Slashdot Mirror
Cheap Dial-Up ISPs Gain Ground
prostoalex writes "PC World takes a look at the proliferation of sub-$10-per-month Internet service providers and notices that the market for low-priced dial-up access is actually up in this weak economy. The low rates, with $4.75 per month quoted as the cheapest, are not abundant with features, and many of the dial-up providers don't give you an e-mail account or Web space, but it seems to be a plausible option for many. But reliability is a big issue, since 'about 20 of the startup ISPs [...] shutter within a year.'"
the market for low-priced dial-up access is actually up in this weak economy
..but wouldn't this be for the same reasons that supermarkets have a higher turnover during an economic downturn? Or would you expect people to be more extravagant with their limited resources?
In many parts of the US dial-up is still the only way to go, so unless you really NEED IMAP or POP3 access to your email (I think Yahoo provides that anyway, for a fee), these services are probably the way to go.
If you are using a webmail service for your email, you also don't really need to worry too much about your ISP going out of business, because your contact info wouldn't change.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
No, dial-up was fine when it was the only kid on the block, but as long as non-proprietary, always on, broadband is available in my neck of the woods, they can drop the price of dial-up to $1 a month, and I'd still have to pass...
Well, maybe if I ever needed a traveling backup...
This is a ridiculously stupid statement, unless if he meant 20%.
Or maybe he meant up until now, 20 low-cost ISPs closed down within a year.
But otherwise, this statement makes no sense.
It's not like after 20 ISPs close down within a year, there will be no 21st ISP that closes down within a year of startup.
it's cool and nice to have sub-10 dollar ISPs, but unless I can use them *everywhere*, they are pretty useless to me.
/. a few hours before), but if it's not portable, what's the point of dialup?
case in point - ATT worldnet, despite being a fairly expensive option, allows me to dialup in most cities around the world. Which means that when I can get to a payphone in Japan with a data-port, I get internet. This is not so much a big deal now that I live here and have interent on my cellphone, but man does it save your life on business trips.
But - then we get back to it - when back in the US, the service comes in mighty handy.
so, i am all for cheaper service (I think ATT worldnet is more expensive than the 12Mbit fat-pipe advertised on
My life in the land of the rising sun.
None of the things touted in the article as problems with these services are an issue for most people.
No e-mail account - Well most people I know don't use the account of their provider, most have webmail accounts instead, because they can access them at university/work, and they can keep them if they move ISP.
No newsgroups - Well, usenet has become very unimportant to most people I know, and those that do use it (such as myself) will probably use Google-Groups instead.
No web space - Seriously, how many people are bothered about that? Yes, a lot of people might cobble together a quick web page, but it is still too complex for most. Besides with all the services providing free web space (even if it does have adverts) who needs space from their access provider.
Many people end up with all these things, which they are paying for but never use, because quite often the free services are better (and you don't lose them when you move ISP).
The only real negative points about these services is the dial up modem speed, but then for many, many people, that is plenty fast enough.
Looks to me like these services have worked out what it is that people really want, a connection to the internet at a price they can afford. There are enough free services on the web to make up for what is missing, so why pay for it.
Yes I know that having fast always on is nice (I'm on a 1meg cable connection) but for many who don't need to use the internet in the same way as I do, dial up is fine.
Paul
Paul Leader
Is the survival prospects of the company that important in this case?
Alright, it's a bit of a hassle if they shut down to go find a new one - but if you aren't using them for hosting your email or webspace, it's not such a disaster if the company only lasts a year before folding!
Like some other posters have already mentioned, we've had free ISPs in the UK for years. Since we pay for local calls, the ISP cut a deal that gives them a percentage of the amount we pay for calls.
Along came the deals where you could pay so much to BT a month to not pay for internet calls, and then you usually had to pay the ISP monthly too. They have made it simpler now (although you can still do it the old way), so you just pay the ISP for flat rate access.
The trouble is though, too often I've found the old "You get what you pay for" is very much true with ISPs. We used to pay £40 a month (£20 to Demon, £20 to BT) for our flat rate ISDN access [it'd be the same amount if we were on 56k, incidently], and the service, reliablilty and speed were fantastic. I've had a lot of people come complaining to me that BT (the ISP), Freeserve or whoever were appauling, but refuse to pay a bit more for a better service. Of course, lots of people can't afford it (we were lucky - ours was company paid for), but when looking at the cheap deals people need to realise they may have more problems connecting due to it being oversubscribed, the service may be slow, and support poor.
Then again, cheap bad internet is better than no internet, so it might bring connections to more homes.
Well, you might not have to pay a subscription fee to the 'free' ISP's in the Netherlands (and elsewhere in Europe), but you DO pay by the minute through the phone bill. In the US, local calls (like those to your ISP, with a bit of luck) are free, so the price in the US will end up lower for anyone using more than, say half an hour, of net-time a day.
I live in Sweden, where everyone seems to have broadband. Everyone, except for those who live in areas forgotten by Scanova (the only company which is allowed to install equipment in phone exchanges). I use a 'free' ISP, but end up paying more than I'd pay for broadband for dial-up...
--frank[at]unternet.org
AOL's customers are paying for the extra "content experience" that AOL provides, e.g. the whole environment when you log on, and are taken to the AOL-specific content.
:)
I don't think AOL will be overly concerned by these sort of operations, particularly if 20 (20%?) of them go bust a year. The typical AOL customer is willing to pay for the extras AOL provides on top of basic connection. If you use the UK as an example, with a number of free ISPs around, AOL still has one of the highest market shares. This may also have something to do with anti-competitive pricing and the like, but that's a rant for another day...
AOL's customers don't use AOL because of the price. They use AOL because it is AOL. Most are probably unaware that there are other ISPs. They are probably unaware that they are connected to the internet - just that they connect to AOL.
(Of course this doesn't apply to all AOL users so don't complain to me if you happen to be one)
So why use broadband?
1) Streaming media
I've paid for audio streams that had nothing to do with RIAA/MPAA. There is plenty of free streaming media as well.
2) Downloading your music
Plenty of indie bands out there sharing their stuff. Once I produce a decent recording, I'll do the same.
3) Always available
Not always, but just about.
4) High Speed
300 KB/sec (KB=kilobyte) at any given time including peak hours is high speed to me.
5) Unlimited internet
Caps? What caps?
--Drunk as in Beer