Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Many Internet Users Happy With Dial-Up

Posted by simoniker on Mon Apr 19, 2004 05:19 PM
from the keeping-it-screeeech dept.
prostoalex writes "With cable and DSL operators constantly pushing the values of broadband, and with the President of the United States himself announcing broadband access a priority, the New York Times reports (free reg. req.) that some people actually are perfectly satisfied with their 56K connection. In February 2003 Pew Internet conducted a survey, where they found out 60% of dial-up users weren't interested in switching, a year later in 2004 the percentage was roughly the same."
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • not everyone is interested in making first post.
    • by ScottGant (642590) <scott_gant.sbcglobal@netNOT> on Monday April 19 2004, @05:41PM (#8910215) Homepage
      I started out on dial up way way way back when the only access was dial up BBS's...like The Ward Board and other BBS's in the Chicago area. Then moved to dial-up Internet usage through Interaccess...also in Chicago. Through Interaccess I then moved up to ISDN connection...then finally AT&T came to my area and I signed up with @home/ATT.

      I went through the @home/ATT/Comcast shake-ups, but I ALWAYS loved my broadband. Even with Comcast I didn't have much downtime and the speeds were just great. I loved it.

      But now, me and my family had to move to St. Joseph, Michigan and the only high-speed (where I am) is this fly-by-night ISP called "Green County Cable". I mean, they SUCK. They are down quite a bit, and their speeds are 400 kilo bits sec...down from the great 3Mega bits sec I was getting when I was last on Comcast (they upgraded from 1.5 to 3).

      Add to the fact that I'm paying the exact same price I was paying for Comcast...and it SUCKS. But even after all that, no way would I ever ever ever go back to plain dial-up. It's just way too slow.

      I have a feeling that if all those people that are satisfied with dial-up were given a taste of broadband, they'd never go back. I know from experience my mother-in-law. She's been on AOL for years, and had no intention of ever switching. But Comcast came through her neighborhood and offered to hook her up for free for 30 days...and she's never gone back to dial up.

      It's like the drug pushers...the first hit is always free.
    • IMHO it is pretty simple actually. Average, email- and browser-using people don't want to spend an extra $10 / month for what they consider to be a hassle to setup. People fear change, and judging by my work with people who have obtained broadband connections with one company but are still paying AOL $10 / month for basically an email address, they might have a point. There are people out there that want to take advantage of their ignorance.
      • by johnnyb (4816) <johnnyb@eskimo.com> on Monday April 19 2004, @08:56PM (#8912251) Homepage
        Many of us are cheap bastards. I pay approx $12/month for dialup through eskimo.com. My shell access is perfectly acceptable in response time, as well as the websites I visit (slashdot can be a little slow, but google, yahoo, christdot.org, and the informational sites I visit all load at a decent speed).

        In addition, I'm not even at 56k. I'm connecting on a used 28.8 modem because my computer came with one of those stupid winmodems and I had to switch with my parents.

        It's really not a bad gig. I have SDSL at work, so I can download anything I want overnight at work, and burn CDs to bring it home. I'm not missing anything.
  • In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Adam9 (93947) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:20PM (#8909913) Journal
    Most people don't wish to pay for premium channels with their cable subscription.
    • by RetroGeek (206522) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:23PM (#8909980) Homepage
      Most people buy Hondas not Ferraries.

      Most people eat hamburger not fillet mignon.

      Most people buy at WalMart not Maceys.

      Most people....
    • Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Binky The Oracle (567747) on Monday April 19 2004, @06:53PM (#8911011)

      While the "premium channel" analogy has validity, I'd say that broadband is more like a microwave oven in the late 70s.

      Many people (my grandmother, for example) said that they didn't see the need for a microwave. The stove and oven were more than sufficient for their needs.

      Until they actually got one.

      My grandmother was a holdout until 1992, when she finally bought one. A week later, she mentioned to me that she couldn't believe she'd waited that long, and that it had changed the way she cooked (and she was always a really good cook).

      However, unlike a conventional oven (which is still better than a microwave for certain things like turkeys, bread, and pizza), there's not really anything a 56k connection does better than a broadband connection. Dial-up's only real advantage is that it requires no additional equipment or infrastructure, but that won't last long as the equipment becomes more common.

      Another example would be the cell phone or a TiVo... something that doesn't seem all that necessary until you actually use it, then you can't stand dealing with the old way. I'm not chained to my desk anymore because I can always forward my phone to my cell. I can't stand watching "live" tv now, because TiVo has unshackled me from the temporal fetters of the network programming droids.

      And I shudder inside when I have to stay in a hotel that doesn't have a broadband connection in the room... even text-email seems to take forever to download. I don't bother with web sites much when on dial-up.

      Spoiled? Yeah... but then I don't see many folks using rotary phones these days, either.

  • silly people (Score:5, Insightful)

    by untermensch (227534) * on Monday April 19 2004, @05:21PM (#8909918)
    This boggles my mind, I couldn't live without broadband.

    I'd be very interested to see how many of these people have ever experienced broadband, and if their attitudes would change if they had.
    I realize that broadband can be overkill for many people, but even casual web-surfing can be painfully slow on dial-up.

    Oh well, more bandwidth for me :)
    • Re:silly people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mateito (746185) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:26PM (#8910036) Homepage
      > This boggles my mind, I couldn't live without broadband.

      At work: T3, DVD-Burner, USB Flash drive.

      At home: USB port, DVD-reader. 56k modem for emergencies.

      Total mantenance cost: around $4 a month on top of my phone bill.
    • Re:silly people (Score:5, Informative)

      by Obfuscant (592200) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:35PM (#8910158)
      I'd be very interested to see how many of these people have ever experienced broadband,...

      I'm one of them.

      We have 100Mb throughout the work organization, with a link to Internet2. I've got a DSL connection to a remote system for work. Yes, I think I've experienced broadband.

      I almost never surf at home. When I do, I sometimes think "I ought to get broadband", but when it comes down to doing it, it's not a high priority. Because it is slow, I never enable images or scripts, which means I never get popups or annoying ads.

      I does email and sends a bit of data out to be posted on a website. Most of that is automatic. I have more media (music, radio, and TV) than I can watch and listen to already, I don't need to download more. I gets distros on DVD or CD, either from work or in Linux Format.

      Why do I need broadband at home?

      As an aside, I actually did "get" broadband, for a day. I experienced the Qwest "Spirit of service Inaction". The qwest sales team lied to me and told me that static IP was included in the price they had quoted me. When it came time to deliver, they wanted $15/month more. That was after they installed the service on the wrong line, and then said it would take another week to get it right. They lied to the state public service commission when I complained, so I never got any action taken against them for the fraud they committed.

      So, why do I need broadband?

    • For anybody who is online lots, Broadband is a good idea. For me, at least, The combined cost of a second line and a reasonable dialup plan is about the same price as my ADSL connection. It's not even vaguely worth going to dialup.

      If, on the other hand, I was like my friends who only check their email every couple of days, there'd be no value to going to DSL... I can wait an extra 3 minutes for all of that spam.

      As a general rule, I'd say that if you don't go online enough to make getting a second line worthwhile, there's a low probability that you could reasonably justify a broadband connection (and vice-versa). People who are wealthy enough that they wouldn't even pause to think about the $20/month but want their spam and porn right now the 3 days a week that they are online are an exception.
      Some people can find better things to do with the extra money (like paying for theatre tickets).

    • Re:silly people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord Kano (13027) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:56PM (#8910417) Homepage Journal
      I'd be very interested to see how many of these people have ever experienced broadband, and if their attitudes would change if they had.

      Kind of like how many people remain virgins until they're married, but once you KNOW about sex, you're far less likely to intentionally be celibate for many years.

      LK
      • Re:silly people (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Erratio (570164) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:32PM (#8910115)
        Some people just have better things to do than spend their time on the Internet. I've dealt with about as fast of Internet connections as they come, and I don't have a problem with dial-up (which I was just using for a month). Once the novelty os the speed wore off, the vast majority of information I deal with over the Internet is either text, or something that I'm willing to just have download in the background while I do something else...normally something far more productive than getting sucked into wasting my time on things like /..
        • by UrgleHoth (50415) on Monday April 19 2004, @06:29PM (#8910791) Homepage
          Not only better things to do with our time, but also better things to do with our money. W'ere a one income family with 2 small children. I have broadband access at work, so I know what it's like.
          We've got dialup at $12 on top of our standard phone bill.
          DSL is cheaper than cable modem and the cheapest I could find DSL is $40/month.
          Thats a savings of $28/month ($336/ year)
          Sure, that's not a ton of money saved, but we also don't have cable tv or eat out much and have only one car. It all adds up, especially when you are working to be debt free.

      • by yintercept (517362) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:54PM (#8910391) Homepage Journal
        The main thing I like about DSL is the persistent connection. If I need an internet resource, I can grab it quickly...without having to wait for the modem.

        The people I know who are staying with phone lines do so because they like getting all of their internet chores done is a single short session.

        I think the overall download speed really is a secondary issue to how you organize your online time.
  • by Kenja (541830) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:21PM (#8909926)
    There's nothing like the shear deluge of porn available to broadband users to turn one of sex entirely.
  • Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomcrick (687765) <tomcrick@gmail.com> on Monday April 19 2004, @05:21PM (#8909931) Homepage
    ...but have they actually had the chance of using broadband to compare it to dial-up?

    Definitely the case of 'once you've tried it, you'll never go back...'
    • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bee-yotch (323219) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:29PM (#8910082) Homepage
      This is exactly the reason for these stats. There's not a single person I know who's used broadband for more than a month that would be willing to switch back to dial-up.

      Give all those people 1 or 2 months of free trial broadband, and then force them back to dial-up and I garauntee that those percentage's will change pretty fast.
    • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phamlen (304054) <phamlen@mail.cCOBOLom minus language> on Monday April 19 2004, @05:34PM (#8910134) Homepage
      Actually, I am one of those who used to have high-speed and now I don't.

      My logic is pretty simple:
      1) I have high-speed at work for anything serious.
      2) When at home, I really don't want to spend time on the Internet. I get to read, garden a little, talk to my wife, generally behave like a non-geek.
      3) When I had high-speed internet, I would always be on. It's addicting.

      So I discontinued my cable-modem. I can honestly say that I much more enjoy saving the $40 than the experience of high-speed internet (but maybe just because I get that at work.) Still, it's remarkable how much you can do on the Internet over a dialup. Google, for instance, is fast even on a dialup (as is the Google cache.)

      • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)

        by 0x0000 (140863) <zerohexNO@SPAMzerohex.com> on Monday April 19 2004, @05:54PM (#8910385) Homepage
        My logic is pretty simple: 1) I have high-speed at work for anything serious. 2) When at home, I really don't want to spend time on the Internet. I get to read, garden a little, talk to my wife, generally behave like a non-geek. 3) When I had high-speed internet, I would always be on. It's addicting.

        You wanker. Get a life ...

    • but why.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pranjal (624521) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:39PM (#8910199)
      .. switch to broadband if they feel they don't need it? I wouldn't switch to a porsche if I'm happy with my Chevy for daily commuting unless I want a jazzy car with high performace.

      So why would a user switch to broadband for just checking emails and browsing some websites if this can be done reasonably well using dial-up?
  • by DaveCBio (659840) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:21PM (#8909934)
    Out of those 60% how many have actually used high speed and know what a difference it makes?
    • by System.out.println() (755533) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:26PM (#8910023) Journal
      The percentage of dialup may have remained the same, but the number of total dialup users has decreased (I think), as more and more of the country gets wired with broadband. So while it may be 60% and 60% now, it's probably more like 100 million then and 75 million now. (Numbers completely pulled out of my ass, but you get my point.)
    • by antic (29198) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:35PM (#8910153)
      I definitely agree. There's hardly a great campaign of public education out there. For me, the "always-on" side of broadband is a great advantage, but not many people outside the IT realm would be aware of that. I have a wireless router (cheap) hooked up to my ADSL so that I can open up my laptop anywhere in the house or nearby and be reading news, researching, working, emailing, etc. 60% might not want broadband, but how many of those would be aware that these things are even possible?

      I find that far more liberating and useful than being tethered to a desk in a corner near the phone jack, and having to tie up the phone line while I'm online.

      I don't know what call costs are in the US, but in Australia, you're generally paying 20c a call to dial-up. If you dial up 2-3 times a day (norm in my house pre-broadband), you've got your $25/month dial-up account + $18/month in calls. Suddenly your slow-poke connection that controls the phone line too is $43/month and not looking so fantastic against the $59/month ADSL connection with 12GB of data allowance.

      I'm more than aware that families are being hit with costs like never before (monthly bills for gas, water, electricity, mobile phones (my household has at least 4), internet access, pay TV, and so on, but I'd choose broadband over pay TV, and definitely over dial-up. Imagine never hearing a modem handshake again. Bliss!
      • by Dun Malg (230075) on Monday April 19 2004, @06:18PM (#8910664) Homepage
        I don't know what call costs are in the US, but in Australia, you're generally paying 20c a call to dial-up.

        One of the peculiarities of US phone service left over from the old AT&T monopoly is that all but the cheapest of residential plans allow free unlimited local calling. You can get straight metered service to save a few bucks if you never make any outgoing calls, but usually only the forgotten elderly do that. Back in the old Ma Bell days, local service was pretty well subsidized by expensive long distance rates. Perhaps it was to encourage residential phones so businesses would have someone to telemarket to...

  • Duh! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sylver Dragon (445237) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:22PM (#8909953) Journal
    Ok, why is this a suprise to anyone? Many users do nothing more than look at a few pages and send/receive email. For them, that is the internet, that's all they want and care about. So, for those the people, there is no reason to pay the extra for broad band. When you can get dial-up for US$10/month a month, or less if you are willing to put up with ads, and basic broadband starts at US$30/month, is it really worth it to get your email a second or two faster?

  • I can relate to that (Score:5, Interesting)

    by toygeek (473120) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:22PM (#8909955) Journal
    As a sysadmin at a small to midsized web hosting firm, I find that dialup is all I need. I have tried time and time again to justify broadband at my house but as a single income household with 2 kids and my disabled wife, I can't afford it and do not really need it. If I need something that's broadband only (Latest distro ISO or something) I login to my server here at the NOC (45MB DS3) and download it there. Then I grab it on my laptop the next day at work. NO BIG DEAL. Even if I did not have 45mb/sec here at work I would still be OK with dialup. Heck most of us just check mail right?

    Seriously though, the most I do is check mail, a few forums, and some web publishing. All low bandwidth stuff. So, I agree with the story. Broadband is nice but not necessary.
  • SAVAGES! (Score:5, Funny)

    by gpinzone (531794) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:22PM (#8909965) Homepage Journal
  • Do the math (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tagishsimon (175038) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:23PM (#8909976) Homepage
    So at any given time, 60% of dialup users do not want to switch. 40% do switch. Next year, 60& want to switch => some of the original 60% must have switched sides to the 40%.

    In other news: dog bites man.
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Monday April 19 2004, @05:23PM (#8909978) Homepage
    Let's consider the users who do nothing but e-mail with their Internet connection...

    - Faster speed is not much of a benefit to them. They don't download images very often, and they're fine with walking away from their computer for however long it takes while those downloads happen.
    - They don't particularly care about their phone callers getting busy signals, they don't get that many really important phone calls anyway.
    - To them, changing e-mail addresses would be a nightmare. Some are even clinging onto address that they've had since 1994. The ISP may have gone defunct, but the old domain name is still being supported by the ISP that aquired them. Look at all the legacy domains Earthlink is still supporting. [earthlink.net]
    - And, we're also talking about people who hate monthly bills. For retired people, they plan their budgets very carefully and even a $10/month difference bothers them.

    Bottom line... not everybody wants an always-on Internet connection. Sure, everybody reading Slashdot who doesn't have one wants one... but there are a lot of people in the USA who wouldn't even know what Slashdot is.
  • by xWeston (577162) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:24PM (#8909990)
    A majority of people on Dial Up dont realize how slow it is because they have never had the chance to use broadband on a daily basis. I have known people that were "Completely Satisfied" with their dialup connections, only until they got broadband and couldn't imagine using the internet without it.

    Text only pages, or ones with minimal images, are even much faster on broadband. They are still somewhat bearable with Dial Up, but anything with a decent image takes forever. Not to mention streaming legal videos, playing legal games, and downloading pr0....gressively more material.
  • by brundlefly (189430) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:24PM (#8909991)
    60 percent are satisfied. That means 40 percent want to switch. If you estimate that half of that 40 percent will actually switch to broadband, then the number of modem users has shrunk by 20 percent.

    So instead of saying "60 percent of modem users are happy", you could just as easily say "modem market shrinking by 20 percent per year". Most analysts would call that a dying industry.

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's all how you spin it. (i.e. no story here, move along.)
  • by The I Shing (700142) * on Monday April 19 2004, @05:26PM (#8910034) Journal
    Some people will happily drink soda or juice through what is, in fact, a coffee stirrer. Much smaller than a straw, but it acts enough like a straw to make it useful, even though the transfer rate is considerably slower.
  • A couple of my friends are dial-up only and quite content. Actually, one of them is a JSP and Oracle guy, who works for the gov't. The really humorous part to me is that he has no knowledge of how computers *work*, but he is one hell of a programmer.

    I also seem to notice that the friends without broadband seem to accomplish more and lead happier lives. Their lawns are not 8" tall all the time, the cars are always clean and they seem to keep a more tidy abode. Coincidence? Hmm...

    Now where did I put that Slack ISO? Ahh, I'll just download it again. While I'm doing that, I might as well go check out Slashdot [slashdot.org] or Fark. [fark.com] My grass can wait 'til another day. Like I care what the neighbors think...

    Thank God for broadband.

  • by bahamat (187909) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:30PM (#8910088) Homepage
    If there were 200,000 people in 2003 and 120,000 didn't care, then in 100,000 people in 2004 and 60,000 didn't care, you still work out with the same percentage of 60%.

    I'd be interested in seeing the raw numbers on this. In particular, I'd like to know the differential number on the "didn't cares" to see how many of those switched to broadband.
  • E-mail portability? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster (625375) * on Monday April 19 2004, @05:31PM (#8910105) Homepage
    Some people clung onto their old cell phone providers even after another provider started better or cheaper service in their area simply because they wanted to keep their numbers. Number portability was the solution to that problem.

    Now, it'd be relatively simple to do this, just require that ISPs offer forwarding service for up to a year after a customer cancels, and the new ISP can kick back an e-mail telling anybody who's e-mails that the user has moved to them.
    Of course, no ISP is going to offer this without the government ordering them to... but couldn't the FTC or FCC step in on this one?
  • by Uhlek (71945) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:34PM (#8910142)
    Switching providers means more than just cutting dialup and getting a faster connection for $X more a month. There's also a few other issues at hand. The main one, of course, is the e-mail address. People *hate* to change their e-mail address. I'm one of them -- I pay for a proxy spam filtering service and deal with 3000+ spams a month to an e-mail address I've had for the last 8 years. It's a purely psychological attachment.

    And, the price difference is more than you might expect. Not everyone out there uses $24/month AOL. $9.95 dial-up is available from mom-and-pop ISPs all over the country, and some of these are even beginning to offer compressing proxies (ala AOL's "Optimized") to improve web browsing over 56k links.

    As for the AOL users, they are accustomed to the special features of AOL, and yes, their aol.com e-mail address. AOL Broadband is $15 a month, on top of your connectivity bill.

    And above that, there's just the percieved "hassle" of switching. They're relatively happy with what they have, and don't want to deal with getting a new service, cancelling the old one, telling their friends their new e-mail addresses, etc. etc. etc.

    I wonder if number portability requirements will ever extend to e-mail addresses ;-).
  • by JackAsh (80274) on Monday April 19 2004, @05:40PM (#8910214)
    I thought I had this all figured out a while back. I always figured broadband was a lifestyle thing. Having been a gamer for god knows how long now, I've always done things like keep my computer on 24/7. To me, dialup was an inconvenience - it kept me from being online instantly, the same way that I could flick the mouse and be back at my desktop instantly. When I went to broadband it was obvious that that was the way to go: always-on, instant access. It became a lifestyle change thing. I even observed the behavior change with different girlfriens over time: they'd go from "let's look up the pizza place on the phone book/yellow pages" to "look it up online".

    I actually observed the exact same change with my parents: They used to keep the computer off, as there was no reason to keep it on. If they needed something online (like checking their e-mail or looking at a couple of webpages), they'd turn on the PC, wait for it to boot up, fire up the dialup, wait for the connection, download e-mail/check stuff on web, and disconnect as quickly as possible since a) people could be calling on the phone; and b) phone calls were metered by the minute over where they live (Spain). For them, using the computer was a big barrier: You had to go through a long, involved series of steps before even being able to do what you wanted. Looking up someone's information was easier using 411 (over there, 003) than using the PC for it.

    Once I convinced them to do the DSL thing, the lifestyle changed completely - the computer remained on constantly, all you had to do to go online and check something was sit in front of it and type - it was always on . I know that's the point of it, but it's a huge mentality change. Seeing the transformation firsthand was amazing.

    The curious thing, I find, is the number of people in the article and in the forums here that have experienced broadband, and do so on a daily basis, yet still manage to resist it. Self discipline, cost, just-don't-need-it come up as (to me, surprising) reasons why they say no to broadband.

    To me, broadband vs. dialup is like cable/satellite vs. over-the-air reception, faxes vs. mail (back in the 80s), air travel vs. jumping on a boat to come to the US. It's just stuff that once you cross a certain frontier, a certain line, you can't just uncross it, you can't go back. The always-on availability of information, entertainment, and yes, even pr0n ;) is just impossible to turn my back to.

    Amazing stuff.

    -Jack Ash
  • Especially that evil one down here called Bell South. The same wonderful company that has recently tacked on an additional 3 dollars disguising it as a federal fee.

    Phone companies, Bell South is by the worse, don't want to offer lower priced products. Not only do they want out taxes to pay to build their lines they want to charge us insane rates to use them. Everything about the phone company is extortion. Example, if I want Caller ID I have to pay about 8 dollars extra! Now, I can get caller id as part of a package of services for only 12.95 (or thereabouts).

    What about their $30 a month DSL? Sure, 256 down! and only IF I subscribe to their expensive packages on my phone, like that $12.95 I mentioned earlier.

    I truly believe the only reason the Cable companies can keep such high rates is because the phone companies do it.

    I have given serious consideration to backing down to dial-up through a low cost provider. 30-40 dollars a month savings doesn't sound like much until you work it out across the year, then its 360 to 480. Thats many good dinners out with someone, some good computer hardware, or one motorcylce payment for me!

  • by zerofoo (262795) on Monday April 19 2004, @06:49PM (#8910969)
    People "satisfied" with dial-up have no idea that other services are available over broadband that can actually SAVE them money.

    By that, I mean VOIP.

    Voice Over Internet Protocol is the next "big thing" when it comes to broadband.

    My cable modem + Vonage VOIP service is cheap. No dial-up ISP and no copper phone line means i'm actually SAVING money each month.

    It's only a matter of time (and bandwidth) until everything comes over your IP connection - TV, voice, and data.

    -ted
  • 60% (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kakurenbo Shogun (64436) on Monday April 19 2004, @07:39PM (#8911540) Homepage
    they found out 60% of dial-up users weren't interested in switching, a year later in 2004 the percentage was roughly the same.

    2003:
    10,000 people surveyed (note: I'm making up numbers to make a point)
    4,000 currently on dialup
    2,400 don't care to switch to broadband

    2004:
    10,000 people surveyed
    1,000 currently on dialup
    600 don't care to switch

    "Last year, 60%, this year 60%" doesn't mean much without know whether a lot of the people who didn't care to switch a year ago have already switched.