 oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | What about dialup Broadband penetration doesn't mean sh!t. There are people plenty content with dialup. I'd be interested in statistics showing percentage of households with internet service, whether dialup or broadband.
This isn't a matter of deployment failures but simply a byproduct of disinterest.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network www.theanimenetwork.com |
Peterg1Premium
join:2001-12-29
Montreal, QC Reviews:
 ·Videotron
| said by oliphant:Broadband penetration doesn't mean sh!t. There are people plenty content with dialup. I'd be interested in statistics showing percentage of households with internet service, whether dialup or broadband. This isn't a matter of deployment failures but simply a byproduct of disinterest. Look at selected stats from here, especially the one regarding access to a computer. That is more telling I believe - household access to a home computer - than the others. Another table will show total internet access - and the US is not doing badly there with 50% just for 2001 (no other figures available).
But without access to a home computer then obviously there is not going to be internet connectivity there until they purchase one(leaving aside WebTV).
»www.oecd.org/document/23/0,2340,···,00.html
Peter |
| reply to oliphant
Exactly so. The underlying premise of broadband is that people are going to want to pay for "premium" services, such as streaming movies (I bet it would be interesting to see how many of Comcasts customers even use "On Demand", or, have "Premium" channels like HBO). Most people I know who have cable, only have the "Extended" teir of the usual suspect channels and dont even watch half of them, let alone have the endless repeaters like HBO, SHO, etc. Why? Because it costs too much for their needs.
Same for internet access. It is only recently that broadband has come down in price to what many consider "Reasonable"-around $25 a month for DSL and providers still want to rip you off for faster service. For example: I can get comcast 4Mb service here for $42 because I have cable TV. But then, I can get SBC 1.5 Mb DSL for $19.95 which suits my needs. Which do you think I chose? Up till then, I was on dialup for 6 years because it was the lower priced alternitive.
Another example of this type of thing is cellphone service. I have had a cell for years. 6 Years ago I got a "local" plan for 250 minutes at $19.95. now, that same plan, with "Unlimited night and weekend" minutes is $29.95 and you cant get new plans for less than $39.95. Yet we're told prices havre gone down. The excuse, of course, is that now you have fancy phones with cameras-another useless, fluff "feature" and text messaging and internet access-Really, do you really NEED internet access, at extra cost, from your cellphone?
This is the standard US marketing ploy that they all use: Keep adding speed or so called "features" so you can say the same old basic thing is "New and improved". Then, you can keep your prices up and cast the impression that you are moving ahead when you're really not and the suckers will pay, especially when you require a contract which gives you all the power and the customer gets jack.
Same goes for broadband. They give you dribs and drabs and the occasional deal-But you have to sign that contract that says they can raise the price on you and change your service at their sole discretion. I bet most of you didn't even bother to read your providers TOS, did you?
Forgive me for being blunt, but, can you spell "Sucker"? of course you can |
