Americans Abandoning Wired Home Internet, Shows Study (seattletimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Americans as a whole are growing less likely than before to have residential broadband, according to new data on a sample of 53,000 Americans. In plain English, they're abandoning their wired Internet for a mobile-data-only diet -- and if the trend continues, it could reflect a huge shift in the way we experience the Web. The study, conducted for the Commerce Department by the U.S. Census Bureau, partly upholds what we already knew. Low-income Americans are still one of the biggest demographics to rely solely on their phones to get online. Today nearly a third of households earning less than $25,000 a year exclusively use mobile Internet to browse the Web. That's up from 16 percent in 2013. They're often cited as evidence of a digital divide; families with little money to afford a home Internet subscription must resort to free Wi-Fi at libraries and even McDonald's to do homework, look for jobs and find information. But people with higher incomes are ditching their wired Internet access at similar or even faster rates. In 2013, 8 percent of households making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year were mobile-only. Fast-forward a couple of years, and that figure is 18 percent. Seventeen percent of households making between $75,000 and $100,000 are mobile-only now, compared with 8 percent two years ago. And 15âpercent of households earning more than $100,000 are mobile-only, versus 6 percent in 2013.

Comments

Isn't that -more- expensive?

[mccalli]

I'm not American, but I would have thought that mobile data is more expensive than wired? Certainly that's the case in the UK.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Infiniti2000]

Yes, but unless the usage is very large, it's generally cheaper to just buy the mobile data plan and not also have a home ISP. And, most people will never give up their mobile data access.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[IcyWolfy]

I get Unlimited (2GB at 4G speeds, rest at 2G speeds) for $39.99/mo.
Cheaper than Comcast's home internet offerings.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[transami]

If you have to choose between a cell phone and a home Internet connection, which are you going to choose?

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[jellomizer]

Yes it is. But Wireless is more convenient. And most of us have some sort of wireless data plans on our devices anyways, so even though broadband is cheaper and faster. It would be a redundant expense for some people.
Myself I have a cheap data plan, enough for a few google searches and the occasional youtube video while I am waiting. And I do most of my browsing off of Broadband. But I keep an eye on the rates, Performance and coverage. I wouldn't mind dropping broadband for my home, if I got a good enough data plan wirelessly.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Penguinisto]

I'm kind of curious about the non-cell-carrier wireless ISP usage data.

For instance, I use Sat. Internet (because the ISPs are too cheap/lazy to run broadband to my rural-as-hell property).

I also have used, and know that folks still use wireless ISPs (wherein a unidirectional antenna is bolted to the roof of the house and pointed to a distant tower). I last used it from 2000-2005 by way of Sprint Broadband, and got T1 speeds up and down - from a tower 35 miles away. Wasn't perfect for FPS gaming, but was quite usable in spite of that. Pretty sure that speeds have gone up since then.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

In Nordic Countries it's 25–35 EUR for unlimited data at maximum LTE speeds. People often say this is because these countries are smaller, but I don't really buy that argument as smaller scale also more often than not means more expensive, not to mention the excessive telcom regulations. 100/100Mbps to 1Gbps land connections often range from 10–50 EUR.

Now that I think of it, maybe it's the regulations that keep the prices down. Antitrust laws are quite strict.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[drinkypoo]

I have had three different WISPs, without moving. The first one used WiFi gear and was bought out by the second one which used something based on cellular technology. They were being lames so I switched to another WISP which is, sadly, also very lame. They just instituted caps so now I'm paying $80 for 200GB/mo and 7.5 Mbps down, and I can pay more for more cap but I can't get more bandwidth. I was originally paying $50 for no cap and 5 Mbps down. The WISP which bought out that WISP charged $50 and provided 4-5 Mbps down, and then later wanted to institute a 90GB cap which is when I left.

My ping is usually pretty good except at peak times. Netflix buffers pretty hard during some peaks, other times it's fine. Gaming is usually pretty good. Sometimes during the winter they fail hard, but I think that's mostly related to their crap antique equipment. I have recently been upgraded to something slightly more modern, but I haven't had much inclement weather since so I don't know how things have changed.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[ranton]

Yes, but unless the usage is very large, it's generally cheaper to just buy the mobile data plan and not also have a home ISP.

Usage doesn't have to be that large. One hour of HD video is about 1.2 GB of data. Even a standard YouTube video at 480p is 400 MB for an hour of video. Removing wired Internet access will probably save around $50 per month, which could pay for an extra 10 GB or so from a mobile data provider like Verizon. That is only 8 hours of full HD video or 25 hours of low-res YouTube video per month. Neither of those would be considered excessive.

I can understand why a large number of people have switched to mobile data only over the past few years. That only recently became a serious option. But I have a hard time believing this trend will continue. Mobile data providers would have to start offering closer to 10x the current data volumes for the same price before it could handle the amount of content viewing needs of the average household (which if you believe YouTube marketing watch on average of 25+ hours of YouTube per month).

My wife for instance would never be considered a mobile power user, but when we had problems with our WiFi equipment she went through over 3 GB of data in a single weekend. That was almost entirely YouTube, Netflix, and Snapchat.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Comboman]

but they are usually received with a level of dismissal that I can only assume is "we barely have a business case to have the wires down your street." Flag as Inappropriate

More likely it's "we don't have any competition on your street."

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[jedidiah]

> you still need a phone.

You don't need a smart phone.

You don't need a mobile phone either.

It's just a luxury you've grown accustomed to.

You don't "need" the single most expensive option available both in terms of service costs and the price of equipment.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[yacc143]

Don't think so. You can get good coverage in Europe in thinly populated places too. It's the competition, plus strict rules, e.g. you have to provide service to 99% of the population 3 years after you get your frequency slot license, or you loose it and forfeit the billions you paid for the license.

And yes, nordic countries like Norway (14 humans/sq km) Sweden (24 h/sqkm) and Finland (18h/sqkm) do have better mobile coverage and prices, while having a lower population density than the US (35h/sqkm).

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have been paid billions of tax dollars to cover the cost of running cable in rural locations. Instead of getting free cable out and making money starting at day 1 they pocketed it as a windfall.

Just because no prosecutor has taken the corporate overlords to task does not negate their actions.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[IMightB]

I'm getting tired of this argument. The ISP's and telco's have been subsidized to the tune of billions by taxpayers, for no benefit. The only times that service seems to improve is when someone like google or the local government says that they are start offering fiber to an area, then every ISP/telco/local monoploy starts suing and claiming that they are going to upgrade. If the locals drop the project due to lawsuits, then the telcos drop their improvements as well. It's not a metter of size of the US. It's a matter of pure greed.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Rockoon]

I don't understand how or why someone who is living below the poverty line would even have a smartphone and pay for a dataplan, it really sounds like poor prioritization skills to me.

This is exactly why a lot of poor remain poor.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[KGIII]

My home is almost exactly 24 miles from the *center* of the village and about another 68 miles to the center of a reasonable sized town. I had to pay for a CO and the physical wire for the upgrade. The teleco put the lines in at their expense for labor. A neighbor chipped in and paid for a mile's worth of line beyond my place - so that they could connect.

Of the six residencies that wanted the service, we all now have reasonably speedy DSL. I had it done as the house was being built - I retired there in 2008, I was in the new house for Christmas. I could have gone with cable, believe it or not. The price would actually have been about the same. I opted for DSL for some fairly obvious reasons.

It's the telephone line, they have to keep it maintained. I can use any provider I want, I'm only limited to those who are willing to provide service - so I can use any ISP that I feel like and I have switched when I wanted to. There are a number of legislative protections, a public utility commission, and an active consumer protections body that care about phone lines in very rural Maine.

The list goes on.

Anyhow, cable would have been about the same price to install and would have been faster. Though, I now get faster speeds on DSL than cable had said I'd get back in 2007 when I was doing the leg work. I pay for 10/.75 and get 14.5/1.5 and have three disparate connections, each gets that speed. I'm told that they're actually (they've gotta look good on paper - and I know several of the actual engineers personally now) running fiber out by the end of this year. I will not be switching to fiber. I will order fiber but I'll retain at least one of the DSL pipes.

Why? I've had the copper wires on the ground, in snowbanks, with trees on top of it, *plowed by the plow truck* into the snowbank after getting knocked down, and still had reasonable connectivity speeds. Fiber will not do that. They'll be hanging the fiber from the poles and not trenching it. So, I'll be keeping my DSL.

It wasn't all that expensive to have the lines brought in. It was a one time cost and was just about $30,000, in 2008 dollars. That might sound like a lot but I've used dial-up and the dial-up in the area was actually usually less than 14. kb/sec 4 in true throughput. I feel that it was worth every penny. Given the magnitudes of the differences between those speeds and that I consider my time worth money, I might even be able to say that it has exceeded paying off the investment. Even if the measurement is sheer joy, it has paid itself off - tenfold or more.

I'm not sure my pricing is all that accurate. It's accurate in that it is what I paid but they were also doing upgrades in the area at that time. They were already buying the stuff and I personally negotiated the deal with some input from a friend in the business. I'm given to understand that I paid *only* for the lines that were replaced and the CO ("central office" which is really just a big metal box) and, I think, a couple of things that amplify the signal - they put some small boxes on some of the poles. Obviously, this is not my forte.

But, I'm told that I paid *only* for the cost of material and that I paid the same price they paid for said material. The labor was not charged on the bill, not itemized at least, and that was part of the agreement because I was able to get others to commit to signing up. The folks who wanted internet service were more than happy to agree to sign up when they found out that I'd be doing the investing. They're actually good people but i didn't really know them then. It's a very, very small sub-community with those six residencies spread out over about a 2-3 mile stretch of road. The last one out is not interested in phone, 'net, or even mains electricity so the wires stop before they get to his house - as do the electrical wires.

At any rate, that was one of the wisest purchases that I ever made. I know others who have paid quite a bit more but they just took the quoted price and paid that. I actually went into the

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Ravaldy]

They have a monopoly

Where is this said? In many countries ISPs were forced to allow 3rd parties to piggy back off their network at a reasonable price determined by the cost of upkeep and expansion.

get subsidised to install lines and have a captive audience

Although I know there are states and provinces that have offered subsidies for expansion in less dense areas, these areas still end up last on the list to handle. I worked closely with a large Canadian ISP (Telus) and installations in rural areas are often far more complicated than just putting equipment in closed boxes. For one, until about 2006, DSL modems didn't too well in ranges exceeding 5km. Even 3km runs could be difficult to tune properly. Cable modems had a bit more range but I'm not sure how much more.

Where in hell are you getting a 100+year ROI? Are you dense?

In Canada rural areas are defined as having 150 people per square kilometer. This means a DSL system that covers 5KM can handle about 25 SQKM. This means a population of 3750. If you assume at least 3 people (right from census Canada) live in one household. That leaves you with a potential of 1250 connections. If you get 50% of these house holds to connect that leaves you with 625 connections.

The cost alone to bring fiber to the service center to serve those 25 SQKM is between $300k and $500k. Add $100k for the hardware and general setup. If we base it at $400k total install, it's $6400 per household. This means it will take almost 14 years just to pay for the initial installations at $40/month. Now if add maintenance cost, home installation cost (which is usually amortized in the monthly), tech support and running cost you are at least looking at 20 years before you make profit.

This is assuming cost/month doesn't go down because that will drive up the number of years to break even. Additionally the numbers we used are probably too optimistic since not all rural areas will have the maximum of 150 / SQKM.

His figure of 100 is exaggerated but his point was valid. The ROI isn't appealing by any means which is why government often subsidies the installation and makes it mandatory for installations to occur within a set period.

Re:Isn't that -more- expensive?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Now that I think of it, maybe it's the regulations that keep the prices down. Antitrust laws are quite strict.

Hey, US antitrust laws are quite strict as well. We just don't enforce them.

Comcast

[johnsmithperson123]

Followed by this article: 98% of Americans abandoning broadband say that lousy ISPs were the primary reason for doing so. "Even 4G LTE is cheaper than the rippoff prices" said one user. "Verizon wouldn't offer us any FIOS, so this was our only non-DSL option." another claimed. In other news, Google Fiber and FIOS are holding onto 90% of users.

Eh?

[Lumpy]

100% the fault of cable companies and shit ISP's.

They want to keep the USA as a third world country as far as internet connectivity goes.

Re:Eh?

[drinkypoo]

Huh? The USA has third world connectivity? Who told you that?

It's not quite true, but it's very close to true. There are cities in the third world as connected as any in the USA, and in terms of overall broadband penetration and speeds the USA is only a few percentage points above its nearest third-world neighbor (in terms of chart position.)

It's true that population densities are very low here, and that it is more difficult to connect everyone up as a result. However, it's also true that we could be doing a lot more in that regard.

Re:Eh?

[careysub]

It's true that population densities are very low here, and that it is more difficult to connect everyone up as a result. However, it's also true that we could be doing a lot more in that regard.

I see you are responding (in advance) to the lame excuse routinely offered by apologists for "Whatever the Corporations Give Us Must Be the Best in The World! Because FREEDOM!"

The poor average Internet service in the U.S., both in wired broadband penetration and internet connection speeds (and metrics like cost per bandwidth), cannot be explained (or even correlated with) population density. The U.S. is 82.4% urbanized for one thing, which means that this entire urban population lives in a small area at high densities and should have data service comparable or better than the rest of the world, especially in light of the relatively high U.S. average income. The population density in U.S. urban areas is 2400 people per square mile, far higher than the average population density of the nations with the best Internet service (like South Korea), and are in addition highly regionalized (i.e. are in effect huge megacities) so that they do form population and wealth concentrations similar to those top Internet nations.

Instead we are far behind such very low density countries like Sweden, Norway and Finland in all BB metrics (our urbanization rate is not much different from these countries, BTW). Canada, with a lower rate of urbanization that the U.S., and a population density about 1/10 that of the U.S. does better in broadband access, and has nearly identical data rates.

Re:Eh?

[drinkypoo]

Well, I think it's both true and untrue. I think it is more expensive to wire up the US because we have a lot of land area and people sprinkled through it fairly liberally. I think it's bullshit because telecom execs have collected piles of bonus money while failing to meet broadband penetration targets, after we paid them to do so. That is to say, it is more expensive, but we could clearly have accomplished it, and we did not because of fraud.

I want to know the questions

[Anonymous Coward]

If the average user is being asked if they use wired broadband, but use wifi they'll say no even though their wifi router is being fed by it.

Finland is half as dense as USA

[tepples]

There is almost no place in the world which is populated which has population densities as low as the USA.

Finland's population density according to World Bank's population density table is half that of the United States, with Sweden between them. Yet I'm told Sweden and Finland have better home Internet connectivity than the United States.

Caps are bad for bulk downloads

[tepples]

My phone is 3 to 4 times faster than my basic cable (15/0.8) at home.

But how fast would it complete, say, a 30 GB download of a game purchased on Steam? Cable at 15 Mbps completes it in 5 hours; cellular Internet would take months because of the much smaller cap that most cellular ISPs enforce.