Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Broadband's Unintended Consequences

Posted by chrisd on Wed Nov 27, 2002 08:18 PM
from the sorta-like-tivo dept.
The Internet
Makarand writes "BBC News is reporting on the result of a long term study conducted to find how ordinary people and small businesses in and around London and Leeds used broadband. They found that broadband was actually slowing down user interaction with the Net as they are no longer afraid of spending too much time online anymore. People did not really care about the speed at which they could download from the Net. Broadband's selling points- like speed and the capacity to be always-on, were something that the average person did not care about."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Broadband's Unintended Consequences 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Exiler (589908) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:20PM (#4771963)
    Maybe they forgot to plug the modem in... My mom did when she first got broadband and said it was ungodly slow...

    • The Accused Replies (Score:5, Informative)

      by crabbers (629971) on Thursday November 28 2002, @04:57AM (#4773854)
      Hello all. Sorry some people on the thread seem to think the bbc story, and by association our research, is dumb. It isn't meant that way. A few points of defence. Firstly, we didn't ask the beeb to run the story, neither did they talk to us, neither did they actually ask me about those quotes. Second, the point in the BBC story which is most innacurate is the paragraph which reads "They found that people did not really care about the speed at which ADSL and cable allowed them to download websites and files. Instead broadband was actually slowing down surfer's interaction with the net." This isn't what we said. We said that speed, as a selling point which made people appreciate and want broadband a lot, was contingent on activities involving heavy data use, or things requiring fast response (like ping rates for gaming). If all you do is send e-mail and surf a little - which if you look at the data this is what most home internet users do, give or take - then a massively fast connections is nicer than dial-up (of course it is), but doesn't actually make for a revolution in internet use. Counterintuitively, a lot of broadband users told us that what they really liked avout it was not having to worry about time, rather than speed. We are talknig about mothers with kids or small business owners here, rather than the type of people who read slashdot. Hence, broadband is not always about speed, but can be about taking it easy. Hence those people who sell broadband as about speed might find that regular users - as opposed to slashdot people - don't buy it. Just in case anyone didn't notice, we also said that broadband wasn't about being always on too.... read the presentation here http://www.theisociety.net/archives/000219.html#00 0219 the research itself will come out in the spring. If anyone wants to come in for a coffee and give us some pointers, drop me a line jcrabtree {at} theworkfoundation dot com

  • In SOVIET RUSSIA... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:20PM (#4771966)
    Unintended consequences have broadband!
    • In Moscow it's pretty common to be able to get broadband via connection of a house to the internet using Ethernet. A majority of people live in apartments (or condos), so concentration of people is high that allow for Ethernet connection to the point of access.
      The price is $35/connection a month AND some cents for a megabyte of incoming/outgoing traffic.

  • Pull the other one. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 7-Vodka (195504) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:23PM (#4771973) Journal
    Yeah. Sure. When you already HAVE broadband you don't care too much about the speed. When you're struggling to connect and waiting 3 hours to download something you really need, praying you won't be disconnected again during the transfer; that's when you would give your firstborn for broadband.

    In other news.. People who are constantly fed say they aren't hungry.

    • Re:Pull the other one. (Score:5, Informative)

      by vicviper (140480) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:31PM (#4772017)
      It's not aboot caring aboot speed, it's aboot worring about being hit by per minute fees while online. Those that switched to broadband from dial-up didn't care before or after aboot the speed. As the summary and article say, users are taking their time interacting with the web as they don't have to rush to get on, do what they want to do, and then get off. Yes, if it's pr0n they want, they may be rushing to get off indeed.

      • Re:Pull the other one. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jucius Maximus (229128) <28iw0it02&sneakemail,com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:55PM (#4772353) Homepage Journal
        "It's not aboot caring aboot speed, it's aboot worring about being hit by per minute fees while online. Those that switched to broadband from dial-up didn't care before or after aboot the speed."

        That would apply for Europe only. (I do believe that this study examines areas in the UK.)

        I'm in Canada and people here buy broadband for the speed and lower latency since you'd be dialing a local number for dialup ISPs, meaning that there is no phone toll charge, no matter how long or when you go online.

        People get broadband because they have a family and they are tired of kids fighting over the computer and slow as hell networked dialup.

          • Re:Pull the other one. (Score:4, Informative)

            by jez9999 (618189) on Thursday November 28 2002, @04:36AM (#4773790) Homepage Journal
            Most ISP accounts in the UK offer free calls these days - gone are the days of pey-per-minute calls for the 'net - and as a result, people have no more reason to rush when on dialup than they do on broadband.

            But they do, for two reasons.

            1) Staying online on dialup services for long periods of time is discouraged, as it ties up a 64k circuit in the local exchange and a modem at the ISP's modem bank. Indeed, BTinternet's 'unmetered' service limits you to 150 hours per month. Then again, BTinternet is crap.

            2) Staying online with dialup ties up your phone line. Staying online with broadband doesn't.

            I would assume that both of these apply in Canada as much as they do in Britain.
    • ...When you already HAVE broadband you don't care too much about the speed....

      Unfortunately, I have broadband and I do care about the speed I get. Only because I'm downloading at 6.5k/sec. I hate it when ISPs say speeds up to 768k so they're still okay when you're downloading slower than a 56k modem.
      • I'm downloading at 6.5k/sec. I hate it when ISPs say speeds up to 768k

        Thats 6.5KBps over a 768kbps line, so in reality, you're downloading at about 65kbps, and the max you could hit will probably be 76.8-80KBps.

        • Re:Pull the other one. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LostCluster (625375) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @11:24PM (#4772753) Homepage
          But what are you downloading from?

          A T-1 served being hit by about 20-25 users at the same time would produce that effect. It doesn't matter how fast your connection is, it's the slowest point between you and "them" that regulates the speed.

          When you have a modem, it's likely that you're the slowest link, but the faster you get, the more likely it becomes that the choke point is closer to the site you're trying to download from than your line.

      • Unfortunately, I have broadband and I do care about the speed I get. Only because I'm downloading at 6.5k/sec. I hate it when ISPs say speeds up to 768k so they're still okay when you're downloading slower than a 56k modem.

        Just because you can't download fast doesn't mean you don't have the bandwidth. My bandwidth is capped at 2.5 megabits per second, yet I rarely see this. For example, I find a good measure of download speed is grabbing an ISO for FreeBSD or the Linux distro of the month from some overloaded FTP server. Of course, if a server's bandwidth is maxed out and can only give 6.5 KB/sec, it doesn't matter what your bandwidth is.

        When they say you have a certain bandwidth, that is the maximum. A lot of factors (load on the local router, ISP's upstream line, local trunk's capacity or utilization, etc) impact your actual speed. That's why I ask around and don't go by the numbers.

        The other advantage is you won't get a disconnect when 98% done downloading that 650 MB Linux ISO. And your ping will be faster in Quake, since there is no D/A A/D conversion going on. I'll take a 6.5 KB pure digital download over a 6.5 KB analog modem download any day.

    • Re:Pull the other one. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by saskboy (600063) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:41PM (#4772084) Homepage Journal
      I think it is a double edged sword. Faster access creates more dependance, but as you say it also solves the waiting game in some situations. Less time waiting = more time for something else.
      But how many people you know use that extra time for something wise?
      I know I don't, I just post messages to /. instead of doing my homework now that I can get all my assignments and notes in an instant...

      • Re:Pull the other one. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ebyrob (165903) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:46PM (#4772320) Homepage
        But how many people you know use that extra time for something wise?

        The same could be said about faster processors, available computing resources and other modern improvements in computers. In fact, maybe developers would write better code if we went back to batch-processing and punch cards, where people had to think before they wrote a line of code.

        Then again maybe not.

        Just because not everyone has found a use for the commodity yet, or learned how to use it properly yet, doesn't mean it is not useful. I know I was hating life when I lost broadband for 1.5 years (due to ISP bankruptcy) until I got it back again. Even my wife (who is not a very savvy computer user, but does leave her computer on all the time) really missed having readily available internet.

        It's the little things that make a big difference, like being able to search google for recipes while cooking, or being able to check out www.m-w.com easily when playing boggle.

    • Re:Pull the other one. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shut_up_man (450725) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:50PM (#4772125) Homepage
      Total agreement here - case in point, I moved from broadband in London to an always-connected dialup in a seaside town in Australia, and nearly went out of my mind. It was the slowest net connection I'd ever experienced ever, even slower than in the early days when we were all using Trumpet Winsock and Mosaic.

      What saved me was that it was so slow, I pretty much gave up using it altogether. That saved my sanity, I suspect. It was a pretty clear picture of how much broadband users take speed for granted, so I think the the Work Foundation are wrong.

  • Confessions of a dialup switcher (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:24PM (#4771979)
    I like it.

    I have a $5.95/month 56k unlimited dialup plan, and other than WAITING for huge pictures in my email ("here's ANOTHER 1000KB JPG of my dog d00d!"), and the inability to download ISOs, it's fine.

    Yes, I do "scramble" a little more while I'm online, and I've discovered compression for my SSH sessions, but the Net is still quite usable. I get on, I surf for what I want, I get off. I spend less time plugged in, and more time interacting with real people.

    I'm debating going back to broadband when my finances improve, but I'm unsure if I will.
    • I've known dialup users who downloaded way more ISOs than I ever have on cable modem (about 12 or so, mostly linux or freebsd distros I really wanted on CDs)
      One person I knew averaged nearly a gig a day off dialup (24/7 leaching, primarily from usenet feeds, which are A. local, and B. 2:1-4:1 compressable when connecting over a compressed dial-up connection C. can be scheduled as a continous batch run with software like Agent)

      It's not that dial-up users can't download ISOs, but rather that most people don't have the time/patience to do it. for that matter, most cable/DSL connections don't come with enough bandwith for many people's patience.
      Last time FreeBSD had new ISOs it took me 15 minutes to find an unofficial mirror, and 2-3 hours to DL the iso, and I'm paying $50 a month for cable modem 800kbit/200kbit (100 KB/s / 25 KB/s) which is the highest consumer bandwith level offered by my ISP.

    • Re:Confessions of a dialup switcher (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Waffle Iron (339739) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:10PM (#4772212)
      "here's ANOTHER 1000KB JPG of my dog d00d!"

      Cheap 2 megapixel cameras + limited storage free mailboxes = bad news. Now you have to train your friends to scale down their pictures before mailing them. The problem is, a lot of people are at most dimly aware of the idea that data actually has a "size".

  • Take it away (Score:5, Insightful)

    by emgeemg (182902) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:26PM (#4771986) Homepage
    People did not really care about the speed at which they could download from the Net.

    Take their broadband away and put them back on a 56k dialup connection again for a few days. I'll bet they'll care. It's not that people don't take about download speeds, its just that broadband users take it for granted after awhile.

  • Perhaps these details don't matter? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ThogScully (589935) <neilsd@neilschelly.com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:26PM (#4771988) Homepage
    no longer afraid of spending too much time online anymore.

    Personally, I don't think I really consider this to be measurable anymore. If I'm at a computer, 9 times out of 10, I'm online even if I'm just recompiling a kernel or typing up a paper. Maybe I'm not actively browsing or chatting or anything, but I consider myself online.
    -N

    • Same here. I have cable and leave my computer on 24/7, so I find it hard to think of computing *without* an internet connection. Seems impossible to be sitting at a computer but unable to read /., check on my downloads (the reason I got cable in the first place), download the latest version of a program I'm running, or search for something I need to know.

  • Well yeah... (Score:3)

    by Chester K (145560) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:26PM (#4771989) Homepage
    ...all the promised music and video-on-demand that was supposed to be the killer app for broadband access never materialized thanks to plenty of legal manuevering by the RIAA and MPAA.

    But people like the lower latency and the fact their web pages pop up quicker, so it doesn't matter that there's no real need for the average person to have a giant pipe.

    • excellent point (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geek (5680)
      I remember 5 years ago all the hype and promise of video on demand, video conferencing and the ilk.

      It never happened, not just because of the RIAA but because ISP's were choked by the baby bells and couldn't sell broadband cheaply and competitively. Then there was the browser war that created about 10 different sets of standards ensuring no company could create a multimedia app without pissing everyone off for not supporting their OS/Format.

      These issues still exist but hopefully MPEG4 will cure some of it. I don't know what to do on the ISP side, they are just totally screwed as long as they have to deal with the baby bells. Worldcom couldn't make it, why should any smaller ISP?

      I personally don't care if it's always on. I just want it on when I want it, if that means flipping an on switch then so be it. I want it as fast as possible at the lowest price possible. I also do not want restrictions on it (i.e. no servers). As long as ISP's play that game I don't see broadband working out.

      I have yet to see video conferencing work out even. I know one company that uses it and they had to get a secured dedicated T1 specifically for it. Video conferencing has so much potential it's crazy, but no one is taking advantage of it. Just watch the extras DVD in the Episode II DVD and see what Lucas's sound team did with the dedicated ISDN lines to Australia. They were doing the voice overs for the Camino characters in realtime across the world.

      Anyway, some how or another all this stuff will need to shake out. The corporate arrogance will need to end it's attempts to tell customers what they want and actually listen to what they want and sell a product that meets the demand. I just don't see it happeneing any time soon.

  • No shit? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RatBastard (949) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:27PM (#4771995) Homepage
    Considering that telephone calls in the UK are toll calls, this is a no brainer. Back when Compuserve was The Thing and you paid by the hour you got in, did your business and got the hell out fast. With always on access who cares if it takes three minutes or thirty? You don't HAVE to run like hell anymore as the monitary cost is no longer a fctor in how long you stay on line.

  • not suprised (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:29PM (#4772009)
    Ive always maintained that users dont need the bandwidth of Broadband, like they dont need the latest greatest processor etc. Only benefit to 512K + is downloading large files, which isn't something i, along with the majority of users, spend a lot of time doing.

    I'd be happy with 128K, always on, but with the ability to have 'bursts' of say 2MB when i do want to download somthing large.

  • Try going without it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by prisen (578061) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:29PM (#4772012)
    I dunno about most of the world populous, but I had dialup (all the way back to the GEnie/CompuServe/Prodigy era), then cable for about 6 months as soon as it was available, then I moved to an area with no broadband available. Trust me, it was horrible. No one could call me because I took 3 hours downloading OS updates, I couldn't do much of what I used to like to do - idle on IRC, listen to streamed audio (legal matters aside), download new Linux distros, et cetera. After 2 years of this madness cable finally became available and life has been good again. It's just not good enough for a geek to have dial-up anymore - even with a dedicated phone line.

    • Re:Try going without it. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jucius Maximus (229128) <28iw0it02&sneakemail,com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:02PM (#4772377) Homepage Journal
      " I dunno about most of the world populous, but I had dialup (all the way back to the GEnie/CompuServe/Prodigy era), then cable for about 6 months as soon as it was available, then I moved to an area with no broadband available. Trust me, it was horrible. No one could call me because I took 3 hours downloading OS updates, I couldn't do much of what I used to like to do - idle on IRC, listen to streamed audio (legal matters aside), download new Linux distros, et cetera. After 2 years of this madness cable finally became available and life has been good again. It's just not good enough for a geek to have dial-up anymore - even with a dedicated phone line."

      Thank you for summing that up so succinctly.

      And it's worse when a family is involved. I am typing this on a home network where a 28.8k dialup is shared over 5 machines. My brother and sister are Kazaa (lite) leechers and all is terrible like you described.

      The worst part is that decent broadband (satellite is not decent) or even 56K will never be available out here in the forseable future in rural Ontario, Canada because the population density is very low. And only 10 minutes away my friends living in the city are all on @Home enjoying fast cable.

      *sob*

  • This story doesn't say anything. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arcaeris (311424) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:31PM (#4772016)
    This story says that people get and use broadband service because they don't use a phone line or get charged per-minute charges.

    I'm sure that's fine and dandy in the UK, but here I don't think anyone pays per-minute charges for dial-up and the cost of a second phone line + AOL or MSN about equals the cost of broadband. Hell, broadband is even a little cheaper than that combination where I live.

    They say that the big selling point of broadband is that it's always on, but say absolutely nothing to elaborate. Gee, thanks.

    They say that most people aren't downloading, so increased download speeds aren't important. Sure, few people download as a majority of their online time, but it's certainly an important factor when people do download.

    They end with "broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin." How the hell they got to that conclusion isn't even evident.

    I guess the criteria for getting a story on Slashdot is just that it has a fancy headline and is about tech? Even if some idiot n00b wrote it? Even if it's totally wrong? Hell, it doesn't even mention Linux or Open Source. Eesh.

  • Applications for broadband (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lpret (570480) <lpret42&hotmail,com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:31PM (#4772021) Homepage Journal
    I think this study shows that the hype that was given early on isn't quite living up to it's worth. Many people do not integrate computers with their life yet. It IS possible, but they do not. Once you integrate your computer w/ life, you have a completely different story to tell. For example, I cannot live without my cable modem. I have a Wireless LAN at home and with my Toshiba e740, I walk around always connected. Now, I'm a nerd by general standards, but I'm also much more informed. Wonder what's on for TV? I just whip it out, surf to tv.yahoo.com and find out. Having a discussion at the table about how many pounds in a metric tonne? Pull it out and check online. Wonder what the wheather is like? Etc...

    I personally feel that if I had to go to my desktop (muchless turn it on, muchles dial up!) I wouldn't do half the stuff I want to do. I think it really comes down to the interfaces we currently have (big boxes in a side room). It's the physical integration that will increase broadband usage. Once that happens, broadband becomes a necessity.

  • Interesting reading between the lines... (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Ancients (626689) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:33PM (#4772030) Homepage
    "The PC is more scary monster than household pet. It is rarely loved, sometimes feared," said Mr Crabtree.

    I see they're running Windows.

  • Counter-intuitive Results (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Carnage4Life (106069) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:34PM (#4772034) Homepage Journal
    Hmmmm, so the researchers thought that the fact that broadband had faster download speeds would mean that people would spend less time online? I'm not surprised that the reverse is true and people spend more time online when using broadband than when they had dialup.

    With broadband using the 'net isn't as frustrating with all the waiting around so I don't stop out of irritation. I don't have to get off the 'net to keep the phone line free. I also don't have to deal with the annoying modem screech and inevitable busy signals before connecting to the 'net.

    Why wouldn't I spend more time online?

  • Probably a lot to do with metered phone usage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Samir Gupta (623651) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:35PM (#4772040) Homepage
    In Europe, as well as Japan, phone calls, even for local numbers, are charged by the minute, in constrast to the practice in the US where you get unlimited local calling. Therefore, traditionally, without broadband, dialup Internet users here have been very concientious about the time they spend online. Many studies have shown that this has caused the growth of ecommerce and (more of interest to me) online gaming to be slower in those parts of the world. With broadband, and unlimited usage, it was a quantum leap for many Internet users here in Japan and I'm sure such was the case in England as well, to be able to have UNLIMITED usage. I would say that, compared to the US where broadband was just an evolution in speed, it was, from a marketing standpoint much more of a compelling sell in these countries, because of the UNLIMITED aspect of it, causing people to use/overuse it even more than in the US.

  • Content (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Frost_Azimov (532277) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:36PM (#4772052)
    I think the article is right on the money, for now. I also think the people visiting slashdot may not be the same demographic group compared to the one mentioned in the article. I guess we can be considered 'early adapters'. Where Joe Average still feels his main reason for having DSL is not having to worry about the minutes he has to pay for (and I remember that sentiment, it's been a few years though), we have already gone beyond that point and discovered that broadband gives us more possibilities. The fact that we may be a bit more computer literate won't hurt. 'Us geeks' have the toys and the knowlegde to fill the broadband, but just wait a year, or possibly even less and the learning curves will be even less steep, the software will be more user friendly and the 5Mbit digital camera will be cheaper than today. I say that broadbands selling point makes sense. It made sense for the early adapter who helped develop the market, and in the near future it will make sense to the average user who could care less right now.

  • Uh, well, duh!?!? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcrbids (148650) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:02PM (#4772180) Journal
    When DSL service first became available in my area 3 years ago, I signed up immediately. I owned a small computer store at the time, and I figured that the time saved downloading drivers (as we had to do frequently) would more than pay for the DSL service.

    I was right - it radically changed our outlook on drivers, which were, up to that point, carefully hoarded on floppies or CDs.

    But what surprised me was that suddenly, streaming video and audio where completely options! Imagine, tens of millions of computers' content available for cheap to free, and available instantly!

    Mp3.com is what then made me get DSL service at home. Music from anywhere and everywhere - like having the world's largest collection of indep. band CDs...

    Oh, and remember Napster?

    It was just a few months later that I signed up at home, and I will not ever turn back. (I sold said computer store. Now I telecommute as my line of work - I love it!)

    I guess it's sorta like the Tivo - it's hardly exciting until you've lived with it for a while. Then, it becomes something you'll not want to live without!

  • Stoopid article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by binaryDigit (557647) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:07PM (#4772197)
    That was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. This is the junk they pass for "research" these days?

    Others have mentioned the "...actually slowing down interaction with the net ..." and the fact that they never bother to mention how they came to that conclusion.

    "People are not doing things that require speed, so that is something of a red herring as a selling point," - What, no one must be surfing then. I know not everyone is downloading warez, but lord knows that BB has been a boom to the pr0n industry.

    simply because most users do not leave their computers on. - OK, actually a good point, I'll give them this one.

    But until technophobia is overcome, broadband is unlikely to be viewed in this way, said Mr Crabtree. - they never mention how broadband and technophobia are related, at least in terms of broadband vs dialup. Hell, hooking up my dsl/cable modem was simpler than getting my dialup working right.

    "Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin," - What, it doesn't provide faster downloads and instant on service? That's what their advertising isn't it, and isn't that what they (generally) deliver?

    I can't believe that news about Alan Kay doesn't make it (or did it and I missed it?) but yet crap like this shows up?!?

  • In a tin (Score:3, Funny)

    by kitzilla (266382) <paperfrogNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:10PM (#4772210) Homepage Journal
    "Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin"

    --James Crabtree, i-Society

    Well, there's your problem, James. You've attached your computer to a soup can. You want to be hooked up to some sort of a modem. RTFM.

    • Re:In a tin (Score:3, Informative)

      by DrVxD (184537)
      Just to give his comment some context, there's been a series of TV ads recently in the UK (where the survey was done), for which the tagline was "it does exactly what it says on the tin". I presume that's what Mr Crabtree's comment refers to.

  • My take on the subject. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by papasui (567265) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:11PM (#4772214)
    Since I supervise the broadband services department of a major cable company in the USA I'll share my opinnion on the matter. Sure unlimited time, and (usually unmetered) broadband may make people a bit slower when browsing the web. However, the difference is that the websites can offer more content, and a richer experience than what would be a considered a resonable download time with a 56k modem. I also double as an ASP/SQL contractor and I have at times forgotten about the bandwidth limitations of our customers (internal and external) who may not be using a broadband pipe. I would think that as more people get broadband html in general will die, we will see more and more FLASH oriented sites (or whatever the latest and greatest technology is at the time.) Not HTML + Flash, but pure Flash and images will move from being jpgs and gifs to PNGs. Yea you can do all this now, but you would be leaving at least 50% in the cold.

    • Re:My take on the subject. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evilviper (135110) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:27PM (#4772259) Journal
      I would think that as more people get broadband html in general will die, we will see more and more FLASH oriented sites

      And I think, when that happens, we will see less and less people use those sites.

      HTML is great because it gives the users a good deal of control over the presentation of the content. When a large number switch to Flash, PDF, etc, then the web will be presented EXACTLY how webmasters want it, and to hell with your preferences.

      With HTML, you can force it to wrap to your viewpoint. Converting the web to flash will certainly kill small-screen devices' web browsing.
    • I don't think a pure Flash layout would really be that much bigger than a pure HTML/image layout. It's just that people insist on putting sound, animation, and complex interaction in the flash version. Some of it is excusable since you need to roll your own UI code in Flash, and it can't handle very large amounts of text, but all-flash sites are quite feasible.

  • Scary Monsters (Score:3, Funny)

    by Daetrin (576516) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:25PM (#4772252)
    "The PC is more scary monster than household pet. It is rarely loved, sometimes feared," said Mr Crabtree.

    *pats his computer on the top of it's case* Don't listen to them Aerie, they're just stupid mean humans. :)

  • local isp (Score:3, Informative)

    by RestiffBard (110729) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:30PM (#4772271) Homepage
    I never feel rushed using my 56k dial-up. It's always on mostly, persist enabled. When it goes down its down for 60 secs and then its back up. I've downloaded several ISOs using dialup over the years. no big deal. I can see where time is an issue for those folks that live in countries with whack rate plans just for local calls but in the states its no biggee to be online all day even when I'm not there.

  • easy one: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sootman (158191) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:39PM (#4772298) Journal
    with broadband, I stay online longer because the experience is less painful. have you seen how huge the average page is at a site like tomshardware? or cnn? or anywhere else? toms front page is 120k, with 250 links and 250 images. (most of which are the same clear gif, but still.)

  • Different Expectations (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mahrin Skel (543633) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:22PM (#4772444)
    In most of Europe, broadband is the only flat-rated residential Internet access you can get, the other alternatives involve by the minute charges for both the access and the phone line. People have no idea what to do with high bandwidth connections or always-on connections, but they can get the idea that they can surf as much as they like without having to log out between large pages (no, I'm not exaggerating). Almost all of our European customers (for an MMOG) are broadband users.

    --Dave

  • So what this article is really saying is.......... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sawilson (317999) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:25PM (#4772454) Homepage
    Broadband is to wife, as dialup is to girlfriend.
    Think about it.

  • People are not doing things that require speed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by olddoc (152678) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:34PM (#4772489)
    What a load of hogwash! Everything on the internet requires broadband. Try loading the BBC's home page with dialup. Try looking at the weather channel and seeing a weather map. How about doing some research with google and clicking on 5 different links before you find the information you were after.

    I teach my kids that if the result they want doesn't flash up on the screen instantly than the computer or the network or something is too slow!

  • Paraphrasing from internal sources (Score:4, Insightful)

    by michael_cain (66650) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @11:54PM (#4772874) Journal
    at a broadband provider, based on detailed (monitor software in the PC, extensive interviews with the families, in-home time-lapse video recordings) ethnographic studies of the subscribers:
    • Broadband subscribers use the Internet for significantly more minutes per day than they did when they were dial-up users, and
    • High-speed is why they sign up, but always-on is the reason that they rearrange their furniture in order to get the computer out of the back room and into regular "family" space.
    Once they get to the point where the PC is in the kitchen or family room, and it's always on, and the Internet connection is just there, the Internet becomes the prefered source of information for almost everything: news, weather, movie listings, encyclopedia articles, etc.

      • Re:Yep.. (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        so I can entirely do away with any physical or social contact with the world and become one with the machine
        And this differs from the present condition of the typical Slashdot user...how?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.