Re:On the subject of broadband vs. dialup (Score 1)

I disagree that the price is a non-issue. It's not the ONLY issue, but it certainly is a valid issue. (1) The idea that 56k Internet access costs as much as cable access is just pure FUD from the cable companies. The company that I work for offers $9.99 Internet access nationwide for $9.99/month. There are no other fees, so where does this $53 is the same as $9.99 come from? (2) Most people do NOT care about always on. They use email. They don't even need it on when they are on the computer most of the time because they are so slow at composing their emails. :) (3) These $30-$50 rates for cable access that are spoken of are usually "pie-in-the-sky". That is in conjunction with TV service. Do you REALLY need to be spending $100 between your TV and Internet services? Who uses EITHER, much less both (outside of the Slashdot audience) enough to justify this? Certainly not the mainstream. (4) Most people don't cancel their landline. So, they are paying $9.99-$30 (for AOL pay by check acct) per month - but nothing more. MOST people do not get a second line. (5) The economy is slowing. Have no doubt about that. While people may not have, in the past, cancelled their $30 cable television service...now that they are paying $1200/year for cable TV + cable Internet, I have a feeling that may get a few glances over on the family budget when something needs to go! (6) Cable prices ALWAYS go up. Expect Internet over cable to be no different. Perhaps this is the nature of a service based business - or maybe a monopoly based business. Either way, $30 (bundled) is the low end of the scale. Expect it to NEVER be less. The prices have ALREADY gone up. (7) As easy as cable may be, people are lazy and cheap. They don't bother to call us to change from AOL for a 3x savings. Why would they DOUBLE their payments for questionable benefits? It's not as easy as sticking in a disk (or MAYBE making a call), and typing some info in for 56K. (8) People are also reluctant to change. Cell phones have taken years and years and still have not 100% replaced land phones. The advantages are obvious. For the *AVERAGE* consumer, they see no benefit in paying for high bandwidth - especially as most of the high-bandwidth services will soon be "pay per view". Double whammy! In a nutshell, Dvorak is right. I've been saying the same thing for more than a year.