Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Broadband Majority in US 387

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the that-seems-a-bit-fishy dept.
TheSync writes "NetworkWorldFusion has a report that the majority of US Internet users now connect using broadband, according to NetRatings. There are 63 million broadband users (51%) and 61 million (49%) dial-up users in the US. Broadband was most prevalent among people ages 18 to 20."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broadband Majority in US

Comments Filter:
  • Spyware? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kmmatthews (779425) * <krism@mailsnare.net> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:25PM (#10015262) Homepage Journal
    Each participating household provides a profile of the users in the home, and a device connected to each Internet-linked PC in the home logs where those users go on the Internet. [Emphasis mine.]

    Wow, I'm really amazed people agreed to do this. The FA doesn't mention it, but I wonder if they were compensated in some manner.

    No way in hell I'd want someone to know how often I visit tubgirl..

    But seriously, in my mind this is akin to hardware "spyware" - I wonder if these same people would agree to having a key logger installed.. Maybe this is one of the reasons spyware is so prolific? Maybe some people just don't care what the corporate overloads know about them?

    (I never said they were smart.....)

    • Re:Spyware? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Papineau (527159) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:29PM (#10015317) Homepage

      It works the same as Nielsen ratings for TV. A few years ago select viewers were asked to pen down what they were watching every 15 minutes. Now it's a device directly connected to the cable box/TV.

      Of course, you have to agree to have one.

      • Re:Spyware? (Score:5, Informative)

        by stratjakt (596332) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:34PM (#10015376) Journal
        Nielsen chose us once, they offer some cool stuff in return for letting them monitor. I think you could get a DVD player or a new TV, etc..

        They wanted a box connected to every device capable of TV reception. I didn't have a problem with them putting them on the TVs or VCRs, but when I found out it included the TV tuner in the Voodoo 3 3500 I had at the time, I told them no. I draw the line right around fucking with my PC, even if it's a completely external device.

        But others probably wouldn't care. Hell, if all you do is read e-mail and do a little online browsing, it wouldn't be a big deal, expecially if you got something cool in return.
        • Re:Spyware? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:16PM (#10015811) Homepage Journal
          I was invited to be a nielsen internet household but they offered me nothing whatsoever to be one. I guess there's still more money in television advertising.
        • Re:Spyware? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by SethJohnson (112166)


          Not to be a smartass, but how did the nielsen people find out your video card had a tv tuner?
        • Re:Spyware? (Score:4, Funny)

          by DonGar (204570) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @05:04PM (#10017003) Homepage
          They picked me once when I didn't have a TV at all. I really wanted to be part of the ratings (0 hours total). For some reason, they wouldn't let me.
          • Re:Spyware? (Score:4, Funny)

            by steve_bryan (2671) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @11:50PM (#10019586)
            Why do some people take such pride in things they don't do? Congratulations, you succeed in not viewing any television. Do you also manage to not watch movies at home or at the theater? Have you also managed to avoid live theatrical performances and musicals? If your point is that most of TV is meritricious tripe I don't think you will find a very committed opposition. For that matter most published literature is a significant disappointment. Is your home a proudly book-free zone?

            Getting away from the pervasive commercials of TV is an understandable goal. Doing so by burning your TV set seems like an odd method. By all means continue your defiant stance against the media overlords but don't expect any lauditory poems to be written in your honor.
      • Re:Spyware? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by foobsr (693224) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:54PM (#10015607) Homepage Journal
        They still do diary research for local stations.

        http://www.nielsenmedia.com/whatratingsmean/

        CC.
        • Re:Spyware? (Score:3, Informative)

          by FooAtWFU (699187)
          Yeah, our family was selected for one of those a short while ago. I think we logged in one show during the two weeks or so we had it... :)
      • Re:Spyware? (Score:5, Funny)

        by SurgeonGeneral (212572) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:13PM (#10015788) Journal
        The thing is, I'm not convinced that these ratings will provide a 'natural' indication of what people are watching.

        In other words, if there is a device that is monitering my internet comsumption for a week, I will not be consuming my regular diet of pornography for that week. Mind you, I dont look at porn. I dont. Shut up, I dont. Ok I do. No just kidding I dont.

        The idea is that the internet is that its kind of a make your-own-media entertainment. Whereas T.V. is all programmed and time slotted, and is thus passive, on the internet you have to actively seek out and find stuff. You have to decide where to start, where to go, when to leave. Essentially at every turn, on every page, you have to decide what to do. Its like a choose your own adventure story. And since the pathways are so chaotic and turmultuous (the opposite of TV), I'm not sure that there is a whole lot to measure. It might be a window into personal psychology, but mass psychology? I dont know.
    • Re:Spyware? (Score:5, Funny)

      by stretch0611 (603238) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:32PM (#10015355) Journal
      The FA doesn't mention it, but I wonder if they were compensated in some manner.

      Maybe the family is told, "If you let us watch your family's surfing habits we'll tell you if little johnny goes to a p0rn site." Of course what they don't know is that little johnny knows how to get around the firewall and get to the p0rn unnotticed.

    • Re:Spyware? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) * on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:32PM (#10015357)
      But seriously, in my mind this is akin to hardware "spyware" - I wonder if these same people would agree to having a key logger installed..

      Probably. Remember these are typically people that don't even know what Spyware is... Hell, my fiancee's brother removed AdAware and SpyBot from a computer I installed it on "because it causes problems." He also removed the firewall for the same reason.

      Spyware be damned! We are talking about people that think WinME is the best OS ever (and no I am not kidding).
      • We are talking about people that think WinME is the best OS ever

        You mean it isnt the bestest ever most super duper OS.Ow man you just broke my heart.Like my parents did when they told me the truth about the Tooth Fairy and santa claus.Oh this cold cruel world.

    • Re:Spyware? (Score:2, Insightful)

      Everybody visits tubgirl (and other sites like it) at some point, there ain't no shame in it. Therefore- no, I don't care what the corporate overlords know about me- maybe it will help them to figure out that not everybody is the same and a few of us are plotting against them.
    • Re:Spyware? (Score:5, Funny)

      by eric76 (679787) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:53PM (#10016260)
      If they monitored my Internet browsing, they'd learn the following (not necessarily in this order):

      1) The most important lawsuits in the U.S. are SCO vs IBM, Novell, Autozone, and Daimler Chrysler.
      2) The number one server O.S. in the world is OpenBSD followed by Linux and FreeBSD.
      3) The number one shopping site on the Internet is newegg.com.
      4) The number one electronic reference is O'Reilly's Safari Tech Books Online.
      5) Microsoft has more security holes than you can shake a stick at.

      Imagine if they monitored several such people and it was interpreted by the major tv networks as representative of Americans:

      1) Fox, CNN, and MNBC would have daily reports on the SCO lawsuits.
      2) Whenever a show wanted to provide a tech tip, it would be aimed at OpenBSD, Linux, and FreeBSD.
      3) Newegg.com would be advertising in the Super Bowl.
      4) So would O'Reilly.
      5) We'd have a new TV sitcom about an inept software developer at Microsoft who is responsible for fixing all the security holes. We could call it "Clueless In Seattle" or maybe "MS ER".
    • Re:Spyware? (Score:3, Funny)

      by brianimator (779824)
      OMFG- do not - I repeat - do not make the same mistake I did and go to the "tubgirl.com" address mentioned in the parent's comment.
  • by Rude Turnip (49495) <valuation.gmail@com> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:25PM (#10015267)
    Dial-up is dead!
  • it was ME! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ack154 (591432) * on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:25PM (#10015268)
    It was ME! I was the 51st %!

    Ok, so I really wasn't. But after a horrible 9 month period with only dialup, and as of this past Tuesday, I finally have broadband once again. I had to take a half day off of work to get it installed, but it was worth it!

    *hugs cable modem*
    "oh, how I've missed you..."
    • Re:it was ME! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stratjakt (596332)
      You had to take a half a day off? I just phoned in the MAC of the cablemodem I'd just bought. Waited about 15 minutes, and hooray, I was browsing the interweb at speeds up to 300 times faster than dial-up.

      Of course, that was bending Comcast rules at the time, and I had to sign a waiver saying that I'd be the one to pay if I fucked up and they had to roll a truck.
      • by ack154 (591432) *
        This was for Road Runner. I wanted them to test the line anyways (which he said was "bad" but I can still download well over 300kb/s). But he brought the modem, plugged it in, called the MAC in, and I took care of the rest...

        The only reason I had to do a half day was b/c it could be anytime "between 12 and 5" ... But Road Runner guarantees they're on time (of course they are, they have FIVE HOURS!). He ended up showing up around 3.
    • Social cast (Score:3, Funny)

      by soloport (312487)
      A new type of "haves and have knots"?

      (I'd be in knots, too, if I still had dial-up).
  • by wo1verin3 (473094) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:26PM (#10015274) Homepage
    .... virus / spyware / trojan / hacking activity has grown 51%.
  • In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MachineShedFred (621896) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:27PM (#10015290) Journal
    The Internet (yes, the Internet) is running at the slowest speed ever, due to the clog being offered forth by the spam zombies, unpatched Windows boxes mass-scanning entire subnets due to virus and worm infection, and residential porn downloads.
    • and residential porn downloads
      Soooo... is that bad?
    • by SuperBanana (662181) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:41PM (#10015473)
      The Internet (yes, the Internet) is running at the slowest speed ever, due to the clog being offered forth by the spam zombies, unpatched Windows boxes mass-scanning entire subnets due to virus and worm infection, and residential porn downloads.

      In one of those glass-half-empty deals- I'd say it's running at its fastest speed ever, because of all that garbage.

      Guess what? Nobody who matters cares. The internet isn't run on ideals and dreamy visions- it's run by backbone companies who, just like the telephone companies with telemarkets- profit from every single bit of it.

      Do you really think backbones are going to chase after their customers? Nope. They're going to happily invoice for every bit of it- whether the customer ISP is paying by the byte or needs to upgrade to a faster line, either way- the backbone provider wins. I don't think you'll see them leaping for joy at anti-spam and spyware laws- they'll claim free speech this or that, but in reality be only concerned about loosing traffic that they can bill for.

      If bandwidth used by DDoS's and spam couldn't be charged for, the problem would have been stamped out a long, long, long time ago by ISPs and backbones. They have the ability to stop zombies and whatnot- they just don't give a shit.

      • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:24PM (#10015919) Homepage Journal
        They have the ability to stop zombies and whatnot- they just don't give a shit.

        It might not be that simple. Imagine if the backbone providers did exercise this supposed power and used it to squish zombies and other Internet Undead. Something tells me there would be a hue and cry about excessive corporate power over the Internet.

        Backbone providers likely see it as a utility. You can use electricity to power a hospital or power a meth lab. It's essentially out of their purvue, and they likely want to stay out of policing what people do with the bandwidth they provide. It's good business, and it's probably better for the rest of us, too.

  • HPB's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ikn (712788) * <rsmith29 AT alumni DOT nd DOT edu> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:27PM (#10015300) Homepage
    This kinda snuck up, on me at least...a few years ago the broadband users were the elite (most notably in gaming), and it was like this special deal...now it seems dial-up users are definitely becoming the minority. I would say P2P has played a large factor in this, every friend/relative I know that has gotten it in the last 2 years, have wanted it so they could go download songs/movies etc. Even gaming seems to be losing reasoning for higher bandwidth connections.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:27PM (#10015303)
    I can skip all that messy HTML/CSS stuff now and just make my web pages giant graphics. Text is so over-rated.
    • I tested my personal site on dial-ups and the wait while loading pictures kills me. So, I keep it simple and for every 10 "this page looks like it was made in 1996", I get one "wow, I like that it loads quickly".

      I reckon I should "upgrade" it by making it slow loading -- I actually make "real" sites at work. Nice long, bloated with javascript & graphics sites. I've had clients that want text added to go along with rotating stars and the other 7th grade girl lay-out (I apologize to any 7th grade gir
  • College (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dlosey (688472) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:28PM (#10015304)
    That age range is popular because internet and email is needed for schooling. Many college students live off campus, but need a decent connection to the internet. Many universities have much of the coursework and homework assignments online. Email is also the preferred communication method
    • Re:College (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) * on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:50PM (#10015570)
      No, college kids are usually interested in downloading and downloading fast. College kids also tend to live in a house with others. Sharing a dialup connection on your only voice line sucks balls.

      Splitting a $50/mo Internet connection between two or three people is nothing and you still get fast movie/music/porn downloads.
  • by Lord Haha (753617) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:28PM (#10015306) Homepage
    (to the United States) for catching up with the rest of the world.

    Now problem is how many of those dial-up users are still AoLers who are creating the majority of the problems on the intenet (ie: opening up silly attachments, spamming, not trolling slashdot...)
    • Congratulations! (to the United States) for catching up with the rest of the world.

      Actually, Broadband has finally surpassed dial-up because the cable and phone companies are finally clearing up the back-log of people waiting for Cable/DSL.


    • Getting broadband to over half the US is a bit more difficult than getting it to 50%+ of e.g. Europe.

      The US is a smidge larger than most countries, and the additonal area means additional cost to get new/improved/upgraded connectivity from point A to points !A. The result is that in many places the cost of upgrading compared poorly to the potential return and was not considered worthwhile.

      Side note: I live in a rather small town, and we had the option of either DSL or cable modem in 1999. The town
    • how many of those dial-up users are still AoLers who are creating the majority of the problems ...

      And how many of those broadband users are firewall-less windows users causing the other half of the problems on the internet...
    • by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @04:14PM (#10016502)
      World? Try South Korea and Canada.

      Broadband penetration in Europe hasn't even reached 20%:

      http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=18 96

      Canada's around 65%, and South Korea is 80% or more. Everyone else is lower than the US.
      • The article you linked to talks about "per cent of all homes" so you can't compare that with "majority of US Internet users" from the first report.
      • Broadband penetration in Europe hasn't even reached 20%:

        http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=18 96

        Thanks for the link, but note that that 20% is a percentage of all households, while the 51% is a percentage of all households that already have some kind of internet usage. From these two articles, it looks to me like the rates are actually in the same ballpark between the US and Europe; but unfortunately, I can't find numbers that are actually comparable; can anyone else?

        --Bruce Fields

  • So, what's next? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pubjames (468013) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:28PM (#10015312)

    So, we've got broadband. What's the next big thing?

    I'm serious - I'd love a 10Mbs or 100Mbs connection - when is that kind of thing going to be domestically available? When are we going fiber optic?

    • Well, in Grant county, Washington there is fiber to the home [gcpud.org] Although most people report speeds around 10mbit/sec on average (both up and down). I think the bottleneck is not the fiber, but the county's connection to the internet. I mean how many OC-192s can you find in the middle of the desert?
  • "NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers. Each participating household provides a profile of the users in the home, and a device connected to each Internet-linked PC in the home logs where those users go on the Internet. Users have to log in to identify themselves when they start using the computer, Ryan said."

    Seems to me that sample size is just too low for an even remotely accurate portrayal. Pers
    • by AEton (654737) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:37PM (#10015421)
      Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. A basic understanding of statistics indicates that you can have 95% confidence in your results with as small a sample as about 1,000 people. 50,000 is just hedging the bet by increasing the sample fiftyfold; the confidence interval there is likely even larger.

      However, it's very likely with the 51%/49% results here that, due to the margin of error, there isn't a detectable majority of either broadband or dialup users. The statistics for qualitative questions like "what kind of Internet do you use" are a little fuzzy (i.e. way beyond what I learned in my AP=basic-college-intro-101-level Stats), but the principle is the same.

      I would absoutely trust that -about- 49% and 51% of Internet users surveyed use dialup and broadband, respectively, but I'm not sure that there's a detectable majority.
      • But don't forget... They only used people with Phone Numbers... Look at a whole group of people without home phones they missed all together. Personally, I'm beyond the reaches of cable and I don't look for BellSouth to upgrade anytime either :(
    • A sample of 50,000 properly selected participants is far, far more than sufficient to accurately estimate broadband vs dialup use. It's far more than sufficient for CNN vs BBC vs Google News vs Slashdot or Drabble vs Foxtrot. As long as they're not holding forth on Stacey's blog vs Jeff's vacation pictures, there shouldn't be an issue.
    • I'd say the sample size more than sufficient. The problem is how they selected participants. If anyone you know uses dial up you'll immediately know what I mean. Try calling them. The phone is always fucking busy! NetRatings hang up, and additional numbers are called until they get the 50K participants. It's online natural selection, favoring those who do not have dialup! :)

  • Someday, when wireless has permeated the remote locations, dial-up connections may be thrown away (or 1%).

    The next wave will be the fiber networks that can push Gigs. Then the existing (slow?) broadband will go to the light users (dial-uppers now), and the business/power users/media hogs will grab the Broader-band.

    (Repeat until the Teranet/Petanet is reached)
  • by indros13 (531405) * on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:29PM (#10015329) Homepage Journal
    Porn content is being downloaded at ever greater speeds, say analysts from the Porn4All Institute. "While always popular, it's clear that the amount of action increases as the pipes get bigger."

  • I've found... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Short Circuit (52384) *
    ...that dial-up works well enough for me. Most of my time is spent on Gmail, Slashdot, IRC, and a few other low-clutter websites.
  • I wouldn't guess that from living in Indiana. Maybe in the past month or so there has been a change over, but I still talk to a lot of people who are using dialup and don't know what DSL or Cable modems are.

    "Yeah, my modem has a cable on it that runs into the phone jack"
  • Keep it up, U.S. Pretty soon, you might catch up to where Canadians were back in January, 2003. [nua.com] ;-)

    I'm guessing it is because we pay less for high speed Internet access that accounts for the difference. You can find high speed Internet here for as low as about $18.75 U.S. per month, with 'fuller' plans available for $30 U.S. per month. I pay $48.75 U.S. for a small-office cable modem package, including modem rental, and that gives me permission to host servers. Virtually no package from our cable provi
    • Well I have finally found a DSL telco/ISP that does not block ports, offers a decent downstream rate (2000/256 instead of Qwest's measly 640k), and is comparable in price/speed to the cable company.

      Charter is the cable co here. All reports from the area is that they block just about every incoming port including not allowing 25 except on their own SMTP servers. They charge $40/mo for 3000 downstream but it's just not worth it for me.

      I moved back to DSL for the first time since 1999 and I am happy with i
  • by kaosrain (543532) <(moc.niarsoak) (ta) (toor)> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:33PM (#10015366) Homepage
    NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers.

    I recently got broadband a few months ago. Before that I was on dialup and only had one phoneline. Had they tried to call me for this survey, they would have gotten a busy signal.

    I wonder how many dialup users were not interviewed because of this.
    • What the article doesn't say, is that busy signals are retried until someone answers.

      Ie; they generate a big list of numbers, then work through that list. They don't get a busy signal and just cross it off the list automatically.

      It could just as well that you have broadband, and your TiVo's just phoning home to sell you out.
  • ....Users have to log in to identify themselves when they start using the computer....

    Yeah, just what I want to do, log into my own individual PC at home just to use it.
  • Not so fast... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saxton (34078) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:34PM (#10015374) Homepage
    NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers. Each participating household provides a profile of the users in the home, and a device connected to each Internet-linked PC in the home logs where those users go on the Internet. Users have to log in to identify themselves when they start using the computer, Ryan said.

    With that said, is it safe to assume that the people that agreed to do this would be generally more savvy than generic dialup population? Is it also safe to assume that people with broadband are generally more interested in the Internet and computers than their dialup counterparts? (and possibly therefore more likely to participate when they got that "random" call?) Granted there's huge cross-over, I may be over-generalizing, and the assumption doesn't accomidate to users that have "no other choice" than dialup, but how accurate could this possibly be?

    -Aaron
    • (and possibly therefore more likely to participate when they got that "random" call?)

      Well the broadband users were more likely to take the call because they could actually get the call. The dialup users were handing out busy signals. *70!
  • Dorm (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ann Coulter (614889) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:34PM (#10015379) Journal
    Most Internet users between the ages of 18-20 are college students. It is also Dorm Storm month so the figures will definitely show a bias toward broadband use.
  • I remember a figure from last year saying broadband was only in 25% of US internet connected households. This site didn't give any information on past history based on their collection methods.
  • As the country gets more and more broadband users, are we getting more and more bandwidth, or are we just spreading it out. I personally feel that my bandwidth has gone from sufficent to insufficent... how do the rest of you feel?

  • by guitaristx (791223) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:36PM (#10015405) Journal
    What aggravates me is that nobody understands the real issue - there are big areas of the US that can't get anything better than dial-up. People don't move to rural areas to get away from the technology, they go there to get away from the cities. Believe me, there are a lot of small-town folks that are pretty p***ed about having to wait till they visit their big-city buddy to get a first post in on /.

    BROADBAND FOR PODUNK!
    • by Politburo (640618) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:08PM (#10015742)
      People don't move to rural areas to get away from the technology, they go there to get away from the cities.

      Do you know what a side effect of getting away from the cities is? Getting away from the technology. The cost for installing broadband is dependent more on the area covered than the people covered. It's trivial to run cable to 30 houses when they're all on the same block. When they're each 0.5 mi away from each other, it's not so easy, and the return on investment goes to the shitter.

      When you move out of densely populated areas, you should not expect the same level of service, be it sewers, trash collection, police and fire protection, utility service, transportation options, retail access, etc. You pay lower property taxes out there for a reason.
  • "Broadband was most prevalent among people ages 18 to 20."

    Can you please be more specific about the age group. And, what - do they stop using it after those couple years?

    • And, what - do they stop using it after those couple years?

      Quite possibly. After they move out of the house or leave college, and find out how much living in the real world actually costs.
      You can only make the choice of "food, gas, rent, or broadband" come out in favor of broadband for a little while.
  • "NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers. Each participating household provides a profile of the users in the home, and a device connected to each Internet-linked PC in the home logs where those users go on the Internet. Users have to log in to identify themselves when they start using the computer, Ryan said."

    Did the pollers stop to think that the fact that they were *calling* people might in and of
  • big picture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:39PM (#10015450) Homepage Journal
    61M + 63M = 124M US Internet users, out of 300M Americans. The majority of Americans, about 60%, aren't on the Net (except maybe in their involuntary videos from New Orleans). I'd love to see a map showing their distribution around the country. With layers for TV viewing hours.
    • no (Score:3, Informative)

      by rebelcool (247749)
      broadband "user" is an account. Remember, most of these are household accounts being used by multiple people. You're comparing apples to oranges.
  • by n-baxley (103975) <nate AT baxleys DOT org> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:40PM (#10015451) Homepage Journal
    a statistic not to be overlooked.
  • Broadband? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Honest Man (539717) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:41PM (#10015474)
    Isn't it funny that our broadband here in the US is so slow? I checked and bbb lines at 24mbit are going for about 67 bucks a month but yet most people in the US pay that for 3-5mb down and wimpy 384k uploads.

    Our broadband here is more like dialup in comparison to other countries lol. my line with SBC costs $53/mo for 3mb/384... though really it should be the 'budget' plan costing $9.95/mo considering its dynamic and SLOW compared to 'real' lines.

    I'm hoping our US providers will eventually bring our country's internet to the top of the industry - or do they really like lagging behind?
    • Re:Broadband? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) *
      I'm hoping our US providers will eventually bring our country's internet to the top of the industry - or do they really like lagging behind?

      Wait a second here. You're confused. You are getting 3000/384 for $53. You are shelling out the cash and they are taking it.

      They aren't lagging behind anything but their own fattening wallets. Please be serious. They aren't interested in being the top of the world-wide industry in anything but revenue.
    • Consider yourself lucky. I pay SBC $26/mo and only get 384k up AND down because I'm a long way from their POP.
  • by leonara (87228) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:43PM (#10015498)
    The report says that the second largest group of users (at 58%) were children between the ages of 2 and 11. It is not as if these users can subscribe to a broadband connection by themselves! I wonder who consumes such numbers. Perhaps these numbers are used to target ads to the right group - but that would mean using services like AOL (shudder).
  • RBL time now (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mabu (178417) * on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:44PM (#10015510)
    Great, ok, nice.

    Now let's get down to business. Who's got the best list of the IP addresses of all these broadband blocks so we can blacklist them? It's just a matter of time before almost every single one becomes worm-infected and starts up rogue SMTP relays? I've had it with this crap.

    The majority of spam now comes from zombie machines on broadband connections. If the ISPs themselves won't release the IP lists of their DUL users, we should set up a master one ourselves so we can stop this zombie army.
  • by bludstone (103539) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:47PM (#10015543)
    This would make a great slashdot poll.

    I pay 35$~ish and normally I can pull down about 150Kbps, but ive hit 200 before. I felt a little jipped at first, but its been remarkably reliable, and it seems my isp actually cares about security.

  • SBC (Score:4, Informative)

    by halo1982 (679554) * on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:49PM (#10015560) Homepage Journal
    SBC is now offering 1.5Mbps/128kbps for $26.95 a month. Thats two dollars more a month than AOL dialup and $5 more a month than SBC's dialup. It also comes with a free modem and home installation kit with a one year contract. That was enough to get me to switch over my parents (finally), and the last time I went home half the people in the neighborhood who didn't have DSL and some who had cable have moved over to SBC's offering. Apparently they also offer a 3.0Mbps/384kbps for $36.99 too...if I had a landline I'd probably drop my cable for that.
  • by CrystalFalcon (233559) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:58PM (#10015645) Homepage
    "Broadband" has diluted to the point where it means "not connecting over the telephone line". It doesn't even mean connecting at speeds higher than 56k (real connection speed, when shared) anymore.

    In Korea, most households have 100 Mbit/s bidirectional. In Scandinavia, 10-20 Mbit/s bidirectional is the norm. In the US, 2 Mbit/s download and less upload is considered much. Yet all of these go under the bland moniker "broadband".

    A much better meter would be, say, "average household bandwidth".
    • It doesn't even mean connecting at speeds higher than 56k (real connection speed, when shared) anymore.

      The term "Broadband" has nothing to do with speed. It's simply a term used to describe a single medium carrying multiple signal types (cable = t.v. + internet, dsl = phone + internet). The term you want is high-speed access, which refers to any fast internet connection. Those lines in Korea are most likely "baseband" (one signal type), so they should not ever be called "broadband". The term is far
  • by servognome (738846) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @02:58PM (#10015650)
    You will have to pry my 2400 baud modem from my cold dead hands. Now off to download Doom 3.
  • There's a very simple reason for this: tech companies, including those offering bandwidth, love to seperate Americans from their money. It's a simple issue of the fact that a good chunk of the American populace is stupid enough to go for whatever they'll sell you at whatever prices you demand, as Americans have money. This mass of money and refusal to know anything outside of where to get food, drink, clothing, and shelter has caused the greedy executives (who know this information from experience) to res
  • by tyrantnine (768028) on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:06PM (#10015725)
    Living in the bustling metropolis of Lawrence Kansas in 1996, my 4 roomates (and a few other friends who came over constantly) were so eager for the bandwidth we had two cablemodems installed (primarily for Quake!). Unfortunately we didn't luck out as early adopters - the service was beyond terrible, and frankly nearly unusable for a good couple years despite intense complaints from us and others. I can't recall the price, but I don't think it was more than $50/month

    In 1998, I moved to Austin Texas, and though there were no real offerings of DSL or Cable here yet, there were a few apartment complexes with one or more T1s running to them, of which I moved into. It was excellent service for a mere 24.95 per month. I then spent a couple years in the Hill Country about 45 miles outsie of Austin, and had Direcway 2-way Satellite for $55/month (plus a few hundred for (my choice) purchasing the equipment. For all the bad I have heard, I was happy with their service. Latency was enormous (no gaming), but downstream I'd average 50-60k/sec, though upstream was slow as dirt (5-6k)... worked in all weather except strong storms.

    Now I have DSL for $26/month here in 2004 back within the Austin City Limits. So when I still hear of people without any sort of broadband connection, it's somewhat mind-boggling :).
  • by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @03:21PM (#10015889) Homepage Journal
    Right now, /. hands out mod points for logging on from different IPs. I suppose this is to... I don't know. I really have no idea why this is part of the algorithm to hand out mod points. But seeing as how most broadband connections have fairly long lived IP address, isn't it time to drop this requirement? No longer is it someone living on their college or job's fat pipe. It's just a regular person.
  • by Jamie Zawinski (775) <jwz@jwz.org> on Thursday August 19, 2004 @04:33PM (#10016706) Homepage
    I like how they don't even bother to define the term. Do they mean "faster than 56k", or do they mean "always on", or what?

The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"

Working...