AOL to Raise Dialup Prices

United Bimmer writes "America Online has announced that it's going to raise the price on dialup users in an attempt to encourage them to upgrade to broadband. The new rates will near $26 a month, already drastically higher than the market norm for dialup access. This will bring the dialup prices to almost the exact same per month as broadband depending on your plan. However through this, they do still offer an unadvertised lower price for those who can't get or don't want broadband can request lower-priced plans, including an unadvertised offering of about $18 with a one-year commitment."

Comments

Ding!

[darth_MALL]

You've Got Inflation!

Re:Ding!

[heauxmeaux]

You've got Forced Obsolescence!

Re:Ding!

[HuckleCom]

Maybe now it's a good idea to stop running end-of-the-world commercials that are ineffective and stop sending out CD's to everyone... cutting costs? naw... now they're in our grasp, so lets turn the fire up!

Re:Ding!

[Anonymous Coward]

thankfully services such as NoCharge exist for our lesser bandwidth brothers.

Re:Ding!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, not only do you get to have your email address sold out to companies willing to pay to have their emails not caught by spam filters but you get to pay more for the privilage. God bless America!

Re:Ding!

[bitt3n]

it's worth it for the cachet of an aol.com email account.

Re:Ding!

[xtreme.hell]

wait a munite.....i am stilL thinking. Still willing to pay $26 for dail up? YESS GOD BLESS AMERICA (GBA).

Re:Ding!

[CodyBaker]

On an product which has gotten cheaper and cheaper to provide.

Re:Ding!

[Asphalt]

What's AOL?

Re:Ding!

[MarkGriz]

"What's AOL?"

Any One Left?

I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Radres]

I wasn't aware that AOL by itself provides broadband access. My only options appear to be DSL from the phone company or cable internet from the cable company.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[frodo from middle ea]

you haven't heard of kismet have you ?

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[AnonymousPrick]

My only options appear to be DSL from the phone company or cable internet from the cable company.

AOL is probably leasing bandwidth from your local telco. As far as I know, AOL doesn't have their own infrastructure.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Matilda the Hun]

That only works if your neighbor isn't using AOL too...

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Radres]

So, the phone company will by default always be cheaper. Great business model, AOL!

Fuck the "Slow Down Cowboy!" message.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[reverend_rodger]

Things may have changed since when I was in the loop (working as a salesman at CompUSA), but the way it worked was that you pay your local broadband provider for an account and THEN you pay AOL for a subscription on top of that so that you can still access AOL's crap (the same startup page and web browser you get when you use dial-up). Yeah, I thought that was an excellent idea and business model also.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of AOL-Time Warner? One of the biggest cable companies in the US.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[jasonditz]

they were always one of the more expensive dialup companies too and it hasn't hurt them any. People who want someone to hold their hand through the whole experience usually don't mind paying more for less.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Pentavirate]

I saw this article from msn earlier.

From that article: "We're doing this because a majority of AOL members will be able to get high-speed connections and access the AOL service for this new price," spokeswoman Anne Bentley said Tuesday. "Hopefully it's an encouragement for them to get high-speed connections."

Although AOL has been shifting its focus to providing free articles, video and other materials on its ad-supported Web sites, the company sees paid broadband accounts as key to making that strategy work.

AOL believes broadband will help boost usage and hence advertising. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, those with broadband at home are 52 percent more likely than dial-up subscribers to use the Internet on a given day, and the typical broadband user spends about 23 percent more time online daily.

They're basically trying to get more people using high speed connections to get more people online and using their services where they get more money for their services and for advertising. It's just a shift to more of an ad-based revenue stream. Makes sense.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[AnonymousPrick]

So, the phone company will by default always be cheaper.

Not necessarily. AOL may come in and negotiate a "bulk" deal, so to say, and as a result, end up with a cheaper "per unit" price than your typical retail or even business customer. And by business customer, I mean your local firm who needs a DSL, T1, or whatever. So AOL comes in and says, "Hey local monopoly telco who's sitting on billions of invested infrastructure and trying to figure out how to get the best ROI, we'll lease [insert amount of badwidth], but we want to only pay [insert steaply discounted rate]. Now if the local telco says "go fuck yourself AOL!", I don't know. Maybe AOL, will just stiff their dial-ups in that area until they switch to someone else.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[ePhil_One]

Now if the local telco says "go fuck yourself AOL!", I don't know

For now, the local Telco is forced to sell at a discount. This is the same way Speakweasy and other DSL ISP's work. Nobody runs copper to the home for DSL. Even Verizon is switching to Fiber for the last mile these days.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[budgenator]

AOL all ready has bulk deals with the telco's because they provide dial-up service with local numbers. I wouldn't be surprised that with the federal state and local taxes involved with a pots circuit, that provideing a thousand DSL connections might be cheaper than providing a 100 POTS connections!

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[darkain]

never heard of RoadRunner, part of AOL-TimerWarner?

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[davidphogan74]

Many, many, many companies offer DSL besides your local phone company I'd bet. You need to get the copper from the local telco, but they're required to let other providers offer DSL on the same line.

See also DSLExtreme, Covad, A1, LaunchNet, SpeakEasy, ISOMedia, Interlync, EarthLink, EarthWave, Intercom, A+, etc. Those are just some of the ones available on my SBC phone line.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Andrew Kismet]

Do I know you?

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[paulius_g]

I am pretty sure that they use your local ISP to offer the broadcand. Their broadand is based on DSL and will mostly go through your telecom company.

In Montreal, all DSL companies must go through Bell (our local telephone line provider) to allow people to use DSL. It uses all the same networking equipment as well as switches and backbone as I would get from the local ISP.

The problem mostly is that technical support is going to lack a lot. I know AOL is AOL, but now they'll tell you "Oh, you have to wait five business days because we need to contact your local ISP to get the problem fixed. We'll call you back (NOT!) for updates)

And plus, it's AOL. So yeah. I'm still waiting for FIOS-like fiber in Montreal. I heard some good rumors about that.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Mahou]

how about they lower the goddamn cable price instead? that would be far more successful in getting people to switch. fucking aol-time warner. FUCK!

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[ShaneThePain]

no, but he knows your router.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[jZnat]

Was it Road Runner they provided? Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm remembering a bunch more larger ISPs than I thought existed...

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[Mahou]

troll? what, do you mods work for aol?

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[frodo from middle ea]

good one, took me a while to figure it out.

Re:I thought broadband was their enemy?

[homerules]

Time Warner Cable deducted $5.00 per month by swithing from being a Road Runner customer to an AOL broadband customer. The funny thing is that I didn't need to use their software and continue to use the regular Road Runner Service. Apparently they want to increase AOL's user base.

Well that's nice of them.

[andy753421]

Less AOL users and more boadband users.. how could it get any better?

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[phorm]

Or the could use AOL broadband... which just makes them doubly scary (10x the bandwidth, 1/10 the brains!)

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[strabo]

Less AOL users and more boadband users.. how could it get any better?

But, TFM says:

AOL said Tuesday that it would raise the price of its dial-up offering by $2 in an effort to encourage dial-up subscribers to sign up for broadband services provided by the company. Both its traditional service and its new broadband offering will now be priced at $25.90 USD per month.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds more like Less AOL users on dialup and more AOL users on broadband ... how could it get any worse?

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[jzeejunk]

Less AOL users and more baudband users ;)

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those old 52K modems are dying and they need to re-vamp the cost.
Really... some people don't need to have broadband access and they only have a phone line for access to the world and people who come over and visit sometimes need internet access and this is the only (currently) game in town.

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[SlackwareGeek]

Fewer AOL users... "users" are countable. 'Less' is used when there is an uncountable quantity.

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[smchris]

Nah. You and I are the only people who still remember that the word "fewer" exists.

It bugs me too -- and I don't know what they've been teaching the kids in school these days (blah, blah, blah) -- but I recommend just giving up and not saying anything. "Less" has become the all-purpose colloquialism.

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[blues_shuffle]

English language needs more people like you. It has become so full of colloquialism that there are artificial limits to its communicative abilities sometimes. People are too lazy to use correct English.

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[mikeage]

which just makes them doubly scary (10x the bandwidth, 1/10 the brains!)

Cool... someone else who counts on a logarithmic scale.

Linked because I can

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Do you have any examples of where the lack of distinction between "less" and "fewer" creates ambiguity?

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[archen]

Lets see, take people who aren't computer savvy (or why would they have AOL in the first place), and put those probably never-updated computers on broadband. Think I'd preferr to have them stay on AOL than clog the internet as a virus infested spam hub =/

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[Xerp]

Less than can be used before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks; less than $400; less than 50 miles. Less is sometimes used with plural nouns in the expressions no less than (as in No less than 30 of his colleagues signed the letter) and or less (as in Give your reasons in 25 words or less).

Re:Well that's nice of them.

[TheLetterPsy]

No, but there are a _number_ of examples that illustrate how poor grammer makes one sound stupid:

"We was going to get some of them new things you calls clothes, but we ain't got no money. We ain't got the brain to even do grammar good, so we is just going to stay uncivilized."

Neat!

[TheGhostOfDerrida]

So now I can get dial-up for the same low price as broadband? Wait...

Encourage?

[imboboage0]

The concept of AOL alone was enough to get me to upgrade.

Holy Crap

[Matilda the Hun]

1. Give crappy dial-up service
2. Give crappy broadband service
3. Increase the price of your crappy dial-up service
4. Profit!!!! Or go out of business.

Another failed attempt to fill in step 3.

Re:Holy Crap

[Radres]

Except in the original South Park episode where they made this joke, there were only 3 steps with step 2 being the ?

Re:Holy Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

And because it was originally done that way, how dare anyone break the bounds and do something else with it!

Re:Holy Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Those daring bastards!

It's:
      1. Collect underpants
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

Anything else is just an immitation business plan. :p

Re:Holy Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just let it out honey. It's OK."

Uhh...

[reverend_rodger]

So... what happens when AOL's customers realize that if they can get broadband they don't have to pay the extra money to stick AOL's crap on top of an existing connection?

Re:Uhh...

[XenoRyet]

AOL's customers aren't capable of comprehending such a thing, that is why they are still AOL users.

All kidding aside, AOL completly relies on the fact that their customer doesn't know a thing about how computers or the internet actualy work. Just look at their commercials: (talking about their spyblocker or some such) "Because with high speed internet, the intruders come at you faster!" I don't even know where to begin with that statement. But the AOL users just nod knowingly and install more bloatware.

Re:Uhh...

[Chaos1]

You'd be surprised by the amount of people who won't leave AOL no matter what - even with the extra cost. My mother in-law refuses, because either she actually uses the 'extra' services or doesn't believe the world outside of AOL offers any benefits.

Re:Uhh...

[uncoveror]

AOL's customers are mostly technically illiterate morans who need to get a brain, and old people who had a computer pushed on them by their children or grandchildren. Some of them even fell for the 2 free months with no commitment promotion only to be driven insane.

Re:Uhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone else is an "illiterate moran."

Re:Uhh...

[SeaFox]

AOL's customers aren't capable of comprehending such a thing, that is why they are still AOL users.

All kidding aside, AOL completly relies on the fact that their customer doesn't know a thing about how computers or the internet actualy work.

Their customers will get more educated as they deal with their new tech support contacts. When they have issues with signing onto AOL, AOL will do some simple checks from their side and then refer/transfer the customers to the real support people (the DSL support agents for the RBOC they partnered with). The first thing a decent broadband support agent will do when dealing with someone who can't sign onto AOL is have them try without AOL (using IE, Safari) and at some point the customer will realize they can get on the internet just fine without AOL and there really is no reason they have to keep using it (and paying for the piggy-back AOL access).

This plan is going to backfire for AOL in the end. They are selling out their dialup business to broadband partnerships. The first rule of keeping customers is to have direct control to their connetion. AOL loses this and people will see AOL subscriptions aren't worth the money when they aren't needed to actually connect. Add to this the AOL screename/email account they're allowed to keep now and AOL has lost another tool for retention (email address lockin).

But then maybe AOL's plan is to simply become a subscripion entertainment porthole (a la Yahoo Radio) in the end.

Re:Uhh...

[Danimoth]

What about the commertial that claimed spyware can slow your computer by 800%. I don't know about you, but if you can get a computer to run at -7x its normal speed, I think thats worth patenting.

Re:Uhh...

[kopo]

Of course, if AOL users had a few more brain cells, they'd have switched to broadband a long time ago. In the NYC area, 768k Verizon DSL costs 37% less than AOL 56k. That means AOL costs about 25 times more per kilobit per second (and you get all their lovely ads and resource-hogging connection software).
You'd have to be a moron to keep using AOL dial-up. Or a typical AOL user. But I repeat myself.

Re:Uhh...

[krod77]

The next generation is becoming more and more technical savvy, hell, my 10 year old kid can reinstall Gentoo with no problems.

When the current generation starts to die(the technically absolute generation), so will AOL.

Re:Uhh...

[xhrit]

Hmmm. My 10 year old kid can reinstall slackware, but only if I help him set up the partitions.

He still has a bit o' trouble with the CLI.

This is ludicrous

[rehtonAesoohC]

Raising the dialup rates for people by such a huge margin is absolutely asinine, honestly. Then think about the $18/month they would charge for people who cannot get broadband internet is at least 50% a month more expensive than other dial-up providers.

Who in their right mind would even consider paying for AOL dial-up?!

Re:This is ludicrous

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Who in their right mind would even consider paying for AOL dial-up?!

These guys?

Re:This is ludicrous

[truthsearch]

Who in their right mind would even consider paying for AOL dial-up?!

Those who already have an aol email address and don't want to change it. Many people are lazy enough to pay the extra price just to keep their email address and not have to research alternatives.

Re:This is ludicrous

[Karzz1]

It is a good thing that Amazon doesn't use Slashdot's moderation system. That book would have to get modded redunudant.

Smile people, it's a joke.

Re:This is ludicrous

[aqfire]

I think you just figured out their point. They don't WANT you using dial-up anymore. AOL probably has a lot more to gain by selling broadband than by selling dial-up service. I'm not sure how they do their broadband, but it must be much less expensive than maintaining massive analog dial-up pools.

Re:This is ludicrous

[drinkypoo]

Who in their right mind would even consider paying for AOL?

Re:This is ludicrous

[DeathFromSomewhere]

But you also get AOLs superior security package with that $18.

Re:This is ludicrous

[macdaddy357]

If you are dumb enough to use AOL in the first place, you are dumb enough to pay any price they ask.

Re:This is ludicrous

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm not sure how they do their broadband, but it must be much less expensive than maintaining massive analog dial-up pools.

The infastructure needed for modem pools is massive and can't easily be consolidated and/or distributed like broadband routing setups. It's like having to maintain a fleet of 20,000 mopeds instead of a dozen big rigs. Broadband just has a bigger economy of scale.

Re:This is ludicrous

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a joke people, laugh.

downward spiral

[chrisjbuck]

Let's see... 1. Drive away current users with high dial up prices 2. Watch them sign up with other competitive broadband providers 3. ... 4. Profit?

Re:downward spiral

[FidelCatsro]

3: Less AOL users
4: Profit , for the rest of the Internet community at least

Re:downward spiral

[Anonymous Coward]

speaking of "downward" how about throwing in some line breaks so your comment at least looks as cliche as it should...

Re:downward spiral

[LnxAddct]

AOL offers its own broadband service, and they have for years now. They also offer a whole bunch of multimedia, streaming concerts, music, and access to a lot of news/financial resources that typically you'd have to pay for. I don't use AOL, but I can see why some people stick with it. You get a lot for your money, but you also get a bad rep. Most people on slashdot, though, speak ignorantly of what AOL has to offer. They really have not a clue, and its no better than when a company makes false claims against linux.
Regards,
Steve

Re:downward spiral

[teasea]

Let's see... 1. Drive away current users with high dial up prices 2. Watch them sign up with other competitive broadband providers 3. ... 4. Profit?
 
Step 3.5. Wait to see which provider takes the most subscribers, then buy them. They are still a very large gorrila.

Re:downward spiral

[Anonymous Coward]

That'd be the Time Warner side of things. The AOL half has atrophied like a palsied limb (which has made time warner folks very unhappy)

Re:downward spiral

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly think there are four things keeping AOL alive: #1 The gay meat market. The service is known as GAYOL in that community, and its used exclusively for hookups. #2 They offer another meat market match maker service for free to their customers. #3 Chat rooms, why? I don't know, AOL chat is miserable. #4 Customers used to it.

AOL has a tremendous impact, even into infectious disease containment. According to the person who runs the sexually transmitted disease containment division at our local health dept, its not uncommon to end up tracking down infected or potentially infected partners with no more information than an AOL screen name to work with. AOL has so successfully tapped into the match making and hook up market that they have a substantial impact as a disease vector for STD's. How is that for branding? Probably not the image AOL wants associated with its service, but they realized long ago it was the primary purpose of the service for a great many users and started catering to it. They still exist despite charging twice as much or more for internet access, and there are few other reasons to account for their survival.

Re:downward spiral

[Firehed]

I guess Slashdotters never ever watch TV. I hate watching, but I still see hundreds of AOL for Broadband commercials. Their marketing is perfect, at least on the recent stuff - showing random people joining (and winning) a 50m sprint or rowing races or whatever. AOL: Letting noobs bring their noobishness everywhere, and faster than ever.

Just what I need. More retards coming at me even faster. And I thought high school was bad enough. Next think you know, AOL will kill off iTunes (et al) because they posted a guide to making your own podcast on their welcome screen, and the influx of stupidity to Apple's servers causes an out-and-out meltdown. Goodie.

Of course, this is a company that thinks "online" is two words, and named themselves accordingly. Or is dyslexic to the point of becoming a public hazard.

Re:downward spiral

[teasea]

True, but a one-armed gorrilla is still a gorilla ;)

What about those who can't get broadband

[Anonymous Coward]

This will certainly chase away many of their current customers. I am unable to get DSL or Cable and Sattelite is way too expensive. If dialup prices are raised by AOL, I'm sure that many will switch to a less expensive ISP.

Re:What about those who can't get broadband

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If dialup prices are raised by AOL, I'm sure that many will switch to a less expensive ISP.

Cripes. At least try reading the whole summary...

I'm Worried...

[Your Anus]

When I upgrade to broadband, and then cancel my service, will I continue to get billed for it anyway at the braodband rate or at the dial-up rate?

Re:I'm Worried...

[rovingeyes]

When I upgrade to broadband, and then cancel my service, will I continue to get billed for it anyway at the braodband rate or at the dial-up rate?

May be no one told you, this is slashdot not AOL's customer service forum!

Re:I'm Worried...

[jdoff]

May be no one told you, this is slashdot not AOL's customer service forum!

*whoosh*

Re:I'm Worried...

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too!
:-)
May be no one told you, this is slashdot not AOL's customer service forum!

*whoosh*

One more reason not to use AOL

[dnamaners]

As if the AOL customer service was reason enough to avoid it, now they add a whole new insult. Cell phone like plan gouging and hidden pricing with contractual commitments. Of course, on the upside, this will make people switch to a new provider via economic pressure. You have to love natural selection in progress.

Re:One more reason not to use AOL

[Politburo]

Market forces are not natural selection.

Cool!

[rob_squared]

Wouldn't it be great if other companies did this?

Golf courses could make the hole smaller to encourage more people to buy Tiger Woods video games.

McDonalds could increase the amount of ice in drinks to make people buy bigger drinks.

Motion Picture creators could degrade the quality of videos to make people move to a new format.

Nike could make their shoes less comfortable and then sell replacement linings.

Is this funny or insightful?
It's probably both.

Re:Cool!

[Amouth]

all but the golf one.. you have a good posiable point.. which is jsut a sad realization of the world around us

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is this funny or insightful?"

Moderation +3
    70% Insightful
    30% Funny

Heaven forbid I be labeled 'informative' for this.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this is AOL's attempt to switch people over to broadband, perhaps in an attempt to phase out their dial-up services.

Is broadband cheaper to maintain than dial-up for companies like AOL?

Re:Cool!

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

All of these are certainly up to the companies associated with them. (other than golf, of course.)

McDonalds could increase the amount of ice in drinks to make people buy bigger drinks.
I already don't eat there, this would just be one more reason I shouldn't.

Motion Picture creators could degrade the quality of videos to make people move to a new format.
I'd refuse to buy the new format and I'd purchase from creators who weren't foolish enough to do this.

Nike could make their shoes less comfortable and then sell replacement linings.
Nike shoes already fall apart and cost too much; more reason to buy something else.

Whether or not people would go for it is another thing entirely. AOL can charge whatever rate they want. If the consumer finds it unreasonable, then there's plenty of alternatives.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forbid I be labeled 'informative' for this.

Moderation +4
    100% Informative

Heaven forbid I be labeled 'uber-cool chick magnet' for this.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better....

Microsoft could sell a vulnerable product IN ADDITION to another product to plug the holes for programs that take advantage of these weaknesses.

Oh. Wait.

Nevermind.

Re:Cool!

[DJNW]

McDonalds could increase the amount of ice in drinks to make people buy bigger drinks.

Did you never play theme park as a kid?

Re:Cool!

[mistergin.net]

Actually you're not too far off with the McDonald's comment.

The other weekend after picking up some stuff on their 99cent menu and getting a cup of water rather than soda, I realized how HUGE their straws are. Water comes in their smallest cup (fine by me), but with their straws, you drink the entire cup in almost less than 10 drinks!

Sure, refills are free. But it makes you think how many opt for the larger sizes of sodas (which is a GIGANTIC profit center) just because they liken the smaller sizes to being unsatisfying to quench their thirst?

Re:Cool!

[dreadpiraterobert]

Um, I hate to tell you this, but it's already happened. McDonald's: Increased cup sizes and increased amount of ice -- same drink, higher price Movie Industry: Replaced VHS tapes (average shelf life in rental store: 20 years) with DVD's (average shelf life in store: 6 months) Nike: All but replaced quality footwear (average life: 10 years) with disposable molded foam and plastic shoes (average life: 6 months) And the average golf course is about 1000 yards longer than it was 20 years ago. Progress marches on!

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Motion Picture creators could degrade the quality of videos to make people move to a new format.

Umm, I hate to break this to you, but between some of the HDCP "features" and those crap spots they put on movies to "watermark" them...

> Is this funny or insightful?
> It's probably both.

Sadly, I'm leaning more towards the latter...

AOL 11.0! Now with Spellcheck QXZ-3000!

[Anonymous Coward]

They might give away a spell-checker so you can figure out how to spell "broadband".

Re:AOL 11.0! Now with Spellcheck QXZ-3000!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he meant "baudband". ;)

Re:AOL 11.0! Now with Spellcheck QXZ-3000!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Baudband" makes no sense whatsoever.

We are now all dumber for what you have said. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

You spell "broadband" B-R-O-A-D-B-A-N-D.

Re:AOL 11.0! Now with Spellcheck QXZ-3000!

[Anonymous Coward]

And you spell "joke" J-O-K-E. If you're unfamiliar with this concept, let me help you.

Re:The AOL community reacts:

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too!

1. Shoot self in foot. 2. ???. 3. Profit!!!

[panaceaa]

Time to add AOL to the list of great moments in pricing failures.

Re:1. Shoot self in foot. 2. ???. 3. Profit!!!

[eosp]

The difference being that Lisa, Segway, and Neo-Geo (not SCO, this applies there too) are all halfway decent products.

Re:1. Shoot self in foot. 2. ???. 3. Profit!!!

[jack_csk]

I agree that they are shooting themselves in foot.

Besides those frequent-traveler and have-no-clue-about-any-other-isp people, I can't think of anyone who is still with AOL. As a matter, even some frequent-traveler has switched to NetZero, etc.

Re:1. Shoot self in foot. 2. ???. 3. Profit!!!

[panaceaa]

I get free dialup throughout the country because I use SBC Yahoo! DSL (now renamed to something AT&T related since the acquisition, probably). I would think most frequent travelers could do the same thing -- but I don't know if free dialup is paired with DSL outside of SBC's markets.

Dennis Miller

[MScrip]

Now there will be more NetZero commercials with Dennis Miller. "Why pay $26 for AOL when you can get NetZero for less than $10?" Great comedian/writer turned NetZero ad-boy.

Re:Dennis Miller

[Anonymous Coward]

He also embraced the Dark Side in the last US election.
Right around that time, I found him no longer funny. Humm...

Re:Dennis Miller

[Anonymous Coward]

He was never great...

Its an outrage!

[scenestar]

People still use dial-up!?

Re:Its an outrage!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only old people in Korea still use dial up. /ducks

Re:Its an outrage!

[basic0]

I don't think the problem is that people *want* to use dial-up, it's just that broadband coverage isn't available in all areas. For example, I have a friend who is currently paying as much for his 56k access as others in this town pay for cable. The cost isn't the issue, it's that he lives in a somewhat rural area and the Cogeco cable line ends about 500 metres from his house.

If you're going to force people into using broadband for internet access, make sure they physically *have* that option first!

Re:Its an outrage!

[WillAffleckUW]

People still use dial-up!?

They're not people, they're caffeine-ingesting squirrels who get bored sitting in our attics, and decided to hack the Net - literally.

Re:Its an outrage!

[budgenator]

In my area DSL just became available, 4 years after Comcast upgraded our area to fiber and made cable broadband available. Before that I was luckey to connect at 33.6K.

Re:Its an outrage!

[JourneyExpertApe]

I imagine for most people, it's a cost issue. Why pay $45+/month for broadband when all you use the web for is news and email? I had a $10 dial-up connection for years that worked fine for everything except streaming video and downloading large files. I only got cable internet because I have roommates that are willing to split the cost now (grad student).

Re:Its an outrage!

[Zantetsuken]

God it would kill me if I knew it was that close, and couldnt have it - is the company that runs the line playing with his mind or something taking bets on how long the guy can go before he looses it?

Re:Its an outrage!

[Ilgaz]

There are still people who are casual internet users. Check mail, check couple of favourite websites, turn the connection and the computer off. I added the "turn off the computer" part to give a clue how much they care about technology or computers.

Why is it that hard to believe? Although I am paying amazing prices for my broadband overseas, I can easily understand them. If I was a PC user like that, first I'd buy a Mac Mini or iMac (cheap models), find a dial up ISP that cares about their users (not AOL!) and use that instead. It is not the deal of course.

It is same discussion over and over at Mac OS Usenet groups.Of course, trolls made a great discussion impossible to take part. Oh, not AOL, it is the new "Macbook Pro" not having a built in modem.

Re:Its an outrage!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say that it is a cost issue for me! Mediacom here charges $55 a month, and that is if you also have cable tv from them. I have heard from others that its $65 if you don't also have cable tv from Mediacom! Sorry, but thats just too much for me to spend for internet access. DSL is slower and still costs $39.95 a month after the 6 month introductory offer expires. I wish that ALL cable tv and Internet service providers were required to publically list the final cost of providing the average houshold with cable tv/internet service. I don't think that Mediacom can justify the extremely high prices they charge. I wish there was some comprtition in this area to bring prices down!

AOHELL is already overpriced, and people in this area who use AOHELL complain of busy signals and poor connections all the time. I use PeoplePC, pay $10.95 a month, have good connect speeds, and have never heard a busy signal!

I saw it coming

[spazoidspam]

To be honest, I saw this coming. Not just at AOL, but it is very forseeable that dial-up prices will only go up, and broadband prices will go down, or it will get faster. Just think about it, doesnt dial-up require a dedicated connection? Just like making a phone call? Where adding additional users to a broadband system just eats up more bandwidth from the large and growing pool. AOL might be jumping the gun and doing it before dial-up costs actually rise, but as the telcos lose their traditional phone customers to VoIP, a normal phone line will just get more and more expensive.

Re:I saw it coming

[pla]

as the telcos lose their traditional phone customers to VoIP, a normal phone line will just get more and more expensive.

+5 insightful!

I've heard you can still do better in some parts of the country, but in the NorthEastern US, basic land-line phone service (by which I mean the default "no frills but not crippled" service) will run you $35 to $60 per month, after fees and taxes and BS. Unlimited nationwide LD will run at least $70.

For comparison, my broadband costs me $45 and my nationwide 800-minute (? 1200? something like that - I took the lowest number of minutes they offered and never even get near half of it) cell service for two phones costs only $80 per month.

So yeah, POTS service has reached the end of its useful life. As a consequence of that, dialup internet access will start to cost more than broadband.

Now, as for AOL charging so much... The VAST majority of people still on dialup either: A) have no choice; B) care far more about cost than speed; or C) don't use the internet enough to justify paying more for broadband.

AOL's move might get some folks in group C to switch to broadband, but A and B and at least half of C will just go to a cheaper dialup ISP like NetZero. Granted, as I mentioned (and you already predicted), dialup might realistically cost more than broadband in the near future; but for now, AOL has AIMed the gun at their foot a tad prematurely.

You'd almost think TW wants an excuse to excise their very expensive but now worthless vestigial limb...

"dial-up ... upgrade to broadband"

[g0at]

Heh. Dial-up modems use broadband signalling. Compare with ethernet, for example. Sigh.

-b

Their broadband deal is DSL

[zymano]

So you will need a one year plan and buy a DSL modem.

AOL is circling the bowl . . .

[mmell]

once all the technotards who use AOL see what they've been missing, AOL will go the way of SCO.

Which is sad, really.

AOL takes away all incentive to keep customers.

[djkuhl]

AOL seems to be too confident in their content value. If a user does not value the exclusive content, they've officially announced a way to encourage users to switch instead of moving to broadband. AOL just officially lost all customers who wanted an easy way to connect to the internet to read web sites and check their e-mail. AOL needs to realize that upgrades and spiked costs end up in permanent account loss.

A good case for my point would be Dish Network. As they've started updating their systems for HD, they have given current users free updates for satellite dishes. Without this option, the users could easily re-evaluate their options and check out DirecTV. When Dish finally has a complete HD solution to all their customers, they could very well up the cost of their service and customers would have to accept the fact that they can't afford the initial cost of a new satellite service. Dish Network understands that you have to upgrade some options for free or you lose a permanent revenue source.

Re:AOL takes away all incentive to keep customers.

[loraksus]

It could also be because what DirectTV has for HD is... well... dismal and their customer service / retention / cancelation department won't give you a dime if you want to upgrade to HD (and their offerings suck and are expensive, besides).
This isn't to say dish is amazing, but it just goes to prove that some companies don't understand that.

Re:AOL takes away all incentive to keep customers.

[deadgoon42]

I used AOL a couple of years ago for their free trial. Halfway through I called to cancel. When the lady asked me why I was canceling, I told her that I didn't see any value added services to justify the increased cost. She got very huffy and insisted that AOL had tons of exclusive, value added services. She named off several items. I told her that the problem was that I didn't use or want any of that those services. So for me AOL was still non value add. She was still mad, but had no response for that.

Re:AOL takes away all incentive to keep customers.

[rainmayun]

You're assuming that AOL is going to lose net revenue or operating income on the deal. In fact, AOL may have calculated that the loss of customers will not completely offset the significant gain in revenue per customer. So they could end up serving less customers (which means a reduction in overhead, most likely), with more revenue per customer, and the same or even higher net income. Such a scenario isn't unlikely.

Of course, that all rests on certain assumptions they would have to make in doing the analysis. But I trust their assumptions more than yours.

Also, a consideration of their current dial-up customer base may lead one to consider that the switching costs for remaining customers are too high, even when the added dialup costs is considered... either they can't get broadband or don't want to figure it out, or they're wedded to their AOL email address and don't want to bear the pain of switching, or some other scenario I haven't considered.

Do AOL dialup users read slashdot?

[Proudrooster]

Is it me or is this a strangle place for this advertisement, err I mean article. I'm thinking that the target audience for this post is all the slashdotter's who are forced to support family members and friends that use AOL dialup. I'm sure glad I'm clued into the $18/mo. plan :)

Actually, I got dear old Dad off of dialup and onto the low-end broadband years ago, but it makes support much easier now that I can share his screen.

Re:Do AOL dialup users read slashdot?

[pizero]

I agree with the advertisement angle. The article said nothing about "an unadvertised offering of about $18." The only one-year commitment in the article is for $239.40, or about $20 per month. I may be too picky here, but I would say that the poster has inside info (advertisement), can't do math, or would like you to think that $20 is about $18 (advertisement).

Re:Do AOL dialup users read slashdot?

[calculadoru]

Do AOL dialup users read slashdot?

No.

Lifetime Internet Providers

[SlashdotOgre]

Out of curiousity, did any of those ISP's back in the mid 90's that offered lifetime internet access for one large initial fee survive the dotcom era?

Re:Lifetime Internet Providers

[djkuhl]

PeoplePC used to sell computers and give you an internet access account as part of the deal. They now only sell internet access.
NetZero used to be free with some sort of advertising program installed but they dropped that and now they're $10.

Re:Lifetime Internet Providers

[SlashdotOgre]

I'm actually referring to the providers that offered lifetime access for a one time fee (usu. like $120), not providers who offered limited free access (like NetZero/Juno). I recall seeing ads up in the SF Bay Area back around 1996, but never bothered to try them (I was in an area fortunate enough to have DSL access from PacBell & cable access from TCI in 1997).

Re:Lifetime Internet Providers

[WillAffleckUW]

Out of curiousity, did any of those ISP's back in the mid 90's that offered lifetime internet access for one large initial fee survive the dotcom era?

Yeah, Eskimo North is still around and doing well, and I think Drizzle is also doing well too.

Re:Lifetime Internet Providers

[djkuhl]

Ah, well PeoplePC was supposed to be free for life. Kind of like how .Mac was supposed to be free for life for all Mac purchases. Seems they can change the plan whenever new management wants to make a splash by cutting as many costs as possible.

Re:Lifetime Internet Providers

[budgenator]

It's the lifetime of the provider that counts; these slime-balls will sell lifetime contracts knowing that they will close their door tomorrow.

Re:Lifetime Internet Providers

[kitejumping]

AOL, offered a huge discount when they were first starting and their servers couldn't handle all the people... Connecting through a different ISP and using aol my whole family still has aol for $5 dollars a month due to the inital contract.

Re:Lifetime Internet Providers

[datGSguy]

The bay area provider (bigger.net) in January of 1997 started offering free internet access, there was a licensing fee of $59 for some of the software, but no access fees. There was a $10 annual fee for email, but this was not required to use the service.

The "Lifetime" tag was invented by the USA Today headline, so was invented by the paper, not by the company. As most the news stories that followed gained thier information initially from USA Today, it propogated quickly and refused to let go.

Bigger.net's user base was purchased later by a company called Brigadoon.

I founded the company in 1996.

$ Criminal

[u16084]

Thats just criminal. AOL is no longer the premiere Content Provider. They will Join Qlink in the near future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QLink
Time Warner is now bundling AOL service with its High Speed service (to raise subscription rate for stock holders?) Everyone knows that you can get dial up as low as $9/month. Not to sound like a broken record, but BroadBand users tend to stear away from AOL - Cutting their own throat.

Confession time

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a confession to make; I once tried the AOL free trial. The free trial wasn't woth the cost!

Re:Confession time

[MrP-(at work)]

Me too, twice.

Of course I never actually downloaded or installed the client, I just joined and then faxed a cancellation notice ~28 days later. Then a few weeks later I got a free ipod and mac mini =P

Re:Confession time

[seanvaandering]

The free trial wasn't woth the cost!

I'm also betting that you used to spell better?

Re:Confession time

[engagebot]

Actually, he's a good speller. Its just that the 'R' key on his keyboard couldn't stand up to the violence resulting from the fits of rage caused by a stint with AOL.

Re:Confession time

[Vegeta99]

naw, man, hez rite, i usd aol 4 a monf fre 1ce nd i havnt bin the saAme snce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111o ne!!

Good

[loraksus]

Anything that pushes their customers to other ISPs is a good thing in my book. Although most will no doubt be pushed to the major providers, some will actually go with local companies and I think one of the best ways to keep customer hostile policies like "tiered internet", etc is to keep as many people as possible getting access through small companies and independents instead of large isps who have sociopathic beancounters that are given drugs to find new ways of screwing us, pissing us off and making an additional 12 cents a month for it. After all, those policies work best when there are no alternatives.

Then again, AOL has pretty awesome retention, years ago I used their service for free for well over a year by calling in every month and threatening to cancel. I suppose that may of have changed though.

Re:Good

[SamerAdra]

Hahaha, nothing's changed. That's why I think the article is so funny...AOL's phone agents are authorized to do just about anything possible to keep a person subscribed. I keep telling my mom to get DSL, but she's been on free AOL for...wow, I can't remember the last time she paid. But the person was right who said the free trial isn't worth it...Stuff takes over your computer.

DSL = DSlow

[StikyPad]

Man.. I can remember the days when the current flamewars were over which was better: DSL with its unique connection per user, or cable with its shared bandwidth. Nowadays I don't think DSL should even be considered as broadband. Not that it's not a huge upgrade from dialup, but it should be an intrinsic part of landline service by now, rather than requiring a separate subscription. The only real difference between DSL and dialup is that it's using spectrum outside of the FCC's regulations for POTS. Sure, the modulation is different, but it's still just a signal traveling over copper wire.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Sure, the modulation is different, but it's still just a signal traveling over copper wire.

So is cable for that matter.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[Anonymous Coward]

DSL gets contention ratios, same as cable does. The only difference is the line sharing is hidden behind the switches at the telco exchange, as opposed to the line you're plugged in to. The only way you're guaranteed a full speed DSL line is if you only connect to other IPs on your /24.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey genius, You are aware that you can get 24 meg DSL right ?

Re:DSL = DSlow

[Gogogoch]

Hmmm...let me see....I have a 3Mbit DSL connection giving me downloads at over 300 kb/sec. Err....yep, that's slow. Jeez, there's hardly any difference between this and the 3kb/sec speed I got with dial-up. You're right - let me cancel straight away - I'm being duped.

Dude - get this into your techno-head: the difference between dial-up and DSL can be huge to people interested in using the Internet. The physical reality, or layer, is irrelevent to the majority of these people. They got care a rat's ass about the FCC and spectrum usage.

"I dont think that DSL should even be considered as broadband". In your universe it probably isn't.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[drinkypoo]

And you might mention, so is a T1.

But then again, cable and dsl are completely and totally different kinds of signals on copper wire.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[StikyPad]

Dude? Dude!

I said "the difference is not insignificant, however..."

100Mbit/Sec over cable vs 3Mbit over DSL? Not to mention the number of people who can get maximum speeds is inversely proportional to the distance from the telco office, which means the vast majority of customers will not experience the theoretical maximum. Twisted pair will never be as effective or efficient a medium as coax. If you don't understand that, we can talk again when you do.

"I dont think that DSL should even be considered as broadband". In your universe it probably isn't.

That doesn't even make sense. The definition of "fast" changes over time. I'm arguing that a couple of Mbits (or generally much less) shouldn't be the current definition of "fast," and it's not, in many places. In my world, 56k probably isn't fast either, even though it blows 300bps out of the water. What a crazy world I live in.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[StikyPad]

I can't believe you've been peeking at my IQ scores. Stalker.

You are aware that DSL is, on average, 50% slower than cable right? Citing the maximum for a very limited coverage area is irrelevant to the general discussion. Of course you are.. that's why you posted AC.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[supermank17]

I'm not sure what exactly your point is... yes, DSL is over the same line as another service, but so is cable for that matter, isn't it? And it most definitely still qualifies as broadband; at least in my area, the average DSL plan is better than 70 times faster than standard dial-up. Which, oddly enough, is roughly equal in speed to the cable plans around here.

Re:DSL = DSlow

[ampmouse]

Where are you getting 100Mbit/Sec over cable? (Could you be thinking of Fast Ethernet, which is a LAN technology?) DOCSIS 2 only supports 38 Mbit/s per channel, and channel bonding (the use of multiple channels by the same customer) is not available.
On the other hand, DSL (ADSL2+ to be exact) supports 24 Mbit/s per phone line, although it may degrade over long distances. DSL works by breaking the unused spectrum of the phone line into 4312.5 Hz wide channels. The good channels are then bonded together to create one connection.

"Broadband in general refers to data transmission where multiple pieces of data are sent simultaneously to increase the effective rate of transmission."

By this definition, DSL is broadband, as it sends multiple pieces of data simultaneously, but Cable sends only one piece of data at a time making it Baseband. Actually, any dial up modem over 600 bit/s is broadband.
The other definition of broadband, or Broadband Internet access is any connection faster then 256 Kbits/s, which includes both cable and DSL.
If you did some real world testing, you would likely find the average full duplex throughput to be very close between the average cable and DSL connection. Finally, the definition of fast may change, but Broadband is a technical term, and IT HAS NOT CHANGED!

Re:DSL = DSlow

[StikyPad]

Sorry, I thought my point was clear in the context of the article:

If anything, DSL should be lowered to dialup costs; dialup costs shouldn't be raised to DSL levels. DSL is essentially the same service over the same network as dialup. It's what dialup would be if FCC regs didn't prohibit traditional modems from operating at DSL frequencies. It doesn't cost more to connect at 56Kbps than it does at 33.3Kbps, or 28.8Kbps, and often dialup users don't connect at full speed anyway; it shouldn't cost more for DSL, especially now that it's an established technology. I can accept that there are installation charges, because some additional work is nessecary for each line, but beyond that the differences are skin deep.

Oh, great, even worse life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Promise not to laugh, ok?
I'm an ex-physicist, aerospace engineer, nuclear engineer, broadcast engineer, chemical engineer, computer engineer, and biophysicist. I live with my two ancient parents maintaining them in their home, which has no cable access and is hidden deep in trees away from any town. They refuse to give up their aol dialup, afraid of losing contact with their extensive email lists. We are spammed and telemarketed many times per day. Our phone line is not reliable, connecting often at 14.4. This is not a joke.

I'm thinking that if I ran a cable/made a wireless link to the corner of our property about 250m away, again, through trees, and put a used dish/pringles can upped-gain antenna up on a power pole I might just get line-of-sight to a wireless tower several km away, past the edge of a town full of rf crap, and get at least sometimes some actual link. Anybody want to make suggestions as to hardware or options? It's a battle to stay on long enough to do a google...

Re:Oh, great, even worse life.

[Alderin1]

With the cooperation of someone in-town who has broadband (or can get it), you could rig something like this. I had been considering something like this before I decided to move. A bunch of work, and a bit of equipment, but I'm sure with your broadcast engineering skills it wouldn't be a problem. There were teenagers that won this contest a couple years ago at 55 miles, with satalite dishes that they obtaind for free from neighborhood homes that didn't use them anymore. Fun stuff.

Re:Oh, great, even worse life.

[seanvaandering]

Website Designed by...

I'm sorry, but you have GOT to be kidding me.

Re:Oh, great, even worse life.

[Alderin1]

I never said it was a great design, and I'm not going to defend it, because I have no relation to it.

I present it only for the information, mainly that an unamplified 802.11b link can be solidly established for point-to-point connections over very useful distances with little additional equipment cost, and no licensing concerns due to its' unamplified status.

Re:Oh, great, even worse life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to contact an AC.

250m is an easy distance to bridge with a couple of access points using WDS. Most don't support this but Linksys WRT54GS can be loaded with custom firmware to do this. I purchased four, and two weatherproof housings - one for my office, one for a tall tree 25m from the house, one for a neighbor's tree 650m away, and one for his office. He has DSL that he shares with me. Sweet!

The hard part would be getting the wireless tower to your property link setup. You could maybe do that with the equipment the WISP sells and just plug your lot-corner wireless into that. fwiw, a linksys wireless router draws about 250ma at 12 volts.

Oh, and go find the Direct Marketing Associations "Telephone Preference Service" and opt-out. That will cut the telemarketing down to almost nothing.

Re:Oh, great, even worse life.

[seanvaandering]

True enough... it just bugs me when people post buttons like that when clearly, you wouldn't want to be giving anyone credit for that design :)

From the Article

[Orrin Bloquy]

"...Chairman Steve Case confidently stated that this was as much a coup as their getting AOL CDs put around the necks of the Winter Olympic medalists, and he wanted to know if you were done with that sandwich."

Re:This is ludicrous. Is it?

[xeoron]

I would bet that this is part of a larger plan, so people would be more willing to buy and download from the Net movies, music, games, etc. It is not just a push for high speed access, since TimeWarner has fingers into all kinds of media and entertainment .

EOL

[msbsod]

Sounds like End of Line (EOL).

What is this dial-up of which you speak?

[WillAffleckUW]

Everyone I know has gigapop Internet. Some of the local peons only have cable modem or DSL, but they're in the minority.

Is this some kind of red state thing like having landline phones like in the Dark Ages?

Re:What is this dial-up of which you speak?

[angrykeyboarder]

I've come acroee quite a few people online via various Linux-related mailng lists, who who only have Dialup. They're indeed still out there.

I myself had to "downgrade' for several months when I had no income.

Re:What is this dial-up of which you speak?

[WillAffleckUW]

I myself had to "downgrade' for several months when I had no income.

That's why God invented Public Libraries.

They have broadband for the most part. And some have free wireless too.

Re:Confession time or have you ever AOL'd

[WillAffleckUW]

I have a confession to make; I once tried the AOL free trial. The free trial wasn't woth the cost!

I find that it's hard to get the 1024 hours of free online time. After about the third day of mainlining caffeine, you start seeing things, and it's not your monitor reacting to the magnetic calendars you keep putting on it ...

People can't let go of AOL

[hirschma]

AOL is actually being pretty crafty about this.

They know that there's a huge number of subscribers that are scared shitless about leaving the warm embrace of AOL, and they just won't leave. They figure that some folks will upgrade to AOL broadband, and AOL makes more money on this folks. Others will pay double, even triple for phone dial-up. Just to not lose that wonderful interface. They'll even suffer pain, case in point:

I'm seeing this girl that's just scared to death of computers. AOL auto updated to the new version, and just totally screwed her computer in the process. This is not enough to get her to quit AOL. I fix her computer, requiring a complete OS reinstall, and set it to an older less toxic version... her stupid brother pops in an AOL 9.0 CD to upgrade it. It upgrades to 9.0, and then the cheap ass CD shatters from the high rotation rate of her 56x CD-ROM drive immediately post-install - totally destroys it. Then the software again does a number on her computer... and she still will not quit AOL.

Hell, AOL is now learning what drug dealers have know for a while, and are going to make bucks on it.

Re:People can't let go of AOL

[Thurn und Taxis]

You realize, of course, that you're going to have to marry this girl - she's never, ever going to get rid of you no matter how badly you behave.

Re:People can't let go of AOL

[middlemen]

Maybe it is because of the word America in AOL that people find it difficult to let go of AOL, and also because of AIM.

Re:People can't let go of AOL

[angrykeyboarder]

I can't imagine why AIM would keep people tied to AOL. I've been using AIM for years and I don't have AOL....

Re:People can't let go of AOL

[!equal]

Maybe it is because of the word America in AOL that people find it difficult to let go of AOL

Ah, that explains why people in the UK are using...AOL!

Re:People can't let go of AOL

[esmrg]

#2 Rule of Safe Computing: Always destroy and discard AOL cds on contact. Using them as coasters may be convenient, but may lead to hazard if accidentally ingested into cd-rom and read. Plus, they make terrible coasters since they do not resist water.

#1 Rule of Safe Computing: Never store porn in your home folder.

No, seriously, AOL has poisioned the minds and destroyed the computers of the least common denominator for so long, I'm surprised a campaign the size and scope of the 'Truth-Anti-Smoking ads' hasn't appeared. I guess like tobacco, it takes a century for realization to kick in.

AOL Comercials LIE then ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if any of you have seen the annyoing comercials for AOL where there is a group on tour to the AOL HQ, and one of the guys keeps asking questions, like "SPAM?" with the tour guide reponding "Blocked!", "Virus's?", "CURED!", etc...

you get the point. The funny thing the second to the last question is "Higher Prices?" and the tour guide reponds, "Never!"

So hopefully that fucking anyoing comercial will go the way of the albatros! and maybe AOL will eventually too!

Who needs AOL anyway?

[dasunst3r]

This is definitely not nice of AOL as this have rammifications such as:

• Alienating users who simply can't afford broadband
• Alienating users located in places where broadband just can't reach them

But then again, considering that CompUSA employees have loads of trouble getting people to sign up for AOL, that goes far to say just how inferior AOL is and how people using it deserve to pay for their stupidity. Looks like AOL is asking for an even smaller subscription base (or maybe even a death wish)...

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is STILL for fags.

Who's the customer?

[Valdrax]

It's just a shift to more of an ad-based revenue stream.

That makes this another fine example of the customer not being the real customer. This is one of the reasons that I hate the word "consumer." It very accurately describes one's real relationship to companies that like to use it.

You are not the one that's always right. You are just the one that consumes the content, and you are a replaceable cog. If we can milk you for money too, then so much the better.

Re:Who's the customer?

[Pentavirate]

True, but on the other hand, I get basic DSL for $15/month. It's a trade off, I suppose.

You *don't* want more ice in your soda

[Anonymous Coward]

Fast-Food Ice Dirtier Than Toilet Water
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=1641825

Re:You *don't* want more ice in your soda

[DocSavage64109]

I get to avoid the issue entirely now that they offer bottled waters as a free substitute.

Re:You *don't* want more ice in your soda

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that Dasani bottled water is any better? Dasani admitted several times that their bottled water is no different than tap water (in one case, LA county municipal water aka nasty, nasty stuff).

Combine that with the industrial processes of bottling, and you almost certainly get something that is less healthy than tap water.

Re:You *don't* want more ice in your soda

[failedlogic]

I'm more concerned that some of the bottles are bio-degradable. The process of long-term storage has already shown that those bottles degrade before being opened and put some chemicals in the water.

"Encourages" rural users to pay more, doesn't it?

[Dzimas]

There are times when it makes sense to stay cheap & simple. For instance, many people who live in the countryside find dialup to be the only affordable option - they can't get cable or DSL broadband, and satellite is an expensive proposition for casual users. And lets not forget that people like my mom don't need rip-snorting broadband to check e-mail once a week. And in other news, bus drivers have announced a raise in fares to encourage people to buy cars. ;)

Tax the stupid

[hebie]

Enough said...

Right hand, meet left hand.

[JPriest]

Why would they want to drive people away from dialup access? Dialup is their bread and butter, if they encourage people to dump dialup and move to broadband they will do just that, but I won't count on them keeping AOL when they do get broadband.

Re:Right hand, meet left hand.

[angrykeyboarder]

I suspect the die-hard AOL users would in fact, keep AOL once switching to broadband. Why? Because they were never smart enough to have switched from AOL to a traditoinal dialup ISP.

AOL has just enough exclusive content to keep a lot of people coming back for more.

The last time I looked (about a year ago) they had dozens of forums that were filled with posts. Obviously those folks prefer those forums to having to search the Internets(TM) for similar forums elsewhere.

Heck AOL dumped Usenet and that didn't seem to cause a mass exodus.

AOL is the only remaining survivor of the "Online Services" and there are enough people out there who feel they need that sort of thing they they will stick with AOL, regardless.

Re:Right hand, meet left hand.

[JPriest]

They problem is that they are losing hundreds of thousands subscribers every few months as is, many of them defecting to broadband and cheaper dialup packages. AOL is only successful as an isolated community becasue of their huge number of subscribers. This alone won't break them, but it will increase the speed in which people defect from their service. At they point where they become just another ISP and not "#1", they are going to be forced to make some very difficult decisions.

AOL Broadband Cheaper???

[Jynx97]

Am I understanding this correctly? The AOL broadband is almost %50 cheaper than my current cable modem connection? Call me a noob, but....A/S/L??

Only in America

[stud9920]

What, there are actually people on dialup ? Paying for it ???? 26$ ????? Any of the three would get you in a museum in Western Europe

Re:Forgot Something?

[mpapet]

but as the telcos lose their traditional phone customers to VoIP, a normal phone line will just get more and more expensive.

Last time I looked, it was telcos owning the wire to your, and millions of other homes.

Even if telcos have to invent reasons for you to keep your phone wires (and they will) they most certainly will not go quietly into the night.

As someone that moonlights tech support for home users I had an especially bad experience in one home with two computers on AOL dsl. They called me because one machine was slow for a while then stopped getting on the Internet. After a wipe and reinstall the PC refused to get on AOL. Tech support hung up on me. I ended up using a miserable hack to get it all to work.

On the other end of the spectrum is my Dad who likes AOL(!) Thank god for penggy. I'm sure there are very many users like my Dad who find AOL quite satisfactory.

What I'd love to know:
Are the infrastructure costs of dialup higher than DSL for an ISP? I don't see the wisdom of driving everyone onto broadband.

AOL is free.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Install AOL and use the free trial.
2. Call up and tell them you want to leave.
3. Get a few more months.
4. Goto 2.

Re:AOL is free.

[angrykeyboarder]

That process is more complicated than you indicate. It's not worth the effort to bother with more more than once.

And I've heard that after having done it 3 times they don't offer you any more free time.

Re:AOL is free.

[rynthetyn]

I had AOL free for close to a year, being the poor college student that I was free AOL was better than pay anything. When I finally got them to cancel it, it was with me basically telling them "look, I have no intention of ever paying for AOL and I don't want this any more" and basically forcing them to cancel it. It's easier to keep stringing them along for free service than it is to actually get them to cancel it.

Re:AOL is free.

[ShavenYak]

Your plan would be much better if one of the steps was "profit".

New market segment

[Anonymous Coward]

In news today, AOL announced they are "refocusing their market strategy" on a new group of users. "'Nouveau riche tards' is an under exploited segment of the population that we feel will keep us alive for at least another five years" quoted an AOL spokesperson.

How many stupid things does AOL have to do before they finally go under.

question

[roman_mir]

so what is this dial-up thing I keep hearing about? Is my cabel connection at 48CAD/mo (like 10 cents US) even close to the dial-up quality at 700KB/s?

Re:question

[Neflyte_Zero]

48CAD/mo (like 10 cents US) More like US$41.80 - Give the dollar some credit man

That's right folks

[cubicledrone]

A company is going to deliberately overcharge their customers in an attempt to get them to stop using the product.

Read that again.

Perhaps people will begin to understand why:

1. Retail stores deliberately mistreat their customers by having one cashier and 57 "loss prevention" employees.
2. Disney fires 4000 people between nine-figure movie releases, then fires their entire animation division
3. General Motors fires 30,000 people because "nobody is buying cars" We hear the news on the radio in a traffic jam that can be seen from orbit.
4. Half of working-age adults are not employed in full-time permanent jobs.
5. Half of the population is functionally illiterate.

Go back and read about the company that is deliberately overpricing their product to make customers leave.

Go ahead.

Re:That's right folks

[BecomingLumberg]

Not to be contrary, but do you have any articles and figures for the above items?

Also, there is a big difference in being overwilling to cut costs since you know service levels do not affect demand and wanting your customers to go away. Sure, its terrible treatment, but corporations only want to maximize profit, which is impossible without at least some customers. So thats point one.

Point two is about labor, which has nothing to do with customers.

Point three has nothing to do with the subject, as there is no accounting for cars already on the road, specifically those from the 'Keep America Rolling' campaign.

Point four and five I find hard to believe without some information on the studies performed. Still, assuming them true: while sad, they do not reflect any on a company's desire to retain a customer.

Re:That's right folks

[cubicledrone]

but corporations only want to maximize profit

Which necessarily means they must treat their customers, employees and vendors with as much contempt as possible, of course.

Point two is about labor, which has nothing to do with customers.

The Disney animation division is destroyed (and then replaced at a cost of billions), and that has nothing to do with customers?

Makes no sense at all and I didn't even go to business school.

Point three has nothing to do with the subject

Of course it does. AOL will lay off their entire dial-up division once all the customers have given up on the product. Thousands upon thousands of foreclosures, bankruptcies, destroyed neighborhoods, divorce, stress, depression. Why? Because the company deliberately destroyed the product.

Still, assuming them true: while sad, they do not reflect any on a company's desire to retain a customer.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Companies that do not want to retain customers also do not want to retain employees. Simple math. Therefore there are few, if any, good jobs. (Full-time, permanent, benefits, stable enough to sign a mortgage) Companies with no jobs to offer also offer no incentive for people to obtain educations in order to acquire those jobs. That's the social contract that has also been destroyed.

The education of an entire generation is being made worthless.

Re:That's right folks

[BecomingLumberg]

That makes no economic sense to begin with. Are you seriously arguing that if a company can charge you more to give you less at a lower cost, they are trying to lose your business?

Re:That's right folks

[cubicledrone]

Are you seriously arguing that if a company can charge you more to give you less at a lower cost, they are trying to lose your business?

No. If they are trying to charge more in order to make customers stop using the product, they are trying to lose business. It is directly contradictory to the law of supply and demand. They are artificially limiting the supply in an attempt to limit demand. In the process they are going to lose customers and will therefore be required reduce their workforce, which means thousands out of work, again.

And they don't care that people are going to lose their jobs, which is wrong.

Re:That's right folks

[BecomingLumberg]

Okay. Economics review. Much like in physics, its a law because there are not exceptions, only things which need to be explained by outside forces. In Economics, they are called externalities. That said, there are none, and a simple S&D graph applies. However, AOL is doing this not to limit customers, but to gain more profit, due to what they believe is extremely inelastic demand.

http://www.saintjoe.edu/~bobs/econ/elasticity/Elas tic2.html

Much like a drug dealer, they think there are plenty of people that will pay outrageous prices to remain luddites. Even those that will switch to broadband will probably want AOL to hold their hand.

AOL wants to keep all the customers they have. If they could do that at the new price, that would be the ultimate victory for them. However, when you raise prices, you will lose some who sit right at the Cost Benifit margin. However, if you lose 1% of your customer base and get the rest to pay 33% more, you are obviously making much more money.

Case and point, AOL is not trying to get rid of customers, simply maximize profit (well, actually ROI, but close enough). They may lose customers in the process, but that is just a annoying side effect.

And I never said AOL was a bunch of alter boys.

From the article summary:

[Khyber]

However through this, they do still offer an unadvertised lower price for those who can't get or don't want broadband can request lower-priced plans, including an unadvertised offering of about $18 with a one-year commitment.

Isn't this in any way illegal? This sounds something like Bait and Switch, but in reverse. Two different prices for what I presume is the exact same service (Like AOL ever changes... so easy to hack no wonder it's #1) sounds like a very illegal scheme.

Re:From the article summary:

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this in any way illegal? This sounds something like Bait and Switch, but in reverse. Two different prices for what I presume is the exact same service (Like AOL ever changes... so easy to hack no wonder it's #1) sounds like a very illegal scheme.

$18/mo with a one-year commitment; $26/mo on a month-by-month contract. Longer term contracts are less risky, so they can offer a lower price. Like buying a cell phone is cheaper with a one-year contract vs two year.

What's next?

[cubicledrone]

Oh, of course! Layoffs!

More foreclosures and bankruptcies. More pain. More suffering. More destroyed neighborhoods. More unemployment and reposessions. More wasted education. GET MORE SKILLS! It's the EMPLOYEE'S FAULT!

And a big bump for the stock price. Cracked lobster with a side of tall dollars. Step up to the buffet and pass the croutons.

AOL and the lovely iron embrace...

[ursabear]

My mother and father-in-law both use AOL. Neither of them can stand open Internet connectivity because it is different, transparent, and doesn't have the lovely ultra-over-crowded Welcome screen. This is not derision, it is a factual observation.

When my father-in-law moved, he purchased DSL through the local phone company. He loves the speed. We tried to wean him off AOL, but have been unsuccessful. Quoth he, "Web mail is terrible, and Thunderbird is horrible!" [read:it doesn't have my familiar-of-7-years filing cabinet, and I have to actually start an application after he's "started" the internet.] "I don't 'see' the Internet!" [read: He feels warm and comfortable with the AOL main window as the portal, and using all these 'loose' applications gives him no warm fuzzies.]

It isn't that he's not smart (he's got multiple Dr. degrees), it isn't that he doesn't understand... it is how he feels that matters. This is the nut of the AOL user base.

None of my tech-enabled friends uses (or would consider) AOL - I think AOL has become a cultural ubiquity.

You hit the nail on the head, wise guy...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

So now I can get dial-up for the same low price as broadband? Wait...

That's exactly the idea. AOL wants out of the dial-up business.

Re:You hit the nail on the head, wise guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they don't exactly have a broadband customer base.

Maybe they're tired of the internet already.

Re:You hit the nail on the head, wise guy...

[Hrodvitnir]

That "wooshing" sound going over your head is NOT the price of dial-up.

Re:You hit the nail on the head, wise guy...

[n7ytd]

That's exactly the idea. AOL wants out of the dial-up business.

What else does AOL offer? They do have their portal, which could be called "Web-lite", but what value do they provide to broadband users?

$26 may not be too high...

[loose_cannon_gamer]

First, disclaimer. I have used AOL in the long distant past, and if it is still the same as it used to be, well, $-40 might be the right monthly rate (that is, they pay you enough to replace the computer they screw up).

Second... my parents (mid 50's aged) used to be stuck with a high cost ISP through a deal they got at work. When their contract expired, they switched to your average nation $10 / month dialup ISP (Qwest has decided their neighborhood doesn't warrant DSL, although they live in a suburb and cable is readily available, but overpriced for their budget).

This new ISP, unlike the old expensive one, is awful. Heaven help you if you want to send UDP traffic because it gets dropped, constantly (and on dialup, that is in fact the end of the world). Disconnections every 20 minutes, minimum. Plus, a real PITA interface with 'pop-up' blockers and 'virus scanners' that take down the web connection with frightening frequency while in fact neither blocking popups nor catching viruses and spyware. I know because, as most of you, I get the call to fix it when it is broken, and I *used* to be able to play games like Starcraft (pure UDP) with my little brother, back in the day...

This isn't just a complaint post, though. There's a market hiding in there. Specifically, I would consider recommending an ISP who charged more money in exchange for services that were actually valuable. Like ISP to backbone latency guarantees, or never a dropped packet on their network (which requires quite a bit of expensive redundant hardware and a willingness to not sell all available bandwidth), or any of a host of other non-intrusive services. You want to scan for viruses? Scan the packets before they get to me. A popup blocker? I use a *real* webrowser, I don't need it. Your ridiculous dialer app that wraps internet explorer? Just give me a phone number and an 8 line instruction page for setting up a modem shortcut.

For the right price, it *must* be possible to actually provide a true, clean, non-intrusive high quality connection at the advertised speed. Is that AOL? Probably not. But it if existed, it would be worth considering, even at $26 for dialup. The older I get, the more I am interested in exchanging my money for quality goods and services. I care about price, but I care more about what I'm getting than how much I'm getting it for. I am willing to pay more to avoid having MSN, AOL, Earthlink or any other such ISP manage my broadband connection, from experience with each of those.

Is there such a thing as a 'luxury' ISP? Maybe there should be.

Re:$26 may not be too high...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get "business class" internet access. That generally means broadband, but business class dialup must still be out there. You could also have a look at getting a T1 line, they usually have great support. Expensive though.

Re:$26 may not be too high...

[Rebar]

Luxury ISP in my book is one that gives me a dial-in number with plain old ppp and leaves me alone after that.

I gave SBC/Yahoo dial a whirl, and for $9.95/month (the price they gave me when they realized they couldn't sell me DSL) I was pretty pleased. It took a Windows laptop to run the install software and get the dial-in number, but once I had that, I was able to make it work perfectly from Linux using wvdial. It would stay connected for something like 6 hours at a time, and was on pretty much constantly due to dial-on-demand and ntpd running. I did this for at least a year - can't remember exactly when previous ISP turned evil. Can't speak to UDP traffic, but if it is like the rest of the service, it would probably just work.

Don't get me wrong; I hate SBC like any sane person, but their dial-up access worked very well for me. I can only guess as to why they didn't kick a customer like me off - my guess is that the dialup department can't talk to the billing or cancellation departments and there was no way internally to report my, ahm, overuse of the dialup network. I called to cancel last week and they seemed very sorry to lose me as a customer (got wireless innernet now).

Sorry for the US centric post (mid-south is SBC land). Hope this helps someone stuck with a sorry or expensive ISP. YMMV.

Re:$26 may not be too high...

[TallMatthew]

Like ISP to backbone latency guarantees, or never a dropped packet on their network (which requires quite a bit of expensive redundant hardware and a willingness to not sell all available bandwidth), or any of a host of other non-intrusive services.

The latency on dialup connections is a result of the modulation (the mo) and demodulation (the dem) of serial bits to noise to serial bits. Once your packets reach their network, they move at light speed to their destination so that's not really a consideration.

The UDP thing is probably due to a lack of adequate flow control within whatever application is dropping packets. TCP will adjust rate of transfer between fast connections and slow connections with the windowing mechanism, which is astonishingly effective; the UDP protocol has no such functionality so the people who write the app have to make it work themselves (and you're generally not going to get guys as talented as Postel to write your code). You're likely on a 56 kilobit connection trying to talk to servers in a colo that have a gigabit uplink. Getting that to work is complicated. Whatever application you're trying to run, the developers probably weren't able to get both dialup and broadband connections to work properly, so they compromised dialup users. That has nothing to do with your ISP.

Re:$26 may not be too high...

[sgtrock]

Yep, there is. Virtually every smaller local ISP falls into this category now, as the inefficient ones have either gone bankrupt or have been bought out. They tend to cost a bit more, but provide a better level of service. I'm lucky in that I live in a metro area (Twin Cities) that has a few of these companies to choose from.

Wait Wait Wait...

[Dj Suppai Saru]

in an attempt to encourage them to upgrade to broadband. OK so driving up dail-up prices > lowering existing broadband prices? You would think the latter would bring more profit... Then again, let AOL make all the stupid decisions they want... Not like I'm trying to save them from a horrible death.

BS

[alienw]

Actually, AOL will offer their service for next to nothing. Just call in and ask to cancel. They will offer like $5 a month if you choose to stay on -- without any commitment or anything. Of course, why anyone would want to use AOL is beyond me.

Aol is...

[EvilPickles]

AOL is an Evil Empire. Simple as that. They disgust me.

Re:Aol is...

[GnarlyNome]

They might be after getting hit with the Clue-Bat 2006

AOL Simply = Bad Strategy

[Shanesan]

Everyone seems to be bash bash bashing AOL. Sure, they're making some really unintellectual decisions about cost, and I remember when I could get Earthlink for 12.95 and AOL on top of it for 9.95, which was, actually, a decent deal.

However, if they went back to the old method, would bashing still continue?

"Oh, they've realized that they're losing more money than usual! Too bad they suck anyway."

It's not that AOL is a giant group of Nazi's hunting to take over, but a really mal-adjusted administrative team making awful decision after awful decision.

This is the only company that I see people pointing fingers at the company, and not the people inside.

If you say so crazy man...

[Zantetsuken]

Good god man! Do you know what you've just said!?! I sure hope you were joking... If you weren't joking, here's my arguement:

Superior? I'm lucky enough to have a cable line, which I send through my router/firewall, and then of course have Windows's built-in firewall on (I'm sure it sucks, but hell, even you are probly using it), and I run Avast 4 (Home edition is free to, well, home users), Spybot, and Microsoft Anti-spyware (I know they suck, and they're gonna shaft the anti-spyware "beta" once they re-release it as "Windows Defender" with OneCare (they strong armed the "Defender" name offa another product, but thats another story))

You know why I use that stuff? cus it works AND its free (as in free beer) - and you know what else? I dont get hit with jack shit. For all the claims AOL makes about broadband being *more* dangerous /* chuckles to self - what a bunch of nut jobs */ I find their claims a bunch of bullshit, but thats just me anyway - if you seriously meant what you said "AOL has a better security suite", you have 2.5 choices

1.A) Go right on ahead and let em keep screwing you in the ass
1.B) Get yourself into a mental ward
2) Even if you stick with dial-up, switch to some other ISP

Re:If you say so crazy man...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think DeathFromSomewhere was being sarcastic. How many AOL fanboys would post on Slashdot or even admit to using AOL as their ISP? *shudder*

Confused??

[Anonymous Coward]

So AOL is going to give me DSL or Cable for $25.90 a month. Can I just subscribe to their broadband connection and not use the software? That would save me $15 a month. Sounds too good to be true, can somebody explain the details of the plan?

What about those who can't read?

[That's Unpossible!]

Like the parent poster?

Dialup v. DSL

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

A couple of years ago, I spouted off here about why I was happy with dialup at home even though DSL was available. The reasons I gave were

• T3 access at work for those .iso downloads
• Don't do much online gaming
• Better control of the kid's access
• Cost

Things have changed. Although I was happy with my local ISP, SBC DSL is now cheaper (I live in a rural area where a lot of those $10 deals aren't available). Only child still at home is now in college, and she needs better access. We both do some online gaming. I switched to DSL without any regret except the loss of a locally maintained Usenet spool.

Now that I have a nice wireless network set up at home, I have found an added fringe benefit; backup network access through my neighbors who don't share my ideas about security.

Microsoft...

[EXrider]

Microsoft could sell you insecure software, then sell you a separate product to secure it.

*COUGH*ONECARE*COUGH*

Slashdot: News for Nerds?

[chris vo]

Pfft, nerds don't use AOL!

Hooked by email address inertia

[purplelocust]

The sad thing is that many many people will keep their AOL accounts, despite the price increase, since they don't like the idea of changing their email address. It is a huge hassle to change your email address with all the various e-tailers, login-only sites, etc. and no matter how careful you are, there will be a few you forget. I lost several shareware registrations and my old 4-digit Slashdot account this way years ago when a university account expired on me, oh well. And then the idea that friends/relatives will try to email your old address and not get you- ugh, the horror! So there is a huge amount of inertia, particularly amoung people who've had only one email address their whole life (for example, many AOLers.) And AOL is milking this inertia. People aren't going to switch to another ISP, which may well raise their rates in a while, if the hassle of dealing with a new email address is high.

AOL Dialup is like AT&T's old "standard" plan

[parvin]

Remember about seven years back when prices for long distance service crashed? Everyone, AT&T included, started offering all kinds of new plans that saved people 50-90% on their bills. But what didn't drop for years was the standard rates that Grandma still payed because she never called an 800 number. It's deja vu all over again.

Maybe...

[kybred]

September is about to end?

hey I'm an AOL user

[silentscope]

I'd just like to say, I am an AOL user. and I have never paid for it, for over 3 years now. I just call and cancel every 3 months and they keep giving me 3 months free (on average). It's a little annoying to have to call, but I love their easy to use automated answering system (yeah right). I don't use any of their services though, I stick to the dialer. I want broadband badly but I'm too cheap. I'll give in someday, or maybe I'll just wait for that free Google wifi project ;)

How I Escaped From AOL

[chromozone]

Leaving AOL is like trying to get out of the mafia. Last month I called to end my 2 year old "AOL For Broadband" service. It took almost a half hour to get through the automated menus and waiting periods. Then the woman who answered my call refused to take my request to drop service at face value. I was grilled extensively about my reasons for wanting to drop the service.

King Kong with bloomers kept suggesting "alternatives" to my problems such as new browsing habits, software etc. I quite forcefully told her I didn't want "solutions" and wanted to drop the service. She then proceeded to give me instructions about some browser she said I had to download in order to drop service.

At that point I told her to drop my service "now" or I was going to contact the State Attorney Generals office. She finally ended my service then

Latter I checked up and found the New York State Attorney Generals Office had already sanctioned AOL in the recent past for just the same practices I went through.

AOL is sleazy and I wouldn't doubt they raise their prices knowing a lot of present members still can't get broadband for whatever reason. Of members who decide to drop the know they will strong-arm a certain percentage away from liberty. They have probably costed out the fines for such behavior verses the gains. No doubt they will encourage some to bump up to their broadband, and AOL-Dial will get even more ghetto-fabulous content to charm its hordes.

heh

[Winckle]

BOTH of course

Broadband for $26? Point me in that direction!

[FunkSoulBrother]

Can someone clue me in on where I can get that? I live in a big metro area (Denver) and I'm paying comcast $45 a month for cable internet, and thats with a deduction for owning my own cable modem and another for bundling with their Cable TV service.

I'm not saying AOL is a good value or anything for dialup, but in my experience thats a pretty lowball estimate for "exact same per month as broadband".

Re:Broadband for $26? Point me in that direction!

[smellsofbikes]

I'm in the same metro area as you. I have Qwest DSL through Front Range Internet (because I already was using FRII as my ISP.) FRII's cost was $20/mo for dialup. Upgrading to 256k DSL was another $15/mo on my Qwest bill. I wouldn't mind a straight $30/mo broadband. But I wouldn't pay AOL ten cents to pull me out of quicksand...

Am I missing something?

[jpellino]

What can possibly be on AOL that isn't also already on the net - I mean is there some magic packaging they wrap around the rest of the content on the planet that makes it worth putting up with a non-standard browser and now this?

So you have their $26 monthly and then they ask you to slap on either a monthly $17 or $22 DSL account to get connected.

So I'm still at $48 per month to get to 3 meg and tied to their app.

$26 per month?

[Aokubidaikon]

In many countries you can get broadband for that.

It has zero to do with content.

[bogie]

It's all about people being scared of change. They are terrified of having to learn anything and the idea of having *gasp* seperate email and web browser programs scares the shit out of them. "But then how will people know how to email me?". The majority of them even when they go cable/dsl keep their dam AOL even though I implore them not to. Most AOL users I know don't even use the services AOL offers. It just makes it easy to have one single icon to click to reach "the Internet". I had hoped those days would be gone by now and that AOL would be a distant memory, but I don't see that happening anytime soon no matter how much they charge. I think we are going to have to wait for an entire generation to die before we see any change.

AOL could charge $39 a month for dialup and still keep 75%+ of their userbase.

Earthlink is about to get bigger

[Tablizer]

Many just may get pissed off and go with other providers, such as Earthlink. It will be a good time for Earthlink to market to ex-AOL'ers.

E-mail from AOL - even limited plans changed...

[kiddailey]

I have an AOL account (as I've mentioned on Slashdot before) that I use almost solely for testing purposes of various content internet content that I create for clients.

I probably use the account once every three or four months at the most, and I even then I access the AOL network through my own separate broadband ISP account. The only time in the past dozen years I've used it for non-testing for any period of time is when the three hurricanes came through central Florida and I was without my broadband connection for a few days.

AOL isn't sparing anyone from the price increase. I *was* paying their obscure $4/mo+hourly plan which I considered fair. But, I received the following e-mail from them the other day:

Dear Member,

On your next billing date, we will be increasing the monthly fee for your AOL® Limited Plan to $6.95 for 3 hours of online usage. Additional hours will be billed at $2.50 per hour. This price change, our first in over four years, helps us continue to provide you with reliable Internet service including security features, exclusive content, member service and support. Over the past two years, we've spent more than $2 billion to provide the convenience, safety features and reliability you've come to expect from AOL. You continue to get great benefits under your AOL Limited Plan, including:

The most comprehensive set of automatic online safety tools - all located in one place - to help protect you from identity theft, spyware, and viruses.
24/7 live customer support by phone, email or Instant Messaging that allows us to be there whenever you need us.
Access anywhere, anytime to your AOL® Mail, AOL content and your AOL address book from any Internet-connected computer. Even when you're away from home you can get there through www.aol.com, over a dial-up or high-speed connection.
Help protecting your important files with unlimited storage for digital photos and unlimited email storage.
Go to AOL Keyword: My Account, or http://bill.aol.com/ on the web to find out your exact billing date and more information about your plan.

We look forward to continuing to provide you with the best online experience possible--today and in the future. Thanks again for being an AOL member.

Sincerely,
The AOL Member Service Team

As you can read in the letter, they're basically justifying raising my monthly fee for items of their service that I never or rarely use or benefit from: reliable Internet service, security features, exclusive content, member service and support.

And now they'll be getting $83/year (nearly all of which is pure profit) from me -- a developer trying to support users of their crappy service. I realize it's not a lot, but that doesn't make it feel like less of a ripoff.

Way to go AOL. You're making it really easy to just give up on you completely.

Why pay at all?

[m85476585]

In Norway they have free dialup internet! The company was called freesurf.no (or something). I don't know if they are still around; their website doesn't seem to work. The only thing you pay for is the phone call. There were no ads or bloatware to install. Oddly enough my house had ISDN, but I couldn't afford a modem for it (and I didn't know what I would need (like an ISP (and if there even is one (and I probably wouldn't have been able to find one easily(I don't speak Norwegian))))(and there was a digital --> analog converter so all the phones except one would be "normal", so I would have had to add a wire (but I couldn't because it was a rented house (and the landlord didn't like us)))).

From the article summary

[Khyber]

Hell, if it's legal either way, I can bet the next large commercial wave is going to be of other dial-up startups, with FAR better (not to mention smaller and simpler) software to run instead of AOL, at half the price, unlimited, on a month-to-month basis. Twenty-six dollars on a month-to-month basis? Are you joking?

Let the marketing war begin.

BTW, how the hell was I rated 'Overrated' when I had no other moderation done to me to begin with? Which mod is smoking the pipe, tonight, hrm?

Messages from AOL

[Lord_Dweomer]

As someone who has an AOL email address because they have family who still religiously use it.....I have to say that their communications to their customers are very confusing. They make it sound like you're getting a free upgrade to broadband, and just paying a buck or two more.

I'm really confused what the real story is.

huh?

[cyranthus]

i didnt know people even used AOL dialup anymore.

$18 price is for suckers too

[Fluffy the attack ki]

Last year during a bit of a financial low point I tried AOL for a month. On canceling, aside from the expected extra time added to my trial, they also offered to price match my local ISP at $15, no strings mentioned. Guess that they raised the lower price as well as the suckers' price.

AOL

[Mike_ya]

Raising the price (tax) to try to influence people's behavior? I guess if it works for the government it works for AOL. Looking at it, it is obviously a smart business move. Broadband customers are cheaper since that decreases the need for phone lines. And people that stay on dialup mostly likely don't have a broadband option so it doesn't matter how much they are screwed over. They will still pay.

More or less ...

[Pogue Mahone]

'Less' is used when there is an uncountable quantity.

Maybe 'AOL users' is an uncountable substance ...

AOL oh dear...

[Pawsaldo]

I've generally kept myself away from AOL which isn't too hard in merry 'ol england, as we have loads of ISPs. well unless the software is on your computer. Damn it doesn't seem to never go no matter how many times you delete it >:O

Anyway my Dial-up is ok, £15 a month (around $20-£30 I'm not too sure of the exchange rate at the mo) and that is I can use it anytime and not get charged anything extra. Now Broadband here is around £17 a month usually. AOL do it for that, so do a lot of ISPs but they only go up to 1Mb for AOL while other companies can go up to 8Mb.

Also what are AOL doing exactly, Thats quite bad, to sell a less quality connection for more then there better service.
God damn AOL, glad I'm not with them.

There's a new YTMND...

[Anonymous Coward]

making light of AOL's move. Pwned, indeed.

http://lolaolpwnz.ytmnd.com/

Bad news for outlanders.

[CCFreak2K]

I live in a place where the only two ways to get internet access are $30/mo dial-up connections or $600 $70/mo satellite DSL connections. It's a good thing other companies aren't following suit at the moment.

Great strategy!

[suv4x4]

26 USD for dial up :)?! Great, over here broadband providers offer dial-up as a free advertisement for their companies.

But anyways: we've had our telecom do a similar thing to us year or two ago. We have an aging analog phone system and part of it is replaced by digital gradually. At the time they didn't manage to raise the phone prices overall since they were regulated by the government.

So instead they introduced higher prices for the digital lines only instead, because of "investment costs and increased quality service" and so on. So far so good.

Now that most casual folks don't need any of the "great digital service" crap, they shied away from applying to convert their phone lines from analog to digital, which slowed the analog-digital conversion rate last few years.

So the telecom thought, thought, and thought out - "hey we'll raise the prices of the analog lines and make them the same as the digital lines, this will make people switch".

And what happened? A huge amount of people just gave up on their phones - most of them on small villages and rural areas, farms, where they rarely need a phone and can't afford it.

And a lot of them did it.. because they already had (one or more) cellphones.

The rest however, some of them converted, some of them not, but they started making less calls, resulting in significant loss for the telecom last two or so years.

Curious to see how the tactic will turn out on AOL.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the price will match up to the KBps they give you!

AOL doesn't server 26 kb/s

[battjt]

We have bad phones lines that connect at around 14.4 kb/s. It is my understanding that unless you connect at least at 26 kb/s AOL hangs up, so AOL doesn't even server our rural community. The "urban" areas of the county have Verizon DSL and Insight cable.

This situation is driving most rural net users to use small wifi providers. Farmers and telecommuters can afford that, but most just wait until they get to work to check their email.

The local government is investigating a county wide wireless system, but Verizon is challenging that in the legislature. Verizon's alternative is the "Verizon Broadband Access", which tests out at about 128 kb/s at $60/month.

arg.

Joe

The trifecta is complete!

[smooth wombat]

Woot! I got three rejected stories in a week which were then posted. All were posted in my Journal well before they appeared on the front page. What's my prize?

Armor for the Olympic skier Wednesday February 15, @12:43PM Rejected

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Saturday February 18, @01:47PM

Apple uses poetry to dissuade hackers Friday February 17, @08:30AM Rejected

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sunday February 19, @01:02AM

AOL to charge equally for dial-up & broadband Wednesday February 22, @08:16AM Rejected

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wednesday February 22, @05:18PM

Please note that all three were posted by ScuttleMonkey. Conspiracy? You be the judge.

what bs

[technotot]

dial up is slow as hell anyway, make it cheaper!

Ever watched Millionaire?

[Anonymous Coward]

All kidding aside, AOL completly relies on the fact that their customer doesn't know a thing about how computers or the internet actualy work.

Proof: when the "Who wants to be a Millionaire" show asks the audience, say 90% get the correct answer. Then they show the AOL audience's answer - maybe 60% correct.

Yes, AOL users are stupid, and not just about computers.

Isn't AOL part of my computer?

[Cro Magnon]

Seriously! Every computer I've bought since the Win95 days has had AOL. I bought a new box last month and IT had a great big AOL icon positioned where you couldn't miss it! In 2006!

people and their AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

i work for an electronics store, and everyday we have to go around and exit out of AOL... all of these people come in and try to get online, and they think they have to go through AOL. its like they are brainwashed into thinking AOL is the internet.

when my parents got high-speed internet, it was a chore to get them to not use the AOL interface, but instead just click on *insert popular web browser here* icon.

Re:wait.....AOL offers broadband?

[Cutting_Crew]

as far as i know AOL doesnt offer their own broadband service. could someone please clarify? the only thing close to broadband that i know of is that they offer their already existed services to go along with your broadband service you have with a real ISP...and all for $10.

dialup profit margins shrinking?

[chocolateeater]

Maybe AOL thinks its profits will go up if all its users are on broadband, rather than half broadband half dialup? So does that mean the cost of maintaining a plethora of dial-up lines is more expensive than maintaining broadband? Or do they think that sooner or later those dialup customers are going to switch to broadband, and that damn well better be AOL broadband?

You've got bail!

[billcopc]

I think it would be fantastic if AOL would stick with their own "internet" and keep their lusers out of our hair. Having a bunch of AOLers on broadband just means there will me a zillion more idiot posts on the Torrent forums.

"WoW uR l33+ gimme woopi goldburg sexxx tape dudududud"

*reaching for the squirt gun*

AOL?????

[Austin Milbarge]

AOL??? It amazes me that to this day, in 2006, people still unfortunately require the services of this useless ISP. As far as I'm concerned, AOL is the appendics of the Internet. The Internet training wheels of the 1990's if you will. Their software has, and always will be, nothing but a controlled adware monstrosity used religiously by fruity moms and dads who never knew that right clicking the mouse brought up a fucking menu. And then we all wonder why our president has to go on national television to tell us that countries like India and China are kicking our ass in technology. There are only two things AOL ever did successfully, and that was give computer techs plenty of practice reinstalling Windows and waste a shit load of plastic on advertising CDs that every month offered 2^32 power more free, useless, online minutes than the previous month. Far as I see it, AOL is a sick joke and an embarrassment!

Lower price for those who don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

including an unadvertised offering of about $18

AOL could probably get twice the current price if they offered a service level with no-advertising.