Slashdot Mirror
Broadband's Unintended Consequences
Makarand writes "BBC News is
reporting on the result of a long term study
conducted to find how ordinary people and small businesses in and around London and Leeds used broadband. They
found
that broadband was actually slowing down user interaction with
the Net as they are no longer afraid of spending
too much time online anymore. People did not really care about the speed at which they could download from the Net. Broadband's
selling points- like speed and the capacity to be always-on, were something
that the average person did not care about."
Maybe they forgot to plug the modem in... My mom did when she first got broadband and said it was ungodly slow...
Banaaaana!
God knows I use the net WAY more now I have DSL! This is a not a good thing.
Unintended consequences have broadband!
In other news.. People who are constantly fed say they aren't hungry.
Liberty.
Who doesn't want a bigger pipe!
Even my grandpa does, and he doesn't use the internet
I like it.
I have a $5.95/month 56k unlimited dialup plan, and other than WAITING for huge pictures in my email ("here's ANOTHER 1000KB JPG of my dog d00d!"), and the inability to download ISOs, it's fine.
Yes, I do "scramble" a little more while I'm online, and I've discovered compression for my SSH sessions, but the Net is still quite usable. I get on, I surf for what I want, I get off. I spend less time plugged in, and more time interacting with real people.
I'm debating going back to broadband when my finances improve, but I'm unsure if I will.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
People did not really care about the speed at which they could download from the Net.
Take their broadband away and put them back on a 56k dialup connection again for a few days. I'll bet they'll care. It's not that people don't take about download speeds, its just that broadband users take it for granted after awhile.
Personally, I don't think I really consider this to be measurable anymore. If I'm at a computer, 9 times out of 10, I'm online even if I'm just recompiling a kernel or typing up a paper. Maybe I'm not actively browsing or chatting or anything, but I consider myself online.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
...all the promised music and video-on-demand that was supposed to be the killer app for broadband access never materialized thanks to plenty of legal manuevering by the RIAA and MPAA.
But people like the lower latency and the fact their web pages pop up quicker, so it doesn't matter that there's no real need for the average person to have a giant pipe.
NO CARRIER
OH SHUT UP category!!
Long live broadband!!!
Considering that telephone calls in the UK are toll calls, this is a no brainer. Back when Compuserve was The Thing and you paid by the hour you got in, did your business and got the hell out fast. With always on access who cares if it takes three minutes or thirty? You don't HAVE to run like hell anymore as the monitary cost is no longer a fctor in how long you stay on line.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Urm, this statement does not make sense. For sure,not many people "exploit" their broadband to the max, but then again BB services have always followed the 80/20 path.
Besides, this "slowing down user interaction" is pure bullshit. What this means is that users are actually using the "internet" for things other than email etc. Think p2p filesharing.
They found that broadband was actually slowing down user interaction with the Net as they are no longer afraid of spending too much time online anymore. Broadband's selling points- like speed and the capacity to be always-on, were something that the average person did not care about.
This doesn't totally make sense... I think it's silly to think that they don't care. If they didn't care about always on or speed then why keep broadband anyway?
At least they care enough to not be afraid of being on it too long. Whatever that is...
Hmmm... Pie...
Ive always maintained that users dont need the bandwidth of Broadband, like they dont need the latest greatest processor etc. Only benefit to 512K + is downloading large files, which isn't something i, along with the majority of users, spend a lot of time doing.
I'd be happy with 128K, always on, but with the ability to have 'bursts' of say 2MB when i do want to download somthing large.
I dunno about most of the world populous, but I had dialup (all the way back to the GEnie/CompuServe/Prodigy era), then cable for about 6 months as soon as it was available, then I moved to an area with no broadband available. Trust me, it was horrible. No one could call me because I took 3 hours downloading OS updates, I couldn't do much of what I used to like to do - idle on IRC, listen to streamed audio (legal matters aside), download new Linux distros, et cetera. After 2 years of this madness cable finally became available and life has been good again. It's just not good enough for a geek to have dial-up anymore - even with a dedicated phone line.
This story says that people get and use broadband service because they don't use a phone line or get charged per-minute charges.
I'm sure that's fine and dandy in the UK, but here I don't think anyone pays per-minute charges for dial-up and the cost of a second phone line + AOL or MSN about equals the cost of broadband. Hell, broadband is even a little cheaper than that combination where I live.
They say that the big selling point of broadband is that it's always on, but say absolutely nothing to elaborate. Gee, thanks.
They say that most people aren't downloading, so increased download speeds aren't important. Sure, few people download as a majority of their online time, but it's certainly an important factor when people do download.
They end with "broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin." How the hell they got to that conclusion isn't even evident.
I guess the criteria for getting a story on Slashdot is just that it has a fancy headline and is about tech? Even if some idiot n00b wrote it? Even if it's totally wrong? Hell, it doesn't even mention Linux or Open Source. Eesh.
I personally feel that if I had to go to my desktop (muchless turn it on, muchles dial up!) I wouldn't do half the stuff I want to do. I think it really comes down to the interfaces we currently have (big boxes in a side room). It's the physical integration that will increase broadband usage. Once that happens, broadband becomes a necessity.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
There's more music and video online than you could ever possibly watch.
I see they're running Windows.
The Mothership
Did anyone notice the picture in the article? There's a quote where someone says "The PC is more scary monster than household pet", and then seemingly to illustrate this point, there's a picture of a puppy and kittens!
Gotta love the Beeb.
Hmmmm, so the researchers thought that the fact that broadband had faster download speeds would mean that people would spend less time online? I'm not surprised that the reverse is true and people spend more time online when using broadband than when they had dialup.
With broadband using the 'net isn't as frustrating with all the waiting around so I don't stop out of irritation. I don't have to get off the 'net to keep the phone line free. I also don't have to deal with the annoying modem screech and inevitable busy signals before connecting to the 'net.
Why wouldn't I spend more time online?
In Europe, as well as Japan, phone calls, even for local numbers, are charged by the minute, in constrast to the practice in the US where you get unlimited local calling. Therefore, traditionally, without broadband, dialup Internet users here have been very concientious about the time they spend online. Many studies have shown that this has caused the growth of ecommerce and (more of interest to me) online gaming to be slower in those parts of the world. With broadband, and unlimited usage, it was a quantum leap for many Internet users here in Japan and I'm sure such was the case in England as well, to be able to have UNLIMITED usage. I would say that, compared to the US where broadband was just an evolution in speed, it was, from a marketing standpoint much more of a compelling sell in these countries, because of the UNLIMITED aspect of it, causing people to use/overuse it even more than in the US.
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
This story makes no sense. I wish slashdot would stop posting stupid stories just becuase they make some stupid claim.
"People are not doing things that require speed, so that is something of a red herring as a selling point,"
Yeah. It never bothered me when it took somwhere around 45 seconds to 2 minutes to load a webpage I needed to go to. Granted I'm what those people would call a "Power User", even my father who doesn't work in the industry (he's a Truck Fleet Manager), loved Broadband over Dialup. When he finally got a cable modem he was very pleased with webpage loading times, especially because where he lives the copper lines in the area are poorly done and seriously old. The maximum modem connect he could manage was 21600.
In other news Mustang owners say they don't really notice much of a difference with their 320hp vs. the 120hp Escort that costs much less.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
It should be noted that these findings were in london/leeds, where up until broadband was available, they were still paying by the minute dialup internet charges. While I still think that they enjoy the other selling points of broadband, I can see how the flat monthly fee is the most attractive feature to them.
It's A Xan Thing - http://www.xanthor.net/
I think the article is right on the money, for now. I also think the people visiting slashdot may not be the same demographic group compared to the one mentioned in the article. I guess we can be considered 'early adapters'. Where Joe Average still feels his main reason for having DSL is not having to worry about the minutes he has to pay for (and I remember that sentiment, it's been a few years though), we have already gone beyond that point and discovered that broadband gives us more possibilities. The fact that we may be a bit more computer literate won't hurt. 'Us geeks' have the toys and the knowlegde to fill the broadband, but just wait a year, or possibly even less and the learning curves will be even less steep, the software will be more user friendly and the 5Mbit digital camera will be cheaper than today. I say that broadbands selling point makes sense. It made sense for the early adapter who helped develop the market, and in the near future it will make sense to the average user who could care less right now.
Why not just link to the BBC site from the home page and be done with it - they appear to be /. proof and dont insist on registration. Lets see the more obscure stories of old getting thru like somebody having a cluster farm of water cooled PC's with the flow of water then heating up enough to run have a comfortble shower at the end of it.
but we bought our DSL exactly because it could be "always-on" and fast. Maybe the British don't have as many unlimited ISPs (a la AOL's ~$22ish plan).
"Hi, I'm here to sell you broadband." "Great! I can go as fast as I want, right?" "No, we cap you, and we'll have you arrested if you go too fast." "Oh. But I can download movies and audio, right? I mean, I already own them on tape, so it's okay, right?" "No, we'll give your name out to the FBI, and anyway, we prohibit you from uploading on P2P networks." "Oh, but it's priced right, right?" "No, we are going to charge you at least $40 a month and we're going to rent you this nifty used modem and we're going to install some spyware on your computer." "It works with Linux?" "Pbbbbt!"
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
Boosting the transmission speed by a couple of times, doesn't increase the speed of the server at the other end.
Given how many sites are database driven these days, the processing time of the host may be a significant factor in the time it takes for a page to load.
I remember 5 years ago all the hype and promise of video on demand, video conferencing and the ilk.
It never happened, not just because of the RIAA but because ISP's were choked by the baby bells and couldn't sell broadband cheaply and competitively. Then there was the browser war that created about 10 different sets of standards ensuring no company could create a multimedia app without pissing everyone off for not supporting their OS/Format.
These issues still exist but hopefully MPEG4 will cure some of it. I don't know what to do on the ISP side, they are just totally screwed as long as they have to deal with the baby bells. Worldcom couldn't make it, why should any smaller ISP?
I personally don't care if it's always on. I just want it on when I want it, if that means flipping an on switch then so be it. I want it as fast as possible at the lowest price possible. I also do not want restrictions on it (i.e. no servers). As long as ISP's play that game I don't see broadband working out.
I have yet to see video conferencing work out even. I know one company that uses it and they had to get a secured dedicated T1 specifically for it. Video conferencing has so much potential it's crazy, but no one is taking advantage of it. Just watch the extras DVD in the Episode II DVD and see what Lucas's sound team did with the dedicated ISDN lines to Australia. They were doing the voice overs for the Camino characters in realtime across the world.
Anyway, some how or another all this stuff will need to shake out. The corporate arrogance will need to end it's attempts to tell customers what they want and actually listen to what they want and sell a product that meets the demand. I just don't see it happeneing any time soon.
...raising people's expectations.
A couple of other posts have already touched on this, when you give someone an improved service/product they'll be thankful - 5 seconds later they'll view it as their birthright and if it degrades for any reason you can be sure you'll hear about it in record time.
"The PC is more scary monster than household pet. It is rarely loved, sometimes feared," said Mr Crabtree. Next to it is a picture of cute puppies and kittens.
Perhaps our UK counterparts have learned a thing or two (bad) from the American news reporting system. People like puppies..Must include puppies in story. What in the world is happening that could possibly be more important than puppies? Actual world events? End rant.
(sigh)
Much like the picture of the puppies, this story is fluff. Of course people use a service where they are not billed by the minute more than a service where they are. Thanks to quicker downloads and page loads (and of course, not watching the clock for billing) - they probably have longer periods of inactivity as well.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
This whole study is based on the context of users who pay by the minute for phone calls, and who pay for local calls. If you live in a place where you don't pay by the minute for local calls (like most of the world) the study is completely irrelevant.
In other words, who cares?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Crack? I mean, heck. I have ADSL so I can be online AND download massive amounts of data at high speeds.
Something tells me these people don't know what they are talking about, either that or they just don't use the internet much.. Isn't the internet for downloading the latest full album of your favourite artist? Or downloading a movie on KaZaa?
Wait.. isn't that what it's supposed to be for??
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
Yeah, ofcourse old people ( no offense to the more senior /. people ) don't see the value in broadband. They never went to colleges with high speed T1 lines in their dorms. They didn't grow up on NES, and most older Joe 6 packs probably don't know about divx porn or mp3s either. This will change as our generation gets older (which will probably result in more expendable income) and when consoles make a large transition online....
A lot of people I know comming out of college, have high speed Internet withdrawal once they get back on the crappy phone modem ala AOHell
People can do so much more with broadband (watch streaming video, download massive amounts of data, browse the web without waiting for pages to load) that their lives are "becoming one" with their web experiences. They rely more and more on the Web to accomplish everyday tasks. While the average geek would find this attractive, this has strong negative conotations for society as a whole.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Here is a Hackles comic that I found which satires people's "real" use of broadband internet access at the office.
Sex - Find It
Damn those BBC Journalists are nuts. "Here, a picture of cats and a dog. I wonder how it will fit to this technology news. I know, 'Computers just are not cute as pets'!! Mrs. Tingle will sure give me an A!"
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
- Not tying up the phone
- Not paying for an extra line (alternately)
- Streaming media over 56k
There's also:And the bad:
A lot of things that we don't think about, they'd just be as inconvenient as hell. Geeks/gamers are not the only ones who enjoy broadband!
that it doesn't do what it says on the tin - it does more.
Let's take a common situation - a person looking for information on the internet for a presentation/paper/assignment/whatever. Have you ever considered how much time is saved just by the speed you get your search results? Also, how about loading page two of the search results while downloading a PDF or email or a picture? Or even when you visit some crappy company's website and it's all in some really impractical format like flash or has tons of useless java applets?
I think the conclusions arrived at are wrong. People say they don't care about the speed - sure! the digits in kbps/Mbps might not mean much. But don't try and tell me they don't care about things that are not a direct consequence of the speed.
Basically, people don't realise it, but they really do care about speed. I mean..sure, your usual guy might not care about the difference between say 768kbps and 1.5Mbps, but tell him instead that he won't be able to watch a video online while downloading the latest copy of windows bloatware and he will sit up and take notice and WILL ask you for a FASTER line.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
The British Govt. needs to mandate services that will drive and attract interaction.
Like voting...and discounted shopping...and reservations...and driver's lisences...and birth record updates...and sex offender record publicity...online gaming...etc.
When day-to-day commerce makes a serious move to the net, so will the public.
As it is, the net is more like a toy to the average Brit, and thus no need to drive fast...no where to go?
Imagine a tin (can) of say, sardines and it says reduces cholesterol, increases sex drive and wards away acne. You eat the stuff and non of the above comes true, well it didn't do what it says on the tin. It's actually a quite literal saying.
I have a cable modem. My wife & I both have wifi in our laptops and typically have themin our laps while we watch TV and read our websites, chat to others, etc.
On vacation, we use a dialup. So we can look for information on where we are as well as keep in email touch.
Popup ads and superflous graphics don't bug me too much on the cable modem but they drive me nuts when I'm trying to get info on the dialup! Each one of them is costing me time!
...I care about download speed. Even if it comes with per minute charges like dial-up, I will still consider purchasing a broadband plan.
:P
I recently (about a month or so) purchased a broadband plan from my ISP, because it is finally available in my area. The first thing I noticed is how quickly my hard disk space runs out... is it the ISOs? Or MP3s? DivXs? M2Vs? Apps? Heck, it's all of them. In fact I think I have done more downloads the past month than my whole lifetime prior to switching to broadband.
What do I think about the BBC's reasoning that's it's actually more because of the no-per-minute-charges benefits? It's very likely to be true... and I exibit this new-found powers of mine by staying on IRC 24-7 and looking k-l33t
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
I only care about speed when it comes to streaming video, and we can't do that because they've instituted caps on usage.
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
When DSL service first became available in my area 3 years ago, I signed up immediately. I owned a small computer store at the time, and I figured that the time saved downloading drivers (as we had to do frequently) would more than pay for the DSL service.
I was right - it radically changed our outlook on drivers, which were, up to that point, carefully hoarded on floppies or CDs.
But what surprised me was that suddenly, streaming video and audio where completely options! Imagine, tens of millions of computers' content available for cheap to free, and available instantly!
Mp3.com is what then made me get DSL service at home. Music from anywhere and everywhere - like having the world's largest collection of indep. band CDs...
Oh, and remember Napster?
It was just a few months later that I signed up at home, and I will not ever turn back. (I sold said computer store. Now I telecommute as my line of work - I love it!)
I guess it's sorta like the Tivo - it's hardly exciting until you've lived with it for a while. Then, it becomes something you'll not want to live without!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
ok WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH SOVIET
RUSSIA THIS DAY??!?!?!
is soviet russia the new first post?
or is it step 2 in annoyingly famous
123..profit?! plan?
please explain
I must not be ordinary.
I've learned that computers just are not cute as pets. I don't know about this broadband mumbo-jumbo, but I do know cute, and I do know pets, and pets are cute.
Yes.
Why not fork?
That was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. This is the junk they pass for "research" these days?
..." and the fact that they never bother to mention how they came to that conclusion.
Others have mentioned the "...actually slowing down interaction with the net
"People are not doing things that require speed, so that is something of a red herring as a selling point," - What, no one must be surfing then. I know not everyone is downloading warez, but lord knows that BB has been a boom to the pr0n industry.
simply because most users do not leave their computers on. - OK, actually a good point, I'll give them this one.
But until technophobia is overcome, broadband is unlikely to be viewed in this way, said Mr Crabtree. - they never mention how broadband and technophobia are related, at least in terms of broadband vs dialup. Hell, hooking up my dsl/cable modem was simpler than getting my dialup working right.
"Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin," - What, it doesn't provide faster downloads and instant on service? That's what their advertising isn't it, and isn't that what they (generally) deliver?
I can't believe that news about Alan Kay doesn't make it (or did it and I missed it?) but yet crap like this shows up?!?
"Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin"
--James Crabtree, i-Society
Well, there's your problem, James. You've attached your computer to a soup can. You want to be hooked up to some sort of a modem. RTFM.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
http://www.ronseal.co.uk/
They market products with names like 'quick drying varnish' which 'does exactly what it says on the tin', their catch-phrase.
It's an expression that's now entered general use as for something that does what you expect it to do.
Since I supervise the broadband services department of a major cable company in the USA I'll share my opinnion on the matter. Sure unlimited time, and (usually unmetered) broadband may make people a bit slower when browsing the web. However, the difference is that the websites can offer more content, and a richer experience than what would be a considered a resonable download time with a 56k modem. I also double as an ASP/SQL contractor and I have at times forgotten about the bandwidth limitations of our customers (internal and external) who may not be using a broadband pipe. I would think that as more people get broadband html in general will die, we will see more and more FLASH oriented sites (or whatever the latest and greatest technology is at the time.) Not HTML + Flash, but pure Flash and images will move from being jpgs and gifs to PNGs. Yea you can do all this now, but you would be leaving at least 50% in the cold.
as more of a tool for entertainment, selective general news reading and for the apropriation of oss software news and resources. Which means that the speed is what matters most. Going back to dialup would be pure torture. The always on feature does not matter that much although the fact that it is there when I turn on my system and is INSTANTLY accessable is very apealing. /. falls under all 3 of my usage catagories.
It's funny that reading
sparkeyjames
If sense where common everyone would have it.
In Soviet Russia...annoying first post submits YOU!
But the main appeal of so-called "broadband" is that it's always online, and you don't have to fuck with it to use the net from moment to moment. People LIKE that; that's the #1 feature. It's reliable.
Speed is secondary. People DO like the speed... even if they say they don't... otehrwise they couldn't download all the movies and porn and music.
*pats his computer on the top of it's case* Don't listen to them Aerie, they're just stupid mean humans. :)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Dammit, get it through your thick heads!
Broadband = multiple analog signals on 1 wire. That's it nothing more, nothing less. Broadband means that they are several communications going on at the same time all using a different frequency range.
Broadband is not a description of speed, it is the form of how the signals are sent.
Dialup modems (like 28.8kbps) are a broadband connection.
14.4kbps fax is a broadband connection.
Cable modems (all speeds) are broadband connections.
Are LANs broadband? No. Are they fast? Yes. They are baseband (digital) connections (like ethernet).
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
The article says that people don't have to worry about time they spend online when using broadband. I find that I don't have to worry about dialup and i DO have to worry about broadband. I'm in Australia and all broadband here has a cap (usually 3 gig). I have to be careful not to use it too much or you get charged ridiculous excess fees like 18c per MB. My dialup plan is unlimited time/download and I don't need to worry.
and of course, made more interesting by the fact that aol is now shipping CDs in tins :-)
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
I never feel rushed using my 56k dial-up. It's always on mostly, persist enabled. When it goes down its down for 60 secs and then its back up. I've downloaded several ISOs using dialup over the years. no big deal. I can see where time is an issue for those folks that live in countries with whack rate plans just for local calls but in the states its no biggee to be online all day even when I'm not there.
-
Uhh... this part had me a little confused. Maybe i don't know as much about the broadband demographic as i thought, or maybe this is just a UK-only sort of deal, but.... Since when the Hell was this true? Am i disillusioned by the fact that my friends all happen to be either massive pirates or intense PC gamers? I was under the impression that older people (and i'm generalising here, as older people seem far less likely to be music/software pirates and/or gamers than younger users) stuck with dial-up when cable/DSL options rolled into their town. These people (again, generalising) seem to care far more about communicating with their children or ordering books online or getting online news updates than downloading massive porn videos, pirated software, and music. None of the former require the high speed that broadband offers; dial-up is quite sufficient for these activities.
In any case, can someone help me understand how this is true? Are the people that use the Internet for "old people" activities (such as e-mail, ordering online, and/or news) just naïve, having been sucked into broadband by sales pitches or the like, or is it something else? The added bonuses of not taking up your phone line and not having to worry about logging on and logging off hardly seem to warrant the $40 - $60 (USD) price tags of broadband service.
with broadband, I stay online longer because the experience is less painful. have you seen how huge the average page is at a site like tomshardware? or cnn? or anywhere else? toms front page is 120k, with 250 links and 250 images. (most of which are the same clear gif, but still.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I've had [paid for all by my self!] broadband for over a year now. I'd say anyone who thinks "always on" is a useless feature should go shove their head up their ass and move to a non-speaking tribe of Africa.
Having a fairly constant net connection is a very useful thing since it lets you treat the net as a utility instead of a novelty.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The bandwidth *does* matter; I use the broadband to download linux isos, the Cg toolkit, America's Army, anything. So does everybody I know and everybody I work with. (We're a large, well-known videogame development company)
The speed *does* matter; I use it to watch hi-quality movie trailers, news clips, and listen to music on-line.
The availability *does* matter; I leave my PC on all the time so I can have rapid access to maps, weather, geocache locations, IMDb. My wife uses the instant availability to do our banking anytime. The always-on aspect makes IM worthwhile.
We use the 'net more than ever because of the broadband. I don't think the users studied in the report reflect the majority of broadband users.
I didn't realize Canada had its own spell-checker
out here, IN SOVIET RUSSIA, pal, everybody gives firstborn for broadband. lucky they are if you get broadband at all.
When we'd wait 20 minutes to download a multipart uuencoded
Usenet binary to able to view a picture to spank it to.
Yes, masturbation has come quicker. We have bandwidth to thank for our higher productivity.
When we think about women every x.5 seconds, we can do something about it.
Off to The Hun or to the The Free Voyeurweb
?sp
While the majority of internet users may not care, this article clear left out the people who become all-conumed by broadband (such as myself). Once exposed to a high-speed internet connection, being connected to the internet consumes their life. Rather than the normal Wake-Work-Eat schedule, life becomes more of a Download-Work-Download-Eat-Download cycle. The more you have, the more you want. The more you want, the more you get. The more you get, the more you want, a vivcious cycle that only ends when you can't afford an internet connection, and resort to writing XHTML-CSS on the walls of your cardboard box home.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even the most tech inept, computer ignorant people I deal with in my job love broadband. Websites pour in faster. They can download MP3s. What's up with that article? The benefits of broadband are immediately noticeable. I'll agree that "always-on" is no big deal but EVERYONE who tries it loves the speed. People are keenly conscious of time spent waiting, watching an interlaced GIF crawl down their screen while they're waiting to read the text they want.
I'm in the wrong line of work. I would like to get in on the business of getting paid to tell people the obvious.
Charge people by the amount of time they use your service and *shockingly* they'll be quick about it. Give them the service for a flat rate and *surprise* they slow down.
And if you did want to download something large, a mild processor would then become your issue. Not just for the download, but to handle all the other things going on at the same time. Unpacking the last file...running that network backup...rotating that image in PhotoShop...burning your latest DVD.
I just moved from ADSL to VDSL, and now my processor is the bottleneck. It's like some many other things, were the cycle moves the slowdown from one component in need of an upgrade to another. Fix one, and the next in line is now a liability, where it wasn't before. Get a legitimately big jump in your internet connectivity and see what happens to your system needs.
--Dave
broadband?? That's doesn't make any sense. If they really didn't care about broadband they would have purchased it in the first place, and if they didn't like it for whatever reason they wouldn't continue to purchase broadband....that is unless you happen to be independently wealthy. Right?
"You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Wash
Broadband is to wife, as dialup is to girlfriend.
Think about it.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
If it wasn't for ADSL internet access, I'd have done something productive in the last three years, instead of playing Everquest and surfing /. about 18 hours a day....
Hmm. I fail to see the downside.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
What a load of hogwash! Everything on the internet requires broadband. Try loading the BBC's home page with dialup. Try looking at the weather channel and seeing a weather map. How about doing some research with google and clicking on 5 different links before you find the information you were after.
I teach my kids that if the result they want doesn't flash up on the screen instantly than the computer or the network or something is too slow!
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It's not about caring about speed, it's about worrying about being hit by per minute fees while online. Those that switched to broadband from dial-up didn't care before or after about the speed. As the summary and article say, users are taking their time interacting with the web as they don't have to rush to get on, do what they want to do, and then get off. Yes, if it's pr0n they want, they may be rushing to get off indeed.
Pure and simple.
Let's examine the shill angle. Their mission statement says in part, "we aim to make our workplaces more effective, more successful and more fulfilling." Sound familiar, like "Everything you do will be easier and more fun."? Hmmmm, who sponsors these effeciency experts who can make my job more fulfilling? Their Executive Summary (which they claim requires Adobe, but works just fine with xpdf), does not say. It has more highly abstracted stuff that ends up calling for "smarter" regulation. They congratulate themselves in their Anual Report for "-have ensured that the Society 's name has appeared in print or been heard on television or radio almost every day..." and BINGO, "...The launch of our three-to-five-year iSociety project, with the support of Microsoft Limited..." I knew it! Strange Darwinian language about competition and the need for efficiency, while claiming to represent and care for the squezed, it just smelled like M$.
Still, it's hard to tell. The member list, contained in their 50 page anual report (50% white space, 10% photos, 25% adjective, 5% adverb, 5% hyperbole, 5% news), did not look suspicious. Members of the House of Lords, Bank of Scotland, and various Civil Servants might be forgiven for being taken in by the beast from Redmond. They seem to have some reasonable ideas about employee dignity etc, but all abstractions sound as good. Surely, the "members only web pages," are a strange way to share information. Freedom is required for dignity, folks. This paper and the iSociety makes you look like indusry shills. If I can't read your papers online, I won't be reading them and you look shallow.
Wink, Mr. Wates your secretary must be using M$ word to write "My thanks and appreciation go to every member of staff and my colleagues on the Boar and on the management team ...". Yes, that like the pig or Dutch in South Africa. A wild ride, I'm sure. Auto correct or Imperial Dream? I don't spell check for Slashdot and no one is paying me for this.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Broadband's selling points- like speed and the capacity to be always-on, were something that the average person did not care about"
Thank god I'm not an average person!
This article is about marketing broadband. What it basically says is that people don't understand what speed means to them. They also don't understand that it is because they have a continuous connection that they can't be timed (The two are mutually exclusive). The lesson, if you want to sell broadband tell people it is un-timed, and emphasise that the speed means they can use multimedia i.e. video/audio/telephone because they will understand that.
No Holds Barred radio - the voice of the Linux generation
NHB Radio. News for nerds, stuff that matters.
In the UK, users of dialup services are charged on a per minute basis, even for local calls (such as those to an ISP). Clearly, it's flat rate pricing that was the big selling point. Consequently, the study's conclusions are of little relevance to the US market.
Actually, according to the FCC here in the USA, "Broadband" has a very specific meaning. That is, the download speed must be at least 208kbps. This is a legal definition. You can't sell a ISDN line and call it Broadband.
In general, that's a good definition from a networking standpoint, so I tend to stick with it in any case.
Oh, and the origin of the term "broadband" had NOTHING to do with the ability to send multiple signals on a single wire. It has to do with the SPECTRUM used to send those signals. Standard voice-only telephony uses a relatively small frequency range (about 4kHz). Broadband was originally used to describe an analog signal that used several multiples of this spectrum to send the data. Thus, it was much "broader" than the voice spectrum.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
When they get to broadband those things arent a problem but look at the reason given by them as to what they like and its a product of speed and connectivity.
An academic researcher asks someone why they chose something(A) and what they like about the thing(B)and if A/=B suggest that it would be better to push B as the reason to swap. The point is that B is often a totally unknown thing to people choosing. They have no concept of B before they get there.
To a person on a crappy dialup connection who pays by the minute while they download complicated web pages that take for bloody ever to get there or flash animations that do nothing except say press here to enter the idea of not being concerned about wasting time online is an alien concept.
Its like heaven. Everybody wants to go there but noone wants to die. but equally no-one comes back because they don't like it.
That's interesting, since IDSL is marketed as broadband because it's "DSL". Horray for corporate marketing and loose legal documents!
[insert witty comment here]
"Who is the "most of the world", certainly North America doesnt qualify?"
It would have been "Most of the civilized world". Then it would be clearer that he was talking about the US & Canada.
-
Broadband subscribers use the Internet for significantly more minutes per day than they did when they were dial-up users, and
-
High-speed is why they sign up, but always-on is the reason that they rearrange their furniture in order to get the computer out of the back room and into regular "family" space.
Once they get to the point where the PC is in the kitchen or family room, and it's always on, and the Internet connection is just there, the Internet becomes the prefered source of information for almost everything: news, weather, movie listings, encyclopedia articles, etc.well, u know how most regular folks are with machines. i have literally taught more than a few people in the last year how to click a mouse and why that would be useful. any surprise that broadband users are still afraid of their windows machines? at least they have managed to get all that whiteout off the screen. sheesh
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
Stand voice telephony is 3KHz, not 4
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Instead broadband was actually slowing down surfer's interaction with the net.
And I don't see where this bit came from. I guess their point is that people feel less rushed and therefor take longer, but they make it sound as though broadband is some how at fault.
Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin
Again, what are thay talking about? Broadband does exactly what it says "on the tin", its just that people aren't using for the reasons you might expect.
They seem to be indicating that broadband in general is at fault, but they never really say why. If it is both fast and convenient, what's not to like?
They also seem to say that companies are advertising the wrong aspects of broadband -- but the fact is that it doesn't really matter why end up liking as long as they buy it. If they buy for speed, then the fact that they find themselves using it for convenience has absolutly no affect on the sellers.
Finaly, they pretty much contradict themselves by saying first that broadband helps to remove internet and computer related phobias, then mentioning that there are still too many phobias for it to be really accepted. This wouldn't be such a contradiction if the article was about those phobias, but no, the point seems to be that it's all broadband's fault. If broadband helps solve all the problems they mention, what is wrong with it? The point may be that more needs to be done to eliminate said phobias, but the article sure didn't make that very clear.
So basicly, its an interesting study, but has essentialy no relivance to any of the things the article makes it out to have.
And did anyone else find the total irrelivant pictures in the article ammusing?
ps: the reason that I'm actully taking the time so write anything of this length is that I'm waiting for my sister to get off the phone so I can get back to what I was doing on the web with my puny 56k dial up... so I guess I need to geat broadband myself
free music on demand
I don't see how that could ever happen. By U.S. law, the songwriter gets eight cents per download.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I can see where time is an issue for those folks that live in countries with whack rate plans just for local calls but in the states its no biggee to be online all day even when I'm not there.
Verizon dial-up Internet access, a large regional ISP, is $20/mo for the first 150 hours and then $1/hr after that. But my family keeps it because it 1) works with PC operating systems other than Windows (unlike AOL, MSN, NetZero, and some other ISPs) and 2) shows up on the phone bill, not a separate bill.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Stand voice telephony is 3KHz, not 4
POTS is nominally 300 Hz to 3600 Hz. But assuming the rolloff of practical analog filters, it's closer to 4 kHz than 3 kHz. Even the phone company samples it 8,000 times per second like it would for a 4 kHz signal.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Pat yourselves on the back, broadband subscribers. You've done a swell job justifying your monthly expenditures.
Now, for a quick dose of the truth. As a few experienced dialup users have noted in this discussion, you don't need to spend more than $10 US per month for a persistent, reliable connection to the internet that gives you ample bandwidth for just about everything you could want. Information of all kinds is plentiful. Music files can be downloaded. You can shop, hold discussions, get software. There's more porn than you can shake a stick at. Downloading large files such as isos or divx movies does require some patience--or other distribution outlets, such as Television or Hollywood Video--but hey, do the math. If you're selling broadband at c. $60 US per month, that's a hard sell.
The beeb article assumes that its primary target audience knows that consumers have not been adopting broadband like it's going out of style. There are a heck of lot of people who could afford a broadband connection who have not elected to pay for one. "Why is that?" is the question being asked. This leads to other questions such as "Is it being marketed poorly?" and "How has it been marketed in the past?"
The article, assuming its readers grasp these issues, then goes on to offer some criticisms of the way broadband has been sold. It does NOT question the assumption that broadband access is intrinsically worthwhile: the righteous indignation expressed by many broadband users here is clearly misplaced.
If you want to extol the virtues of broadband, convince me. Because every time I look into it it doesn't quite add up.
Movies. I'm a cinephile and will travel great distances and spend too much money to see films, but when it comes to watching a flick on the tube I have low expectations and won't spend much. Will broadband enable me to view, say, the films of Patrice Leconte at an acceptable resolution with no jitters and no artefacts and legible subtitles, without breaking any laws or violating any tos? If so, that might be worth a few dollars. Trailers: don't bother. MRQE is a better guide to new releases.
Music. I love music and go to concerts. I own about 1000 cds and listen to the radio. I've downloaded some mp3's, but to speak honestly the sound quality is usually disappointing and hardly worth listening to. Will broadband enable me to listen to high quality oggs of, say, Hamiett Blueitt, without breaking any laws of violating any tos? That might be worth a few dollars.
Info? Forget about it. How much more should I pay for some 10Q.pdf when the whole point of reading a 10Q is figuring out how to make money work for me? Info is all over the web and is as accessible to dialup users as it is to broadband users.
Porn. I make it a point never to pay for porn. End of story.
Running my own webservers. Yeah, I would pay for that, but that means DSL rather than consumer cable broadband and a higher priced level of service. In the meantime if I want a web presence I can pay somebody else next to nothing for hosting--and probably save myself some hassle.
ISOs. I'd pay a few dollars for that, but UPS is still pretty cheap.
Games. Fun, but if it's costing more than a few dollars a month I'd think the money would be better spent on a playstation.
Sharing a connection. Great. That's a few dollars.
Earning money. Don't need broadband for that.
Right now it's just not adding up for me. It's close, but not something I feel I need. Maybe if it were cute like a pet...
I thought it'd be fun working/living in UK for a while. Now this ISP charge scheme really put a damper on things. I didn't buy my house in certain county around here just because they don't have Time Warner and Road Runner.
Another question, why does UK use such large electric plug?
--- You make things foolproof, and they'll find you a damn fool.
Now with dialup, I download stuff on a whim and spend ages (aggregated) waiting for things.
Andrew
Perhaps they don't care how fast things happen over there, they might not have any deadlines or important ideas to work on. In that case, they should probably all go wireless in little WiFi cells and not pay anything still. But here, in the US, nobody has time to waste (or at least that's what we all say...) so speed is important. Let's just hope local companies don't get any stupid ideas from foreign research...
In Israel my wife and I just moved from a 56K dial-up connection to the (theoretical) 750K cable connection. In the end this saved us money.
In Israel, you are charged by the minute for all phone calls, unlike the U.S. where it's a flat fee for all local calls per month. (Our ISP charge was set at a fixed rate.) So what this meant was that the more we were online the more we paid each month to our phone carrier (Bezeq). What's more local calls are considerably more expensive between the hours of 7:00 - 19:00 than from 19:00 - 7:00. So we'd wait until the evening to get online. And as you know using dial-up would tie-up our phone line too.
By signing up for broadband all the flat fees come out to less than the average phone and ISP fees we were once paying. The download times are better, the phone-line is free, and we don't have to wait for specific periods of time during the day to logon.
Dialup + shell = ability to kill before downloading any 1 Meg "hey d00d dog" pics.
:)
/meg download charges downunder for a cable modem, I'll be sticking to my 56k modem link for sometime.
Pine on a remote shell is a great bandwidth saver
As for the 20 Meg "gotta have" files, just download when absent from comp. The 100 Meg monsters are overnight fodder. Given the AUS 20c+
"Broadband is to wife, as dialup is to girlfriend.
Think about it."
Man, you're more right than you know.
6 months after signing up to broadband, your ISP starts imposing data caps.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Broadband is to wife, as dialup is to girlfriend.
I dunno, is your wife always-on? I know my wife gives me more busy signals now than back when I had girlfriend.
Isn't "always on" and "not worrying about how much time you spend" pretty much the same thing?
It's the absence of minute-rates which makes "always on" practical. I can be always on with ISDN, but it'll cost me.
A witty
So they obviously surveyed people who read low graphics web sites and only receive text email. Having had broadband for 3+ years, I find it torture to travel to places where I don't have it. Invariably I get at least one email per day with huge attachments, or have to check something on a web site (like our corporate one!) that takes 20 minutes to find, due to slow page downloading times. Mind you, given that broadband is so new to most users in the UK (and still SO EXPENSIVE), people's usage habits may be different than in the rest of the world...
I can't take this article serious. It has not one word about downloading music.
I guess this guy doesn't have a clue what people are doing on the internet.
BT still thinks that the telephone is petty new fangled and probably keeps a supply of messenger boys in cold storage just in case the fad passes.
WE should be planning to put in fibre to every home, but without government support BT and others will not do it (in the UK the cable companies mostly went bust before a significant percentage of the population were wired up.)
Chances are you are if you are reading this post which will mean you have been reading for at least 30 minutes at the minimum. Would you want to be charged for reading? 'thought so.
My apology but I failed to follow your analogy...my girlfriend, regardless of her good skills, has much broader 'band' than my wife does....unless of course your wife happens to be someone else girlfriend too...oops
Hello all. Sorry some people on the thread seem to think the bbc story, and by association our research, is dumb. It isn't meant that way. A few points of defence. Firstly, we didn't ask the beeb to run the story, neither did they talk to us, neither did they actually ask me about those quotes. Second, the point in the BBC story which is most innacurate is the paragraph which reads "They found that people did not really care about the speed at which ADSL and cable allowed them to download websites and files. Instead broadband was actually slowing down surfer's interaction with the net." This isn't what we said. We said that speed, as a selling point which made people appreciate and want broadband a lot, was contingent on activities involving heavy data use, or things requiring fast response (like ping rates for gaming). If all you do is send e-mail and surf a little - which if you look at the data this is what most home internet users do, give or take - then a massively fast connections is nicer than dial-up (of course it is), but doesn't actually make for a revolution in internet use. Counterintuitively, a lot of broadband users told us that what they really liked avout it was not having to worry about time, rather than speed. We are talknig about mothers with kids or small business owners here, rather than the type of people who read slashdot. Hence, broadband is not always about speed, but can be about taking it easy. Hence those people who sell broadband as about speed might find that regular users - as opposed to slashdot people - don't buy it. Just in case anyone didn't notice, we also said that broadband wasn't about being always on too.... read the presentation here http://www.theisociety.net/archives/000219.html#00 0219
the research itself will come out in the spring. If anyone wants to come in for a coffee and give us some pointers, drop me a line jcrabtree {at} theworkfoundation dot com
That's about the lamest excuse for poor internet connections in UK compared to other western countries. Guess BBC and British Telecom have a deal?
I have been gaming online playing Rogue Spear for few years now, most of my friends from UK have 56K and are desperate, and few lucky ones have bt.net ADSL at astronomic prices (compared to prices in Sweden, where I live)
Cut the crap BBC.
I still appreciate the speed I get from broadband, I've been using dial-up every since and this week only I subscribed to broadband. The speed is incredible, and I really appreciate the 'freedom' to do more from it. :) I guess the lessons from my old 40MB HD really stuck to me.
Same with my PC, still remember pumping every Hertz I can with my 386SX-33, can't even believe that I'm using a 1.8GHz PC.
Same with HD, I still feel uneasy for every 100MB I occupy in my 60GB HD
Low latency is good for gaming. I don't game, but my kids do.
Always-on is a big selling point. Now I don't need to be at home to use my home system. That's worth the small monthly charge to me (it's the equivalent of $40 per month in addition to the cable TV fee I already pay).
Speed pays off for large downloads, too. I have ten times the capacity of a v90 modem (and my up line is several times faster, too), so I no longer have to think about the size of a download.
>> With HTML, you can force it to wrap to your viewpoint. Converting the web to flash will certainly kill small-screen devices' web browsing. If that were the case then Opera and WebTV wouldn't have to completely reformat the HTML for small resolutions, and when you go too far with that, breaking up table structure and stuff, you risk making the page hard to understand because you remove chunks of it from its original visual context. You can't _completely_ separate meaning (in the data) from the presentation (the style). At least Flash is vector and scalable. But if your display is only 320x200 or less, that's a tough one even with antialiased vector fonts if the amount of text that's trying to render per page results in 1px characters. Flash has also been ported to a LOT of platforms and should be compact enough to run on today's PDAs if it doesn't already. And there is no reason that these PDAs couldn't render the flash differently to make it more legible either. Like a zoom in function or some such. The bottom line is that small screens are a challenge regardless of whether Flash is employed or not.
Ha! I'd rather a 512kbit dial up connection over a 56k constant any day...
you know, it's frightening to see that kind of post getting +1 insightful.. not that it wouldn't be true but i could imagine robotroll or something alike throwing that at every other story.
Anyone remember when 2400BPS (that's a 2.3K modem for you youngins) was really fast? Oh my god, when I bought my USRobotics 28.8K modem, I thought I was going to be shot by some Internet Speed Cop for going too damn fast. Also, remember how they swore it wasn't going to get any faster on phone lines? Then we had 33.6, and they were like "Okay, that's it, the POTS can't handle anymore." Then it was.... USRobotics X2. I saw TWO images downloading AT THE SIME TIME!!! OMG!!! Then came v90, aww how cute, a standard that (sometimes) worked... and then, many years later... I got a cable modem! And I got bored. Kids these days, they wouldn't know the value of a byte if it bit them...
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
SO... speed and an always-on connection doesn't matter then - wo what they're basically trying tell us is that dialup was perfect and broadband is a waste of time and money...
hmmmm... broadband not profitable enough for them anymore?
Jeezus dude, I'm from Cali' and even I can't stomach that one...
"Londoner"
Ya' know? Like "Dubliner"?
What crap, I work for a company which provides connectivity to several cable providers and their customer bases are growning by thousands of subscribers per day. I find it interesting that this study says dialup speeds should be just fine, if thats true why would anyone pay for additional speed? Why would thousands of folks decide that they want to pay an extra $20 a month (at least) for something that ads no value to their internet experience? This study was probably done by a government group funded with taxpayer money, the conclusion is patently ridiculous. I connect with cable myself and all members of my family noticed the speed increase and loved it. If my family (kids and wife) had to go back to dial up they would be yelling, dad this is too slow! The study results obviously slipped by the bullshit filter.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.
Research questions broadband's speed appeal
-MT.
When I first got to college this fall I had a bandwidth orgasm because of the amazing speeds up/down but then I discovered Beer and suddenly it doesn't matter anymore.
Buzz word: does (exactly) what it says on the tin
-MT.
It wasn't for the speed that I got DSL. It was to free up the phone line. Imagine, being able to surf the web and answer the phone at the same time, without an extra phone line! Before ADSL service became available in our neighborhood we had to settle for ISDL at 'only' 144/144K. Still much faster than the 56k dialup (which my ISP had only supported at 33K if I was lucky....even with a 56K modem). The extra speed was handy for last second snipes on ebay, and downloading the latest linux kernel tar image, but otherwise not really needed.
Now with full speed ADSL I can download CD iso images in 'just' a few hours. Handy for when a new Redhat release comes out. The speed can justify the price difference between dial up and DSL service, especially if you factor in the cost of an extra phone line (you don't need). But the fact is that most web sites I've visited don't seem to load much faster than they did over the modem. (The slashdot effect maybe?) Few servers have the bandwidth or horsepower to feed broadband, or are just not optimized for it. Those that are are A/V sites, and at the moment are not sites that have my interest.
When open source becomes prevalent ("when" not "if"), let them try sucking an entire distro upgrade through a 56K connection. Then they'll care about the speed...I know, I've done it.
I have the 512kbit service and it rocks! 128kbit and 1Mbit also available. Only a few problems: Occasionally stroppy "transparent" HTTP Proxy, and sometimes the cable box buggers up, but thats the TV side of it, but does mean I have to turn it off and back on to get control and a normal picture back, thus losing my connection.
Never had speed problems, but then again there doesn't seem to be many people around here [Surrey, Stockbroker belt] online. I've slammed them for 20 gig of ISO's in a week and they don't seem to mind, unlike some ISP's I've heard of.
Also, do you remember the unmetered ISP RedHotAnt, which was raided by Trading Standards officers? Well, their problems were at least compounded by their entire network compromised. Well, at least the cracker's mum turned off the bruteforce box and gave them a ~24 hour stay of execution, which pissed him right off. Don't you just hate it when you're at a mate's house and he's havin an argument with his parents?...
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
As an ex British Telecom user, the BBC article hit me spot on.
I climbed onto CompuServe in 1995 and was quickly horrified, not only by the CompuServe charges, but by what I had to pay for the phone calls. In those days it was cheaper to hit the long distance number and not get charged the local premium rate one, which was so unreliable it might take 5 or more (chargeable) attempts to get connected.
My online experience consisted of doing my business then hanging up as fast as possible. To that end I bought an off-line mail and news reader. That investment paid me back in month one.
Figures? In 1997, I worked out that even with the cheapeast BT deal, to be online for 40 hours a week during the normal working day, I would be paying 5,000 UKP a year (at that time 8,350 USD a year), just for the phone, let alone the ISP charges.
Absolutely no wonder that every time the modem lights showed a connection, I was paranoid about getting it to hang up ASAP.
The very idea of running a 24 hour website from my own premises was a total dream at those prices.
Yes, the BBC article speaks a lot of truth. I can now compose this message at my leisure, rather than doing an offline edit, then trying to come in, post, and disconnect as fast as possible.
Parent post should me modded up as Interesting, IMHO.
-MT.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6474
I am professionally trained in computer science, which is to say
(in all seriousness) that I am extremely poorly educated.
-- Joseph Weizenbaum, "Computer Power and Human Reason"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...