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!
In other news.. People who are constantly fed say they aren't hungry.
Liberty.
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.
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.
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 see they're running Windows.
The Mothership
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.
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?!?
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.
Broadband is to wife, as dialup is to girlfriend.
Think about it.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
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