Slashdot Mirror
Broadband Usage Up 42% In The U.S. In 2003
Kickassthegreat writes "As reported here by Reuters, broadband usage in the U.S. jumped 42 percent in 2003 as compared to 2002. As more people sign on to high-speed access, how long will it be before we start seeing the cable companies (such as Comcast) start dropping their prices to levels which compete directly with dial-up?"
Depending on what sort of user you are (browser or leecher), you can get broadband in australia that is priced similarly to dialup.
I don't know what part of the country you are in, but around here, it's Adelphia or nothing. There is no cable competition. The only competition for cable is satellite, and just try to get broadband there for a lower price. The only broadband competition in my area is wireless, and I'm sure the price for cable and wireless (not to be confused with Cable and Wireless) would be more than what I pay now.
There isn't competition not because nobody is interested in competing, but because that is how the "utility" is regulated. Just like there is Verizon or nothing for telephone here. Oh, and Verizon hasn't decided to run DSL out to my area since we're too far from the CO, even though we are the largest town in the county.
So, since Adelphia is the only major high-speed player in this market, they are setting the price.
In my area, we've had high-speed cable internet available for 7 years, and DSL the last 4 years.
Both DSL and Cable have been increasing their bandwidth to compete with each other, Cable just changed to 5mbit/s, DSL is 4mbit/s. Pricing has remained relatively flat, about $40can/month for both services. However recently Bell has been forced to share their lines, as a result, 4mbit DSL can be found for as low as $30/month.
It's more likely that broadband companies will try to takeover other broadband companies or big media companies(Comcast/Disney). To increase revenue, they will need to bundle services. Maybe they'll start offering VoIP phone services at less than what the phone company charges. If you paid 55$ for your cable internet service and 55$ for your phone service, they'll sell you a "bundle": internet service + phone service at 90$.
I've done some research.
2nd phone line: $20-$30/month
Year subscription to aol: $20/month (if paid in one lump sum $25ish otherwise)
Total: $40-$55/month connection slow (22.x-56k/s)
Cable Internet: $45/month (after entry rates)
Total cost: $45/month (initial setup may cost about $100) speed: Great for home (on average 200-350k/s)
As more people need the internet in a home and as the number of computers increase in the same home, the cost of cable is much better than the cost of dialup.
Looks like the situation in the USA is worse than here, I live in israel and we pay between 120 and 180NIS (1 US$ = 4.5 NIS) for 1.5MBit download and 96KBit upload ADSL, dynamic IP (I prefer it that way), no bandwidth limit (I filled an 80GB hard drive in a week or so) and decent customer service, well actually the customer service is great, the only problem is that you gotta wait on the line for like 20 minutes before getting to talk to someone, but after that, I've yet to encounter a dumb customer service rep.
Now now, Belgium is not all of Europe, so don't get any big ideas young man! Here in Germany we pay real Euros for our DSL connections. The odd free stuff you see are Micky-Mouse offers which never stack up to much. Move along now, no free lunches here.
Actually, my Japanese friend says most Japanese home users use ISDN over 56k or DSL.
Yes, they can filter it out on the tower, but it's a pain. They have to find your wire and put a special splitter, but sometimes the technicianns forget or don't bother. The problem is, when they occassionally send guys out to see who's pirating the cable (non-payers with lines running to the house), they also check for the filters.
There was a news story about a year or 2 back about a guy that wanted Cable Internet, but not TV. The tech forgot to put in the filter, and said he'd be back in a few weeks to do it.
The guy wound up getting fined and brought to court for "stealing cable." It took MONTHS and a lot of lawyer fees to get it rectified.
I wish I still had the link to the story. But I reformatted my PC since then.
In any case, it's possible to filter it out. It just depends what kind of person your technician is that sets you up.
If he lives in place where you have to take one car train to get, then yes. If you live in Tokyo or Osaka you can get 100Mbps optical directly into your unit for $50 a month. Though, optical isn't as widely available as the 26Mbps Yahoo! Japan ADSL BB service which is around $30.
Prices here in the midwest are already approching that level. I believe the cheapest DSL plan here runs about $27, just slightly above what AOL charges. If you're not getting that rate, call em up and they'll adjust your payments (although you may have to renew your contract).
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
My current dish has two horns, one for each satellite that it tracks (not one per TV as you state). Later this month, I'm getting a free upgrade to a dish with three horns so that I can receive local channels which are broadcast from a different satellite than the two I'm currently tracking. The dish is the exact same size and looks almost identical. It's not like I'm suddenly getting a 50%-bigger dish on the outside of my house.
sattelite TV receivers built in
Here's the deal: analog cable is dying, and dying quickly. So let's ask a parallel question: what TV's have digital cable receivers built in?
you're not charged an extra fee for hooking up another TV yourself
Right now, Dish Network will install up to three extra receivers for an additional $5 per month. How much do you pay for three extra digital cable receivers?
Right now I can run to Radio Shack and pick up a $3 splitter and $5 of CATV cable and let my fiance's little brother watch TV in his own room in about a half hour.
You're right - today. The same probably won't be true next year. For example, I don't think I even have the option of getting analog cable now even if I wanted it. My choices are digital cable and digital satellite. Both have similar advantages and disadvantages, but the latter is much cheaper for the viewing package I want.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
People make the argument that since you get more from cable modems than dial up (faster download/upload speeds, always on convienance, etc) you should pay more. However since when has this been true in computing? All through history performance has gone up while prices have gone down. Processor prices, memory prices, monitor prices all drop and so will high speed connection prices. They should and will drop since competition and the law of supply side economics will force them down.
The performance has absolutely nothing to do with its price. Once the cable and dsl companies start meeting their break-even point prices will have to go down, especially to meet competition from the inevitable participation from "discount providers" which is what happened in the dial-up era. We saw providers such as AOL and CompuServe charging $9.99 for 20 hours of service, with 1 e-mail account and no WWW access per month back in the 80's and early 90's for 14.4 Kbps and 28.8Kbps access to what is running for $6.95/month for 56k access with often more than 1 e-mail account. The high speed internet industry will match this trend, especially with WiFi hotspots popping up around the country and are almost always free to use.
I live in a small town (pop. ~25,000) in Nebraska. Somehow I don't think we're on the forefront of technology, although we do have wonderful, cheap DSL service.
I don't want to have to put a receiver that's the size of a DVD player when I bought these TVs for their small footprint.
Check this out. It's a dual-tuner receiver that drives two televisions, with two RF remote controls that have a pretty long range. My mom got this setup when she started satellite service a few months ago and it works perfectly. I have the old one-receiver-per-TV setup, and when I recently visited my mom I was surprised that I was flipping through the channels on a receiver at the opposite end of the house from the TV I was watching.
Even with our "legacy" setup, the receiver we use in our bedroom for our 13" TV is only about 1 inch thick and not significantly wider than our TV (which sits on it).
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Wired" broadband providers will lower prices when there is a viable widespread competitor. That competitor will be the cellular network.
Think about it: The network has vast coverage, laptop market growth has outpaced the desktop market now for 3 years, and most people hooking up broadband at home want some type of wireless access. Verizon will provide a theoretical peak of 2 to 3 Mbps (with most people seeing around 512kbps).
Sure, wired access will always be faster, but for most people I know, wireless high-speed access anywhere you've got cellular coverage is a much better product (and the speed is good enough). I'll never get rid of my 10Mbps down 1Mbps up cablevision connection, but I know tons of people who would for Verizon's new product.
It's being tested in San Diego, CA and Washington, DC. It will probably roll out in the next year.
-ted
Personally, I disagree. If I'm paying for 768k down (or whatever your contract says) I should be able to use every last kbps I'm paying for.
If my cell phone bill is $40/mo for 700 minutes, I'd like to use all 700 minutes without an extra charge.