers should look at making the first few months the same cost as dial-up, just to get people to try it.

Re:Broadband cost

[DeadSea]

I tried digital cable and it was far worse.

1. The worst offender was the time that it takes to change channels. Digital takes almost half a second where my analog is almost instantaneous.
2. The picture quality wasn't improved. In fact, I noticed significant mpeg like artifacts especially right after you changed the channel.
3. The programming was almost the same. I never used any of the extra channels I got.
4. I needed a cable box, but the analog plugs directly into my tv and tivo.

With digital, channel surfing was nearly impossible because of the channel change lag, and that was my biggest reason for switching back to analog.

NO SHIT!

[unicron]

Lemme get this straight: The cost of something being too high is a main factor stopping someone from buying it? What a crazy world we live in!

remember, this post != trolling.

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[dlb]

I guess the 'fattie' comment sort of hit too close to home, huh?

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[Scratch-O-Matic]

NICE!

5'10, 160lb.

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[swillden]

Come try my 5k, the one I do on my lunch hour. It includes 4000 feet of vertical elevation change. And starts at 6000 feet above sea level.

I'll bury you.

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[swillden]

Well, "running" isn't quite right. Much of it is really climbing rocky and wooded slopes that are much steeper than 50 degrees. It's nearly vertical in a couple of spots.

And the distance is probably further than 5k round trip.

And it does take a rather long lunch hour to finish it. More like a "marketing lunch".

Still, the point is that five PCs, a laptop and a wireless LAN does not necessarily a couch potato make.

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[swillden]

No. You finish at the starting point. I find that when I'm driving myself, that makes it much easier to get home.

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[John Harrison]

My calculations give a much smaller number than 50 degrees. I am wondering where you start at though. The valley is below 5000 ft. Lake is at what, between 4200 and 4300? Also 4000 ft of elevation change isn't the same as 4000 ft of elevation gain. Do you mean gain? If you do then the average incline, assuming 5k round trip, is about 25 degrees. If you meant 2000 ft of gain, then your angle is only 13 degrees.

I miss the mountains.

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[swillden]

In the words of Al Borland "I Don't Think So Tim"

In the words of my 10th grade Trig teacher: "Do that again. You got it wrong."

5km = 16000 feet, roughly, 8000 out and 8000 back. 4000 feet of elevation change means 2000 up and 2000 down.

To get the angle, then, calculate arcsin(2000/8000), which is 14.5 degrees.

A 50-degree incline would make the elevation change almost equal to the length of the run.

Thanks to John for pointing that out. It should have been obvious to me.

Re:And you must be on AOL.

[swillden]

I was thinking of Adam's Canyon, above Gentile Street in Layton. I'm told that the waterfall is about two miles and 2000 vertical feet from the trailhead, which is at about 4600 feet, not 6000, so I was, ahem, embellishing a bit on the altitude.

Based on that, I get an average incline of about 11 degrees (assuming the 2 miles is the hypotenuse of the triangle). Feels like it's steeper, though, especially the last half mile when your quads are shrieking for mercy. :-)

I miss the mountains.

I can certainly understand that... Take up sailing?