Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: phranque
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)
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.
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 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!
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.