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.