Study says many dial-up users don't want broadband

[John Picard]

Linky

Only 14 percent of dial-up users say they're stuck with the older, slower connection technology because they can't get broadband in their neighborhoods, Pew reported Wednesday.
Thirty-five percent say they're still on dial-up because broadband prices are too high, while another 19 percent say nothing would persuade them to upgrade. The remainder have other reasons or do not know.

I'm in the 14% who are "stuck" and I would kill to have high-speed

 

[B.J.]

I've been part of the "too expensive" crowd for 12 years now (and with the same provider for all that time, too). I'm *finally* moving up to high-speed next week, though! Dropping the land phone line in the process, too.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Oh, is broadband expensive or something? I wouldn't know since my fiancee works for the cable company and we get it for free. We also get(all for free)all the channels, all the on-demand channels, a dvr in each room...But dammit, we still have to pay 30 bucks a month for the phone. Sucks to be me I guess! (ducks down to avoid barrage of rotten tomatoes)

 

[MarianLH]

There are still dialup users?


Marian

 

[Smiley]

Given the choice of dial-up vs. broadband at the same price, what reason is there to prefer dial-up? Is it the thrill that you need to do your browsing fast before someone accidentally picks up the phone and disconnects you? Are the longer loading times a good excuse to get up for a snack or do something else for a minute? Cable companies typically set up everything for you, so that part is not hard. What am I missing here?

 

[Paxil]

The same price? You can get dialup for $10 a month, and true broadband is generally $40-$50 a month after any discounts they may give you initially. I certainly understand where a segment of the population doesn't need it, many of those being too stupid to get any real use out of the internet anyway.

 

[Galactus]

While full broadband might cost around 40 to 50 bucks, I know in my part of the woods you can get a the slower DSL or cable for like $20 -25 bucks easily. This folks waste more money than that on chips and sodas in a month.

I know from first hand experience that most of the people on dial up are either elderly, just aren't able to get high speed, or better yet have older computers that the internet has left behind, that does everything else just fine but can access simple web pages because of how they are all geared to high speed now.

 

[John Picard]

There are still dialup users?


Marian

I love hearing this remark all the time. If broadband is so wonderful, cures cancer, and eliminates those tough pet odors, how come Comcast and the other broadband providers are starting to institute download limits on users? There are many areas in the US where broadband will never see the light of day, because there isn't enough population density to warrant laying the cable/fiber there, and unlike the telephone company (of old), will not subsidize those rural users who don't have it.

I speak from experience in saying that satellite is not a viable alternative due to customer service and technical issues. In my area, AT&T alleges to have what it calls a "wireless broadband" that will reach wherever a cell phone signal can be detected. I would love to get the service, but the cost is around $60, which is almost an even trade if I ditch the landline as my Internet provider is also my telephone provider. I use my cell phone primarily anyway, so losing the land line won't hurt.

 

[Captain Craig]

The same price? You can get dialup for $10 a month, and true broadband is generally $40-$50 a month after any discounts they may give you initially.

And that is why I'm in the its "too expensive" camp. When I need high speed I just use it at work. For those rare Sat-Sun needs email is my primary use so I don't need high speed for that. I can even post here with minimal difficulty. I just have to stay out of pic threads.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

But if you were given the option to have either dial-up or broadband at the same price, which would you choose? I can totally understand not having broadband because of the cost-benefit issue, but for 19% of dial-up users to say that "nothing would persuade them to upgrade" (i.e., even the same price) is unusual to say the least.

-MEC

 

[Arrqh]

If broadband is so wonderful, cures cancer, and eliminates those tough pet odors, how come Comcast and the other broadband providers are starting to institute download limits on users?

Because broadband in the US is a state-sponsored monopoly (usually on the municipal level, but occasionally on the state level) and the ISP's know they can get away with it because none of them have any significant local competition.

This is also the reason why prices are what they are.

 

[Kadratis]

Given the choice of dial-up vs. broadband at the same price, what reason is there to prefer dial-up? Is it the thrill that you need to do your browsing fast before someone accidentally picks up the phone and disconnects you? Are the longer loading times a good excuse to get up for a snack or do something else for a minute? Cable companies typically set up everything for you, so that part is not hard. What am I missing here?

I'd imagine availability would be the factor in that case.

 

[Amaris]

AT&T offers 384kbps (about 10x faster than dialup) for $14 a month, no introductory, that's the total cost per month for as long as you have the service.

I, of course, have the 10 Mbps line at $40 a month because I like my, uh, Bible dictionaries to download quickly.


J.

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

Not only is dial-up what I prefer, I will stick with my AOL account that I've had for the last 10 years. I have nothing better to do than sit and wait for web pages and all my windows updates to load.

 

[DanCPA]

AT&T offers 384kbps (about 10x faster than dialup) for $14 a month, no introductory, that's the total cost per month for as long as you have the service.

In all honesty it's never made sense to me why, when given the option, people would rather pay $9.99 to use dial up and not $14.99 to use dsl and not hassle with the slower connection and the dialing up...

But, to each his own I suppose

 

[Garrovick]

AT&T offers 384kbps (about 10x faster than dialup) for $14 a month, no introductory, that's the total cost per month for as long as you have the service.

In all honesty it's never made sense to me why, when given the option, people would rather pay $9.99 to use dial up and not $14.99 to use dsl and not hassle with the slower connection and the dialing up...

But, to each his own I suppose

I don't have DSL because the local phone company is run by crooks. I do not want thier phone line attached to my house.

But I could get away with DSL, if there wasn't also a monthly 40 dollar phone service required.

 

[MarianLH]

There are still dialup users?


Marian

I love hearing this remark all the time. If broadband is so wonderful, cures cancer, and eliminates those tough pet odors, how come Comcast and the other broadband providers are starting to institute download limits on users?

I was being facetious.



Marian

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm in the 14% who are "stuck" and I would kill to have high-speed

I'm in that 14%, too. The phone lines here are too old to be upgraded to DSL, and I prefer DirecTV to cable. So, it's dial-up for me. And even then, the phone lines are old enough that I can't get a 56k connection. I have to settle for a 28k.

Unfortunately, a lot of websites today aren't made for dial-up. I can't use MSNBC, for instance. Things that are heavy on Java and graphics are useless. Even TrekBBS is nearly unusable.

It's what it is. *shrug*

 

[John Picard]

I'm in the 14% who are "stuck" and I would kill to have high-speed

I'm in that 14%, too. The phone lines here are too old to be upgraded to DSL, and I prefer DirecTV to cable. So, it's dial-up for me. And even then, the phone lines are old enough that I can't get a 56k connection. I have to settle for a 28k.

Unfortunately, a lot of websites today aren't made for dial-up. I can't use MSNBC, for instance. Things that are heavy on Java and graphics are useless. Even TrekBBS is nearly unusable.

It's what it is. *shrug*

Dang! You and I are in the exact same boat. I typically pull 28.8 all the time as well. I don't use my telephone line for regular calls, and my last telephone bill was almost $55. Since AT&T Wireless has this "Wireless DSL" that runs about the same every month, I'm going to give it a shot since I'll have *blazingly fast Internet[/i]* at the same price as having a landline and dial-up service. I will report back with my findings.

 

[Frontier]

The volume of time and frustration, added to the extra electricity usage from such lengths of time, more than equal whatever additional costs of broadband.

I can not grasp anyone but the AARP crowd "choosing" to stay on dial-up. I mean, to them, dial-up is fast enough, just like driving the speed limit is, and flipping through TV channels one every minute. But for anyone under 50, my god... why would you CHOOSE to stay on Dial-Up?

Do you ENJOY waiting FOREVER?

I can turn on my computer and be checking my e-mail inside of 10 seconds flat! I can be DONE checking my e-mail by the time a dial-up user finished connecting! I can be done surfing my favorite websites before a dial-upper has loaded the first one to half way!

If you really do an analysis of things, the time you spend waiting on dial-up, and the extra electricity utilized as a result, equals out to be whatever $15-30 difference in price between dial-up and broadband. Christ, forfeit a night of Antique's Roadshow and Wheel of Fortune and you'll save enough on electricity to afford the difference and get broadband!

*Cringes*

I'm sorry if I'm being obnoxious, but I was trapped on dial-up for 6 months during 2003, after having been on broadband for 3 years. It was horrible. I nearly went insane. The first night I had broadband again, I nearly wept with the amazing speed at which I could acomplish the simple task of loading my home page!