So this means the average everyday Joe LOVES to waste time.
Explains why our economy won't come out of the dumper!
I guess that means we can expect a resurgence in 2800 baud external modems that weigh as much as a brick and are as large as a breadbox. :)
>> So this means the average everyday Joe LOVES to waste time.
It means the average everyday Joe doesn't spend enough time on the web or downloading large files and such to make the small time savings worth, as the article puts it, the "Erratic service. Poor support. Rising costs."
It means that Joe doesn't want to waste time, and so has turned away from "repeated cable-modem breakdowns and hourlong waits on the phone for help."
It means that Joe feels no obligation to bring the economy out of the dumpster by paying inflated prices for an inferior product backed by shoddy support.
(edited by: JayC at 5:29 pm (utc) on May 9, 2002)
What it means is you'd better keep your pages lean & mean, you're going to be dealing with 56k for a long time.
Maybe we can ask China for all of our modems back.
Saw a broadcast on 60 minutes, I believe, about us sending a tech garbage China.
Hope their isn't to much of a mark up!
I think that's because most people haven't tried broadband.
The day I switched over was one of those miracle days.
The night before I downloaded the Drumbeat 2000 demo from Macromedia on my 56 K modem which took about 3 hours.
The next morning I downloaded it again in about 10 minutes.
I hate going back.
I think many people are confused by the cable/DSL war going on. And afraid of getting locked in to one technology.
And lastly, I guess the majority of people just don't care about the internet the way we do.
My parents recently left their cozy land of a Intel 486 and migrated to a P4 with DSL.
They used to be the sort who were patient enough to wait 5 minutes for NS/IE to load so that they could access their hotmail account. I think they told me, they spent on average about an hour a day writing about 8 emails.
With the new computer + broadband the last month, they have changed their habits. My mother gleefully told me "I don't have to wait for the computer to go places anymore. It waits on me." Part of that is the processor, but a larger part is the connection.
I'm reminded of Green Eggs and Ham "Try it, try it, you will see!" :)
I've heard people complain about this problem but I have never experienced this.
I run cable, and when excite went belly up, we were down probably no more than 10 hours, and that was primarily from 12:00am to 10:00 am. That is the only time we've ever been down in 3 years.
Maybe what needs to happen is the broadband company's need reduce the profit margins, drop their prices make it more paletable and then prehaps volume will make up the difference.
I'd never go back to a modem!
>guess the majority of people just don't care about the internet the way we do.
That's the largest part of it. But even those that DO know a bit about the internet don't necessarily see a value in broadband access, particularly at the consumer/entertainment level. Add to that the increasing trend to limit the surfing to 5 or 6 favorite sites and broadband quickly hits a wall.
No one here is online more than I am. I also have 5 different dial-up accounts through 3 ISPs. I have plenty of legitimate business reasons to expense off going to DSL, yet I still haven't made the move. Why? Simply not worth it, most of my business is transacted via email.
I have a cable modem at home and a T1 at the office and will never go back to dial up. I was at a friends house a couple days ago checking some movie times off of his dial up account and in the time it took to check the time we could have looked the number for the theater up in the phonebook and called for times. With my cable modem I can get the times in a few seconds.
I think once people try broadband they won't go back but the trick is getting people to try it. I am suprised the broadband companies haven't done more things like setting up someone for a couple months free to get them hooked.
It all boils down to cost-effectiveness, real or perceived. Our real estate office is going to DSL because it's cheaper than adding another commercial phone line to the pbx. ROI is around 50%, it's a no-brainer.
This is what is surprising to me.
I residential phone line runs about 25.00 a month, plus taxes.
An ISP, let's just pick AOL, runs what 22.00 a month.
Thats a total 47.00 a month. Oh yeah, and when your on the net you can't use the phone unless you get a second line, so let's add another 25.00 a month. So the total here is 72.00 amount.
Lets see I pay 45.00 plus taxes for cable, and 25.00 for a phone line thats 70.00 a month. I save 3 dollars a month or 36 dollars a year.
So maybe I should spend more money to get less, gees that will spur the economy wont it!
|I am suprised the broadband companies haven't one more things like setting up someone for a couple months free to get them hooked. |
Here Time Warner is gettiing into that gear. AOl BROADBAND (LOL) is giving free installation, free cable modem and one or three months free. It is $9.95 more per month for AOL braodband over just having Road Runner.
All that broadband copmpanies need to do is run co-branded advertising with MS (xbox), Sony (Play Station),Nintendo (Gamecube), and game-makers. The gaming market is exploding with more spending last year than Hollywood.
Online gaming through consoles could drive cable service through the roof and into the stratosphere. Kids could play with each other over it, get homework help, and chat with friends. And they don't need extensive computer skills. Throw the CD in and go...
>Online gaming through consoles could drive cable service through the roof and into the stratosphere.
That's what I think will be the kicker, too.
Once they make the move from dial-up to broadband they will never go back.
Even if every thing went down hill, i think the adsl dependance would outlive the smokes.
I have talked with friends who have switched to DSL and the most important change I have noted is that their usage behavior changes. It becomes more convenient to use the PC than the Yellow pages to find a local business.
That may not sound like much but what if everyone (okay, say 65% 0r 70% of everyone in developed nations) used the web instead of the local Yellow pages?
That would make the search engines the lynch-pin in spending decisions.
I think "broadband" is getting a bad wrap because of some carriers. Let's take XO.
XO file chapter 11 earlier this month. We have a company in Miami that just last year switched to XO becuase the phone company went belly up.
What XO installed for them was a full T1 for both voice and data. (bad idea) Virutally gave them an IP connection for free (so they say) it really wasn't when you look at the invoice.
Anyway, if they experience problems with their phone system they lost there Internet connect. When they experience Internet problems, they lost their phone system.
XO's whole problem was that they were trying to deliver something to a customer that their vendors couldn't support, on top of under cutting rates so bad they didn't make any money.
Now we have to fix the problem one year later.
>> Once they make the move from dial-up to broadband they will never go back.
Actually, a focus of the linked article is people who made the move to broadband and did go back to dialup.
>> when your on the net you can't use the phone unless you get a second line, so let's add another 25.00 a month
I have cable at the office but still use dialup at home. I have "forward-on-busy" set to my cell phone, which I'd have to have anyway. I'm often connected via dialup for five hours or so at a stretch; even if I'm working on something locally on my PC I stay connected for email.
But really most people aren't even interested in doing that. They check email a couple of times a day, and maybe use the web for an hour... they have no need at all for a second phone line.
JayC, the fact still remains that it isn't cheaper to have dialup over a cable/dsl.
Unless of couse you use netzero, at which point you get to wait until there is a clear port to come in on.
I don't think that people have put the two together. You have to have a phone line and pay for an ISP. This will cost roughly 45 to 50 dollars.
That's valid, sparrow, if your talking about DSL but not for cable. Most cable users are still going to want a phone line!
True! In which case you've got me.
But I can't go down just yet! How many of these dial-up users that also have cell phone!
How's that for springing back?
P.S. I don't, I refuse grow an ear jack!
>>This will cost roughly 45 to 50 dollars.<<
The deals are not that straightforward, you normally have to have it bundled with some other service in order to get the best rate and then the math gets tedious and whooo hooo...who wants to send more money to the friendly local cable monopoly?
Great product, decent pricing and no business usually means you have no credibility with your customers.
When we got cable over 3 years ago, and we had to wait for it, it was very straight forward, no surprises, no hidden charges, no bundles nothing.
In fact one cable provide is introducing digital phone service via cable, installing it for free, you don't even need an existing connection. They put a connection in for you, no cost to you. Your monthly bill less applicable taxes 19.95 a month.
When is the last time you saw a monthly phone bill that low!
>> How many of these dial-up users that also have cell phone!
Ha! Well, admittedly my situation -- forwarding calls to the cell phone when I'm online -- isn't common. And I lean even more to sticking with dialup because my company owns an ISP, so I get that account for free -- and they even pay the cell phone bill!
But my point reallly is that the overwhelming majority of people aren't online very much, and really don't find it to be a big deal to use one phone both for voice calls and the modem. Since they'd have the phone line anyway, the ISP is the only added cost.
Sparrow - where do you live to get that rate! That's incredible.
Once you go high speed you can't turn back. All these providers need to do is drop down to the dial up ISP level for an introductory rate. The discount rate needs to be long enough to get people to sign up, so maybe six months. After that they could bring it up to $50 a month to make up for the initial loss.
I was thinking what high speed access means to me. In truth, I'd pay a lot more for it than what I am paying.
>ISP is the only added cost
Yep, around here I can get a decent local ISP for 12.95.
BTW, if you travel and jack into your email from hotels, you need a dial-up ISP. Soooo... we're back to square one.
|Many consumers find dial-up perfectly acceptable for E-mail and Web browsing. |
You are correct jayC, you are also very spoiled! Not all of have your same luxuries.
Point is well taken, and I truely believe it is a matter of "content". I could not build websites and upload to servers on a 56K modem, it wouldn't be cost effective.
On the other hand, if all I wanted to do was to occasionaly look something up, or download and occasional email it would be more cost effective to use a modem connection,
you have multiple computers, then once again it is more cost effective for cable/dsl which can be split.
| This 65 message thread spans 3 pages: 65 (  2 3 ) > > |