Slashdot Mirror
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Broadband
Ant writes "eMarketer has an article on The Yankee Group's analysis on why some Americans aren't feeling the broadband love. It was based on Ipsos Public Affairs. 45% of Americans say it's simply too expensive. 30% say that they just don't want it. 14% say they feel dial-up is adequate for their needs. Less than 10% are not able to get broadband access in their area. Five percent insist broadband is "too complicated". Another 5% aren't even sure why they don't have it..."
I mean, if all you do is dial up for 5 minutes each day to download your email, I guess a 5 buck a month service suffices. But I imagine that in 15 years, such a meager usage would be almost unimaginable.
is that once you try it, you can not go back to dialup.
If you haven't had broadband yet and only dialup, upgrading doesn't seem necessary. But once you've experienced the speed of broadband and the convenience of not having to dial up and log in, you'll never want to go back.
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
It's all a matter of priorities. I'll bet that of those people not willing to pay $25 or $30 for entry-level broadband, a good portion of them spend $50, $60, or more on cable or satellite TV.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Homer Simpson: "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
Sites that work just fine at 56K:
The primary use of broadband is to deliver ads. At the consumer's expense. No wonder 30% of users don't want it.
In my case we had a dedicated phone line for dialup. In Australia they increased the price of monthly line rental to a point where switching to ADSL wasn't that much more expensive than line rental, call cost and ISP charges.
The fact that it's on 24/7 is a big plus. Even with what they call broadband in Australia it's feasible to share a connection over wireless (try that with 56K!)
So for me, dowmloads are quicker, certainly. For lower volume users of the house it's simply more convenient.
I can understand how non-broadband users wouldn't feel much need for it. I do think that broadband is one of those things that many people find indispensible only after exposure. Broadband has changed the way I approach the internet. Google is always there -- a question comes to mind and within seconds I can be finding answers. I need a phone number -- dexonline or company website. Internet radio is amazing for people who aren't interested in what is commonly broadcast on regular radio. I'm sitting here in my dirt floor pottery studio in the middle of a field-- VOIP, broadband, slashdot ... blah blah blah (I have a 400' wireless hop to a neighbor who lets me use his cable). Without broadband, I wouldn't have a phone out here -- at least not a price I'm willing to pay. My cell only works if I stand on a ladder, put the thing on speakerphone, and aim the antenna toward a cell tower. It's nice when I'm playing on work days -- my office can call me and thus, I can play more. Broadband is as essential to me as electricity anymore.
That was a lot of tangent -- anyway, my point is that broadband is one of those things many might find they can't live without only after experiencing pervasive access.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I like the occasions that I use the large pipe that comes with broadband, but I also think it's every expensive for what it is - especially with all the stupid restrictions placed on what you can and cannot do. It will become even less attractive if the large Telcos start carving up their service into tiers. I will happily cancel my broadband account and go back to dialup. I hope there are many others that will do the same- it's really the only way that we can enlighten these companies as to what qualifies as acceptable service.
It's still not fast enough for quality video and too expensive.
,overpriced.
Blame BIG business and their conspiracy to kill munibroadband. Yes, real conspiracies do exist . FTTH should be everywhere but it's not because the cable and phone companies are cherry picking and they want to keep prices HIGH. No good to shareholders selling inexpensive broadband to poor areas. Might anger the people on the other side of town.
As long as Bush and republicans are wine and dined by these people it wont matter. There is no REAL competition. It's just like Cable Tv
I still use dialup and have watched as many web sites have become completely unusable, due to 500k flash files needed just to navigate around. Furthermore, web site designers seem to have completely forgotten about dialup users -- Yahoo mail for example refocuses the cursor on the username login box AFTER it loads tons of stuff. The end result is that if you use dialup that might be 30 seconds after the page started loading... viola, you are typing elsewhere and the focus is suddenly stolen from you and you find yourself unexpectedly typing in the login textbox...
I send video clips of the kids to my parents, and they don't even have 56K dial-up. The best they get is 33K, sometimes 41K, but it tends to disconnect. The only other option they have for internet is satellite, and there's no way they'll pay for that.
Open up email before going to bed, click on the URLs to save them, and go to sleep. Watch videos in the morning when drinking coffee.
I have cable internet, and while it's nice, I could get along just fine with dial-up for home use. If money gets tight, the cable internet service would be the first thing to go.
Yup. It should be cheap as hell and everywhere.
The U.S. is determined to make itself obsolete - and sooner rather than later! That's why the looting is so fast and furious these days. Eventually we'll end up just one more population of rioting people demanding economic parity like other third world labor countries are doing right now. Just watch how the U.S. becomes irrelevant during the next century thanks to our inability to innovate thanks to laws that favor the few against the many.
It's all about the price of labor, and driving that price down, down, down...
A lot of technology gets talked about on Slashdot is ultimately pinned to what some shmoe worker at Kwik-E-Mart can afford, and if s/he cannot afford it don't expect that technology to become ubiquitous.
this tells me one thing - lots of people wont pay for a connection when they can get what they need done on somebody else's network...
Why would it be "almost unimaginable" that there will be people who won't make much use of the Internet 15 years from now?
It might not be uninmaginable that there are people who don't need broadband access to you, but it could be to people trying to run a dialup ISP. Just like there will always be a market for albums recorded on audio cassette, but at some point no record label will care.
After a certain point, there are simply not enough subscriibers in an area to justify having a local access number in a town. And when that happens it becomes more cost effective to have broadband instead, even if you don't need it. The cable company I work for has cable modem service at 256Kb down/64Kb up for $24.95 a month. Most people would not even consider such access "high-speed internet" but at a cost of only a few dollars more than AOL or Earthlink and speeds of up to five times faster than a modem with an always-on connection that doesn't tie up the phone line, it's a no brainer. The only real drawback is the service isn't portable if you're away for home. I expect low end service like this to eventually replace dialup ISP's, but I expect it will be wireless-based to cater to the buseiness user who needs access from anywhere.
I bet those rates also only last for one year (or the rest of the year) and require a one-year commitment to avoid "early cancellation fees." After this "introdutory price," it's probably around $40-$50 per month. So after the "introductory period," it costs significantly more than large dial-up ISPs (but broadband addiction will set in). That DSL modem probably ain't free and must be bought or rented for at least a buck per month.
Actually, I wouldn't bet my balls. But don't you think you should mention the very significant fine print attached to those deals? Saying it's only $13-$15 per month is a little misleading when the rate will probably double (at least) after a year. I haven't seen significant price cuts to "regular" broadband rates in the same way I've seen cuts to "introductory rates."
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
NO! That's completely UNTRUE. It's trivially easy to go to Verizon or SBC's website and verify this, so it's really ridiculous you got modded up for saying something so easily disproven. It is a 12-month commitment, but that's not a big deal.
I'm willing to bet you've never had DSL. Cable companies are fond of "renting" you a modem perpetually, but DSL companies almost always give you one for free when you sign up (minus $10-20 for shipping).
And, like dial-up, you can walk into a store and buy a DSL modem if you chose.
I would have, if that were the case, but IT'S NOT. You're just oh-so-wrong.
If you keep your eyes shut, you won't see much. Try LOOKING, and you will see them.
http://www22.verizon.com/ForHomeDSL/channels/dsl/
https://swot.sbc.com/swot/dslMassMarketCatalog.do
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
In that time, I'm amazed at how many services or features on the modern OS X Tiger Mac are network-reliant. All those cute Widgets pull in data from the net and really cease to function without internet connectivity.
This was illustrated for me vividly when my parents moved from a well-served community in Florida to rural South Carolina. They live near a lovely little town with miles of scenic cotton fields (Elloree is the town - tres cute), but there's only one internet provider in town. They have some crazy expensive 'business' DSL for the little patch of a town, but only a wireless microwave scheme for the rest of the surrounding area: http://www.ntinet.com/
So, they're on dial-up which is an insanely slow 33.6-ish and now she isn't really able to log on and use, say, iChat or Skype or even see my latest photographs ( http://homepage.mac.com/nevermore/ ).
My mum never thought she needed broadband before, but now longs for the day we can stay in touch quickly, easily and (fairly) cheaply. Broadband at $50 monthly isn't sooooo much, is it?
People are stupid and scared of technology, nothing else.
that is all....
flamebait? me? never.....
What you must not forget is that while US area is bigger US population is also bigger. The correct measure should be population density.
:)
Sweden has a higher broadband penetration than USA while:
USA population density is 32 persons / km^2
Sweden population density is 20 persons / km^2
I say that one big difference is government spending / grants, etc. Local municipaty energycompanies diging down "city nets" over which private companies deliver internet, etc.
Also it feels like there is much more hype around broadband here and there are common uses that have a great appeal, such as piracy of music and movies. Almost everyone is downloading stuff from the internet for free ("piracy") (something like 80% of all visitors to the biggest newssite here, aftonbladet.se). We even have our own piracy party that is trying to get into the parliament this year
I said over ten years ago that the most important thing that the US government could have done is to socialize the internet connectivity across the country the same way that they have socialized asphalt connectivity by means of Interstate highway systems circa 1930-1940.
Same kind of approach plays in with the Post Office. Everyone gets mail delivery no matter how remote or how dense the population. Not all mail is gauranteed delivered in 3 days but it's delivered.
I think we, as a nation, could have done well to take that stance that everyone will at least have a standardized connection to their homes such that everyone has the capability of getting a modest DSL like connection into their home for a fixed fee (with no trimmings) much like you have garbage collection fees or road maintenance fees from the local government.
What the individual decides to do after this, higher bandwidth, ISP services like portals and email.. can all be managed in the consumer market. But at least you have the road available.
This country experienced huge changes economically and socially as the result of the US Highway infrastructure. I believe that creating an analogy of an internet infrastructure would cause the same kind of impact on this nation. Right now we don't have such a mechanism. The growth of internet businesses and society is at a strangehold based on what you can afford to pay. It's economically restricted.
Hate to sound like a socialist, but sometimes I think there are some things that can be considered best if socialized.
Yes, many jobs will require Internet access. Many jobs today require Internet access. But are you seriously going to tell me that day laborers or fast food restaurant workers are going to need access to the Internet in order to do their jobs?
"How long will banking without the internet be reasonable?"
Probably for a very long time. Unless banks can find a way to print money over the Internet, ATMs and physical banks will need to continue to exist.
"When will doing your taxes without it become impractical?"
Its not that hard to fill out a W-2 form. And even with tax programs, you are still going to need to enter the same information. If your taxes are a bit more complex, those programs are very useful, but not everyone is going to need that.
"any more than I can really comprehend people who don't use ATMs."
Well that just means you are not very good at comprehending other people's lifestyles.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Thats what, about $70 in US dollars? Thats about what it would cost around here. Thats a lot of money for some people.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
> Another 5% aren't even sure why they don't have it..."
What about the ones who think they have it but don't, and the ones who don't think they have it but do?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.