Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Broadband Is Dead (Or At Least Very Ill)

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the cringing-with-cringely dept.

News 371

Thornkin writes: "Broadband is dead. That is the proclamation of tech pundit Robert Cringely. With Excite@Home turning away new customers and going bankrupt along with most of the DSL companies, things are bleak and will get worse. The icing on the cake could be this bill which would remand the requirement for local phone providers to open their networks before competing in the long distance market." And at a different scale, apparently the DSL circuits in Blacksburg, VA (a place which liked to claim it was "the most wired town in America" not long ago) are now full, and turning away residential customers.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cringely (1)

notext (461158) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423460)

Everytime I read one of his articles and look at that pic, I always think its in jail with the orange jumper.

No hype (4, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423462)

It isn't dead because it wasn't ever kicking all that much to begin with. The problem is, our investors aren't smoking what they used to be, and aren't wildly investing in something (like broadband) that isn't likely to turn a good profit.

Broadband will always be available, the market just won't be so damn saturated as it was.

Re:No hype (1)

spyderbyte23 (96108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423498)

Broadband will always be available, the market just won't be so damn saturated as it was.

Is the market saturated, though? There are plenty of people who want broadband and can't get it. And how many people are providing broadband in the States? (Notice that that's the sole focus of Cringely's column.) Covad, Roadrunner, @home, and the ILECs are all that's left, right? With @home fading fast.

Re:No hype (2)

clary (141424) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423527)

Covad, Roadrunner, @home, and the ILECs are all that's left, right?

I am in Lenexa, KS. A company called Everest Connections ( has run fiber through my neighborhood. Tuesday I have an appointment to get hooked up with local phone service, digital cable with a couple of premium channel groups, and 1.5Mbit downstream internet (cable modem), all for $99 a month.

Anyone know about this company? If "broadband" is dead, I guess I'll be crawling back to Southwestern Bell and Time Warner in a week or two? ;-) Seriously, if anyone has any insights on this company or its products, I'd really like to hear. I haven't been able to find much discussion of them on the net, and I am pretty much trying them out blind.

Shaw@home/ (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423463)

In other news, Shaw Cable of Calgary, Alberta continues to signup new customers at a rate of over 1,000 per day throughout its service area in Western Canada (and Florida... Don't ask).

Just because *most* broadband ISPs are staffed by short-term-thinking idiots doesn't mean that all of them are. I don't work for them, but I have a couple of friends who do. Honestly, they really have it together.

Re:Shaw@home/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423696)

Both Shaw and Telus have been very busy in Alberta as well as BC.

Imagine, having a choice of Broadband vendors. I was downloading from Microsoft at 110KB/s with ADSL, and between 50KB/s and 360KB/s with cable. Could be better, could be (a lot) worse.

DSL is dead, not broadband (2, Interesting)

tulare (244053) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423467)

If cringely could see the forest for the trees...

Fact is, Exite@home hoisted itself on its own petard, the broadband bill is DOA in legislation, and those companies smart enough to invest in cable, or better yet, fiber are holding their own. DSL is a nasty expensive way to try to make last centuries' technology perform to the needs of this one. Sorry to all of those out there who are stuck with DSL. Honest.

Re:DSL is dead, not broadband (1)

layingMantis (411804) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423484)

I agree, we need something that is entirely different from DSL. And while I usually side against Big Money (like Verizon), it seems sorta backwards that they must open their network to rivals before they can offer data services. It's their network right?

Plus, if one decides to get DSL through somebody that isn't the telco, they wait forever, and I'd bet the tech support isn't exactly top notch, how could it be? The telco has a vested interest to see to it that the 'rival' option sucks.

So we just have to put up with the fact that if you want DSL it is through your telco. If you want somebody else's broadband service, you gotta get cable, fiber, etc.

Re:DSL is dead, not broadband (1)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423494)

AFAIK ADSL is going quite strong here in The Netherlands, and I'm not at all disappointed with the performance it brings.

I don't know how its done in the States, but here almost all ISP's use the KPN (dutch telecom) network. This way the company that owns the infrastructure profits from the ISP's competing for the customers.

Re:DSL is dead, not broadband (4, Interesting)

tulare (244053) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423577)

Where I live [] , the city utility department has built fiber loops throughout the city. We get coax to the wall, and bandwidth is about two to three times what ADSL users are getting. Rather than hassle with administering the whole deal, they contract out to local ISPs for the residential users, and run a nice cable TV business on the side. It's put the local giant @home creeps on their heels, as they can't possibly hope to compete with the utilities department. IMHO, this is the way to go: keep money and benefits local. Our tax dollars happily at work. I recognize that this makes me some neo-socialist fruitcake to some here, but how much do they pay for bandwidth? I pay $25 a month, and could do cheaper if I really needed to.

Re:DSL is dead, not broadband (2, Insightful)

frost22 (115958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423582)

DSL is a technical necessity.

Already today, carriers probably pay more infrastructure costs for dial-in users than they pay for DSL. The only problem is they all sit on old voice technology that makes providing DSL much more expensive than it has to be.

So, in a few years, expect IP-over-Voice to be an expensive luxury.

Cringely just has no clue about the technologies involved.


Re:DSL is dead, not broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423718)

LOL ya look at @home, nortel and lucent stock to see how great fiber and cable are doing, bwahahah....

The question: is there demand? (1)

John Zero (3370) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423469)

And the I answer, as I see it: yes, there is!

People don't want to wait hours for web pages. They don't want to wait for days to download an mp3, a movie, a trailer, etc.

So there's the demand.

Broadband is dead? (0, Troll)

eap (91469) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423473)

That's ridiculous. My connection is working just fi&&$^*^(&)#

Re:Broadband is dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423481)

Just goes to show what happens when ;;;;jjjjjtt;;; plugs ;;; thjjjjselephone into the DSL l;e;e!

Re:Broadband is dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423518)

ATTN: the Internet spelling is 'rediculous'.

The sad thing is... (5, Interesting)

iomud (241310) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423476)

The truly sad thing is that demand for broadband is and will remain extremely high, these companies seem to have issues either meeting or exceeding costs of service. I know more than a few people who'd kill for a persistant connection it doesnt even really have to be 'broad'band. We all know what a fiasco ordering dsl can be, and cable while usually better as far as service can be hit or miss performance wise. I was on cable for the past four years and moved to a place that doesnt have any broadband options other than satelite (which is plain rediculious for the cost/performance) and have at least once a month checked on the status of it in my area. Long story short it's been almost a year, we have digital cable and verizon moves on it's own time and has no incentive to move quickly to capitalize on 'new-high-growth-potential-consumer-broadband-mark ets' so for now I twiddle my thumbs and consider moving again, only checking on the status of availibility before I move next time.

Headline problem....? (5, Insightful)

rant-mode-on (512772) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423479)

Perhaps that should read

  • Broadband in the USA is Dead....

Re:Headline problem....? (1)

spyderbyte23 (96108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423519)

Perhaps that should read Broadband in the USA is Dead....

Yeah, I noticed that too, but everything I've read about other countries(primarily the European Union) suggests that broadband there is mostly DSL, mostly too expensive, and not widely offered.

From The Register: .html

That's on Irish ADSL costing 61 pounds(about $88.55 at today's rates) a month, with a 3 gig/month usage cap. Ouch, huh?

Re:Headline problem....? (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423529)

I get ADSL (500Kbits out, 2.5Mbits in), static IP, allowed to set up any server for non-commercial use and no cap, for $25 a month. Other offers in Sweden - while not quite as good - are comparative to this.


Re:Headline problem....? (3, Funny)

spyderbyte23 (96108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423543)

I get ADSL (500Kbits out, 2.5Mbits in), static IP, allowed to set up any server for non-commercial use and no cap, for $25 a month. Other offers in Sweden - while not quite as good - are comparative to this.

Wow! What are your immigration laws like? I am already a democratic socialist, if that helps...:-)

Re:Headline problem....? (1)

fitsy (22336) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423551)

That is pretty nice, in France there are 2 packages available:

Standard: 512Down/128 UP , approx 50 USD
Pro: 1M Down/ 256 UP, approx 100 USD

They are nowhere near as good as yours though, probably cos France Telecom is still a state controlled monolith monopoly.

Re:Headline problem....? (1)

spyderbyte23 (96108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423571)

They are nowhere near as good as yours though, probably cos France Telecom is still a state controlled monolith monopoly.

How about availability? Urban areas only, rural areas, what? If the availability is good, then you've just made a pretty good case for "state controlled monolith monopol[ies]."

And is the telco in Sweden a state-run enterprise?

Here's an interesting little impromptu poll. Can you get DSL? How much is it? And is your telco owned privately or by the government?

Let's figure out how bad these state-run monopolies really are.

Re:Headline problem....? (2, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423682)

This is not from the formerly state-owned telco - their deal is 512kbits, dunamic IP, for around $30.

This is from a smaller company specializing in ADSL. As far as I've been able to determine, as long as you're technically eligible (within a set distance from a switch and no filters in betwwen), you can get it.


Re:Headline problem....? (1)

ushac (457868) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423565)

Just out of curiosity, which isp excatly is it that's offering that? What areas is the service available in? I'm not personally in need of a new connection as I'm on the 10Mbit student network here in Linköping. I'm just curious.

A friend of mine living near Stockholm recently got a 10mbit line from bredbandsbolaget for ~$20/month. That's _very_ nice for a commercial service!

Regards / Erik Språng

Re:Headline problem....? (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423698)

It's from Bonet ( I think the service is available in any reasonably densely populated area (at least Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö/Lund, Borlänge/Falun).

Bredbandsbolagets deal is very nice - if you can get it, which most people doesn't seem to be able to. The good thing about Bonet is that the landlord doesn't have to have a deal with the company; it's a deal strictly between you and Bonet.

I used to have a student connection here in Lund, but when I moved, I needed a replacement, and this is a decent substitute, even if it is slower and more expensive than what I had in my student apartment.


Re:Headline problem....? (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423554)

France: 300FF/month ($50 to $60) for 512kb/s download, 128kb/s upload, no volume cap. 900FF ($160) setup fee (includes modem). Quality of service is pretty good as of late, IE you can expect to hit the download max speed pretty regularly even at rush hours.

Definitely not dead here.

Re:Headline problem....? (1)

slimme (84675) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423570)

Here in Leuven, Belgium I've got a choice of

2 physically different cable providers (chello and telenet)


DSL service (hardware by belgacom, several service providers to choose from).

all 35-40 $ a month.

Re:Headline problem....? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423574)

Yes, broadband is a bit more expensive here in Europe...which I imagine is the reason it's still alive. Sell too cheap -> bankrupcy.

Re:Headline problem....? (1)

rakerman (409507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423533)

Remember those big, nasty monopolies, like telephone and cable service? Well in Halifax, they compete with one another to provide (locally-developed) high-speed Internet, telephone, and television services (all three are available from both services).

EastLink (cable modem) is Can$39.95 a month

MpoweredPC (DSL) is Can$42.95 a month

We've had both of these services available and reliable, for years.

Unlucky USA.

Re:Headline problem....? (2)

Rackemup (160230) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423600)

We've had both of these services available and reliable, for years

Reliable would be the key word... neither is without it's problems depending on where you live and who you talk to (eastlink has stability problems in some areas, MTT has quality problems with Vibe Vision, and BOTH need some help with running Tech Support).

But at least we get some choice... I will always prefer to get some services from each, that way a single cable break wont leave you in the dark.

Re:Headline problem....? (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423556)

Perhaps that should read

Broadband in the USA is Dead....

I think it should read "Cringley is an Idiot".

Broadband is doing just fine where I live (Central NJ). Most of my neighbors have cable modems on Optimum Online with it's great 1 Mb/sec up 5 Mb/sec down service at $29.95/mo. Just about eveyone I work with has some sort of DSL/Cable modem sevice as well.

The only thing that is slowing down broadband at the moment is the economic slowdown in the US has some Telco's profits in the dumps. As soon as things start picking up again broadband will really take off.

Re:Headline problem....? (1, Flamebait)

GC (19160) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423627)

second that...

yet another example why USA foreign policy may still kill us all...

Ah... I guess Broadband would be dead then...

Re:Headline problem....? Canada looks good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423653)

The situation here in Canada seems very good. The two best services price/performance wise would be Cable/DSL. Either go for $40/month and are fast.

There are packages offered by both companies to sweeten the deal. Cable suppliers will bundle with TV channel packages and Phone suppliers will bundle with long distance packages.

Right now, I own my own modem so I pay $30/month free of packages and strings attached (except that I must have basic phone service).

I have used @Home and ADSL in Victoria (~.35 million people) and found both were excellent with the usual tradeoffs (Cable faster in bursts with higher latentency, ADSL consistantly fast (1.2Mbit) with low ping times.

Currently I'm in Ottawa (~1.0 million people) and use a Nortel 1Meg modem from the phone company and pppoe on Linux. Its speed is almost always limited by other factors closer to the site I'm trying to connect to. When the site fast, I generally get 103Kbytes/sec (after overhead/error checking is factored in!) which is fast enough for me.

Not sure if the service providers are making any money like this, but the competition is stiff, even if there are generally only 2 companies competing for your money.

Broadband is alive and well (3, Insightful)

smoon (16873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423487)

Cable Modem is alive and well in upstate New York. DSL however has always been much more difficult to get. Not surprising, when you look at the equation:

Old copper + recalcitrant phone company / severe technical limitations + high cost == bad business.

Lets face it, just getting DSL to work is virtually a miracle, and getting it to work on every copper line going to every home is simply unrealistic.

DSL seems to be a good onesy-twosey kind of thing to implement, but I don't envy the people trying to make it work at thousands of subscriber sites.

Re:Broadband is alive and well (4, Interesting)

jilles (20976) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423523)

DSL works fine in the Netherlands. The problem in the US is badly managed telecom companies trying to revive their business using a silver bullet called DSL.

In the Netherlands the copper network is in good shape and the largest problem has been getting the local telecom switches converted (a process that is still not completed everywhere). In most of the larger cities people have a choice between cable and DSL. DSL tends to be bit more reliable but also more expensive and cable has a bad reputation mainly due to the fact that companies like @home are active on the isp site there. The competition between cable and DSL has stimulated quality improvements in both.

I've had my DSL connection for nearly a year now. Apart from some technical problems in the beginning, I've enjoyed a good connection and get exactly what I payed for. In any case, DSL and cable are of course a temporary solution until we all can have a fiber optic connection.

Of course in Europe, local telephone connections not for free (like in the US), so people are more likely to take DSL to save money. Basically if, like me, you want to be online a lot, DSL is much cheaper than a regular modem connection. In the US your local connection is for free so you can be online all day relatively cheaply.

Re:Broadband is alive and well (1)

spyderbyte23 (96108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423557)

The problem in the US is badly managed telecom companies trying to revive their business using a silver bullet called DSL.

I would more properly say that US telecoms essentially believe they deserve a government-issued license to print money, with no restrictions on their behavior. Thanks to some well-planned campaign contributions, they essentially get one.

I have a dream. A dream that Congressman Billy Tauzin will go to prison...

Yeah, broadband deserves to die. (4, Interesting)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423489)

I remember quite a while ago, while I was like eleven years old, reading in Wired Magazine about the wave of the future. We were all going to use cable modems. So, I read the article, which was a rave review, salivating. And then I got to the end of the article and they said that you wouldn't get vastly improved uploading speeds. Just downloading. Because that's all home users do.

I was eleven years old, definitely a home user, and thinking to myself, "What? That sucks."

Re:Yeah, broadband deserves to die. (3, Insightful)

mrfiddlehead (129279) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423530)

So twice the upload speed of a 56K modem and 100 times the download speed sucks does it? I suppose for an 11 year old it would be an appropriate response. It doesn't suck when I can download an entire RH distro in less than half an hour.

It's a stepping stone to a future where we all have fibre into our homes. But even that will most likely be severely restricted, especially in the US where RIAA and MPAA lobbyists will work to ensure that it is very difficult for home users to share files.

That is, assuming that the US still exists in its present form and that those lunatic islamists haven't infiltrated the system enough to sabatoge infrastructure. I won't even go into the nuclear or biological warfare issues.

Gawd help us all.

Re:Yeah, broadband deserves to die. (4, Funny)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423652)

Well, at the time they were talking about having Cable downstream only, and you'd have a regular modem doing the upstream traffic. So that's why I thought it sucked then. The reason that I think it sucks now is that most of the time, my 56k modem is faster. I guarantee you, I'm not downloading 650 megs in an hour.

Re:Yeah, broadband deserves to die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423702)

I remember quite a while ago, while I was like eleven years old, reading in Wired Magazine about the wave of the future. We were all going to use cable modems.

Ermmm...wired magazine isn't very old...are you TRYING to make me feel old? Sheesh.

i doubt that it is dead... (3, Interesting)

lyapunov (241045) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423491)

For one thing, those that are lucky to qualify for DSL and have the service, never want to give it up, unless of course the next thing is faster.

I think that the industry had a rough go of it at first because they assummed that this was the latest and greatest thing and everybody will be doing it. This is partly true. The technology was not all that it should be. I was not able to qualify for DSL until Qwest reevaluated its conditions on what allows a line to qualify. A lot of people I know would like to have DSL, but can't.

My prediction for the future...

1) A few companies will be able to continue their service, Qwest (I hope) and a few others.
2) The technology will mature to reach the masses in an affordable manner.
3)In 5-10 years (probably closer to 10) high speed internet access will be as common in America as cable tv.

I would like to know that when cable companies started up if they did not have a similar history and set of problems. Does anybody know?

Re:i doubt that it is dead... (1)

micje (302653) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423566)

The problem with broadband, according to the article, is that they don't make a profit on their current users. So either they need to raise their prices, or throttle their connections (I know cable users that get only 2-3 KB/s downstream.)

In that case, they won't keep all of their existing users, making broadband commercially even more unattractive.

Re:i doubt that it is dead... (1)

frost22 (115958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423620)

A few companies will be able to continue their service, Qwest (I hope) and a few others.

Well... it depends.
The problem is that the US has a strange mixture of cutting edge technology and an incredibly lousy track record in deploying infrastructure based on it.
The US phone system is essentially based on a customer interface popularized half a century ago. US phone companies have botched ISDN completely. Their residential copper networks are nearly proverbial for badly managed, chaotic, technically third class copper wires.
Take mobile phones - while everybody has one, the system at large is a joke, with receiver-pays billing, in-country roaming, incompatible systems, lack of standards and so on.
The problem can be seen elswhere. Public transportation is a good example. Except for a few cities with strong traditions or thinking administrations hardly a US city can compare to even modest sized european cities in terms of public transportation.
There are probably other examples as well.
IMO the US telcos just deployed DSL to networks they should have replaced 20 years ago, and bsed on voice technolgy they should have replaced 10 years ago.


slashdot frontpage glitch? (1)

lyapunov (241045) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423497)

This is off topic, but I do not know where else I should ask.

There are least 50 or so comments posted on this article and the next two but the main page is still showing that 0 comments have been posted. Is anybody else seeing the same thing?

Re:slashdot frontpage glitch? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423515)

Seems like it.

I posted well after the guy talkin' about Cringe being in the prison jumper and I'm above him on the posting list, even though I'm browsing at Oldest first.

And I still see zero comments on the homepage.

Intentional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423560)

This happened when they switched to the latest version of Slashcode. You don't see how many comments there are until there are at least 50 (I think?) and if you're not logged in as a registered user, you don't even see the story at all until it gets enough comments.

It's supposed to prevent fr1st p0st1ng. It didn't help much.

Re:slashdot frontpage glitch? (1)

jandersen (462034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423593)

It seems to have something to do with the browser! I normally use Netscape 6 - it doesn't show the number of comments. But when I start my old Netscape 4.7, it's there.

Re:slashdot frontpage glitch? (2)

michael (4716) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423595)

There's a daemon that runs and, every few minutes, updates the comment counts on the front page. It died and needed to be restarted. No big deal.

Re:slashdot frontpage glitch? (1)

Medieval (41719) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423622)

Perhaps you should write a daemon to check for daemons and restart them if necessary. :P

DSL is fine in Europe (1)

kraf (450958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423499)

Because there it's usually the big telco-s who are the DSL providers and ISP-s at the same time. And in Scandinavia broadband is also heavily subsidized.

Re:DSL is fine in Europe (1)

RALE007 (445837) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423542)

Well my friend, it isn't well known but the copper infastructure on the American side of the pond doesn't even compare to the quality in Europe. DSL is much cheaper and easier to impliment and maintain when the majority of your lines weren't laid in the 1940's. I wish things were as up to date here as they are in Europe so I too could have quality DSL.

Perhaps the solution is Uprizer? (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423500)

They claim to have a way to use distributed networking to save billions of dollars for fortune 500 companies.

Perhaps the broadband industry will be saved via better or shall i say smarter networking.

Anyhow the economy is bad now, i expect every industry to suffer, even the ones with the demand.

blah blah blah, pundits! (3, Flamebait)

ZanshinWedge (193324) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423502)

Believing what a pundit says is about like giving change for a 3 dollar bill. Tech pundits can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. If you listen to Bob Cringely predict the future you might as well read PC Magazine's John Dvorak. God, I hate these morons, they think they are "on the edge", or "ahead of the trend", or "with it", or "legit", or "hip", or "knowledgeable about the industry", or "into the scene", or "not completely moronic" because they used napster or once saw a NeXT box or somesuch. Bah! They know nothing. They are about as disconnected from the trends and about as ill equipped (informationally as well as mentally) to predict future trends as is possible outside of living in a tribe in papua new guinea that still eats human flesh.

Keep in mind that these are the same morons who thought vrml, push technology, and internet advertising would be the "next big thing".

The fact is that broadband still has a substantial customer base that is willing to pay premium prices *AND* still has a large base of potential customers who do not have broadband but wish they do. The number of broadband users will only *increase*. Now, the number of small broandband ISPs may do all kinds of gymnastic activities and will most likely be much much smaller in the future. Nevertheless, broadband is still a viable technology, a hot commodity, a viable business, and a profitable enterprise. Broadband will not go away, not now, not ever.

Re:blah blah blah, pundits! (0)

jandersen (462034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423611)

'They are about as disconnected from the trends and about as ill equipped (informationally as well as mentally) to predict future trends as is possible outside of living in a tribe in papua new guinea that still eats human flesh'

Ah, so people in New Guinea eat human flesh? What else can you tell us, apart from their being 'mentally ill equipped'? But of course, 'if they look like niggers and they smell like niggers', isn't that what you say? Never mind, keep your bigotry for yourself, please

I don't believe broadband technology is going away, but the dreamed up marvels, like video streaming on demand, ip radio and other bandwidth hogging are probably not going to last. Just like e-business is probably never going to take off in any big way (except perhaps b2b) - I suspect most people like to go shopping in person.

Re:blah blah blah, pundits! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423638)

Pay attention fuckface. he said "A" tribe. Not all people in New Guinea. Do you know anything about NG?

Re:blah blah blah, pundits! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423701)




Post Comment

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

What is "Insightful" about this? (4, Funny)

dsfox (2694) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423654)

You say "The fact is..." -- just where do you get your golden facts? If you want to show us how right you are and how wrong they are you'll have to do better than this.

Cringely (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423503)

Just because Cringely calls something dead, that doesn't mean it is. Or if something is alive, it doesn't mean he is. Take a look at the list of articles from his Old Hat page. It's like a tour of Wired covers.

Here is Cringely on Excite@Home 1. html

"Excite, like it's bigger, badder competitor Yahoo, is entirely about branding and brand awareness, so the name won't go away. Excite is better known than @Home. Current management at Excite won't change, either. Only the pockets get deeper. So in exactly the same spirit in which a little Mississippi long distance company became MCI-Worldcom, look for more content deals from Excite and more customer-acquiring deals from @Home, sucking-up smaller ISPs.
The one thing that has changed in all this is the identity of the competition. Unable to beat Yahoo at its own game, Excite is using @Home to change the game. The new target is America OnLine. "

While he has been right sometimes, he is just as often wrong, sometimes wildly wrong.

Back in 1998 he proclaimed, loudly that the iMac's intro was going to be flawed by the fact that something like 18% of them didn't work. Well the failure rate was under the industry average when they actually came out of the box. I would provide a link, but his Old Hat list starts the week after this column was out. But I remeber it dangit. 6. html

Then in Jan of '99 he said that Apple was screwed because it came out with different colors of iMacs and that was stupid.

Or there was the decleration that broadband was going to make Blockbuster go out of business.

"How long will it be before the time difference between driving to get video on demand or downloading from the Net is a wash? Three years, according to my figures. Add another three years for broad availability and to cover the impact of HDTV, which will make our video files five times larger again. In six years, then, the Blockbuster and Hollywood Videos of this country will probably be have sold their storefronts, too, leaving the strip malls of America to Starbucks and Bennetton. These intellectual property businesses will simply go away, along with what's left of the retail software business. All that will be left is books -- the oldest intellectual property vessels of all. "

It's been three years and video on demand over broadband is only for the peer to peer file sharing crowd.

Charter Cable not giving up yet (1)

ShavenYak (252902) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423504)

My local cable is through Charter Communications, owned by Paul Allen. We've had cable modem for about a year and a half. DSL is still not available down here and won't be for a long time probably. I think the problem is that phone companies are 1) clueless, and 2) still trying to protect their T-1 sales. The cable companies in general seem perfectly willing to take up the slack. Charter is spending a good bit of money advertising Pipeline high-speed internet.

Unfortunately, the cable companies are still clueless about HDTV, which should be the next item on their agenda.

Broadband isn't dead... (4, Informative)

Masem (1171) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423510)

It's just that Ma-Bell is doing it's best impersonation of T1000 from Terminator 2 and recollecting the bits of itself before it regains it's monopoly on phone lines.

It's the fact that that last mile at all parts is *physically* controlled by some facet of the baby bells, none which are struggling in terms of cash flow, which is making DSL seem like a loser. Because they control both the physical access at the CO and at the user's home, every CLEC has to sit and wait for the ILEC to go out and do something; only recently have the ILECs (at least for Ameritech here in the midwest) have been hand-slapped for being 'intentionally' slow in responding to voice-line installs and problems for residental customers, but all that was was a hand-slap in terms of fines in the millions; DSL is hidden behind this issue. If the CLECs didn't have to deal with the ILEC in any way, I would fully expect most CLEC to be able to offer installes within 5 business days, as opposed to the 4-6 week standard now.

However, fortunately, we have Verizon and PacBell at the end of lawsuits from DSL ISPs for being intentally slow, as well as the FCC watching out for the decline of CLECs (the extention on Rhythms' shutdown, for example). However, I still believe that the ownership of the last mile , from CO to the network interface, should not be in the hands of anyone that is providing the service along those lines; either the phone company can sell it off to a different group (possibly owned by the city/town as with mayn other utility services), or it can split off from that. As long as both the ILECs, CLECs, and standard phone ccompanies have to play the same pricing game, there would be much more competition in the DSL market.

I doubt it will be dead, but it probably will end up as being two major CLECs (Covad and Worldcom) along with several ISPs that use ILECs for the last mile. The only probably now is that artificial bandwidth limits are coming into play particularly with those that use ADSL. Certainly speeds are much better than dialup, but given the projected rate of growth of multimedia on the web, more speed is going to be needed for the 'average Joe' and these artificial caps appear to be fixed at the current time.

Re:Broadband isn't dead... (1)

Weh (219305) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423544)

it's sleeping

Re:Broadband isn't dead... (2)

Surak (18578) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423690)

I doubt it will be dead, but it probably will end up as being two major CLECs (Covad and Worldcom) along with several ISPs that use ILECs for the last mile.

In case you hadn't noticed, Covad recently filed for chapter 11. [] . And the rest of the telecom business is going into the ground along with it.

Things are looking bleak right now. Right now I expect the winner in all of this will be AOL/TimeWarner. :-(

Crack-smoking Cringley. (2)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423511)

Yeah, simply because there's no pay-for-play content for broadband on the Internet anymore, broadband is dead. This is, of course, bullshit.

Cringley dismisses out-of-hand the porn industry, which is the #2 broadband content provider on the Internet. #1, you ask? Ever download an MP3?

File-sharing is here to stay, and it's the driving force behind broadband. Nobody that has cable modems or DSL lines is going to give them up once they've gotten a taste of them, and nobody who has them will ever go back to modem unless it's their ONLY option.

I'll believe it when I see it, Mr. Cringely.

Re:Crack-smoking Cringley. (1)

spyderbyte23 (96108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423536)

File-sharing is here to stay, and it's the driving force behind broadband.

Yes. Yes! And what's even better about that? As soon as you get into hardcore file-sharing, your computer seems too slow(to play DivXs/rip MP3s) and your hard drive seems too small! So you start upgrading!

What if the government had kept the ILECs from crushing their enemies and dragging their feet on DSL? Would people still be buying computers? Would that have taken a little bit of the sting out of the current downturn?

Dead... dead... deadski... (4, Funny)

Psarchasm (6377) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423513)

And in related news...

Apple is dead.
Java is dead.
USB is dead.
IBM is dead.
Motorola is dead.
and of course...
Linux is dead.


Re:Dead... dead... deadski... (1)

pigeonhk (42292) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423583)

Ops, you forgot to mention micro$oft... :)

Re:Dead... dead... deadski... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423606)

Microsoft will never die. They have too many lawyers.

Re:Dead... dead... deadski... (1)

pigeonhk (42292) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423722)

Well yes...
They will not die in that way, they will die in another way.

Re:Dead... dead... deadski... (2)

Surak (18578) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423621)

*nix is dead
MS-DOS is dead
the RIAA is dead
MP3 is dead
Slashdot is dead.

Re:Dead... dead... deadski... (3, Funny)

Snowfox (34467) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423694)

Apple is dead.
Java is dead.
USB is dead.
IBM is dead.
Motorola is dead.

and of course...
Linux is dead

*yawn* ... somebody wake me up when Cringely is dead.

Re:Dead... dead... deadski... (2)

sharkey (16670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423695)

Hmmm. You left out USENET and the Internet. They've been dying for years.

Broadband is not dead, it just smells that way. (4, Insightful)

notestein (445412) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423516)

I've had "Broadband" for seven years. A few years of ISDN, a few years of DSL, and a couple years of cable.

After having DSL I moved and tried to get it again. After 6 months, 4 routers on my shelf, and receiving functioning cable, I gave up on it.

I would not live without broadband. I'm not alone. All we are seeing now is the natural retrenchment that takes place after an all out competition to grab customers saw the entry of too many players with marginal prospects of profit. One day investors woke up and the retrenchment begin.

I'm on Excite now but I'm in NYC. I expect that my service will survive even if Excite does not. Living out in the boonies is a different question. They're marginal to begin with.

If I remember correctly phone service only has about 95-98% penetration. There are still plenty of people that don't have in-door plumbing. No market ever really fully saturates, the margins just get smaller.

After retrenchment it will expand again. Years will pass. Cable and then fiber are the future. All but seriously marginal abodes will have fiber in 20 years.

DSL for everyone... (5, Interesting)

pipeb0mb (60758) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423521)

In Ellijay,GA, the local phone company [] offers DSL to 95% of it's customers.
We're talking in the mountains too folks!
Over 18,000 voice lines, 105 wire centers; they've converted hundreds of miles of copper to fiber, and are considering cable tv over fiber next year.
And nearly EVERY customer has DSL access.
The company spent about 1.5 million to make it happen, and customers get speeds up to 1.5mbs; they've yet to make a profit on the DSL, but, the customers are happy and are eating it up.
My point: if a small company can do it, in rough and nonlinear terrain [] ANY company should be able to follow suit.
Screaming broadband is dead is ludicrous.

Re:DSL for everyone... (2, Insightful)

Gill Bates (88647) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423568)

they've yet to make a profit on the DSL

Hmmm, this seems to be exactly what Cringley said in his article. Nobody, so far, has been able to make a profit and they are not likely to in the near(?) future.

You make a good point about the small local providers though -- if there's any hope for the future it lies with them. The big guys overexpanded and overspent, and are now (justifiably) going bust.

Re:DSL for everyone... (1)

pipeb0mb (60758) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423683)

I guess i should clarify that the DSL was rolled out 10 months ago...ETC takes a loss on the modems (efficient speedstreams we sell at $99) and charges the customer only $49.95 per month for 768/384 and $69.99 for 1.5/384 w/ a static IP.

The profit will take about 5 years it is estimated.

Filing Bankrupt /= Going out of business (1)

RALE007 (445837) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423531)

I actually read a (semi)unbiased version of the article in a *gasp* hardcopy publication (nuhz-PAPER?). I would just like to comment that bankruptcy filing does NOT mean going out of business. Pat your cable/dsl modems and be rest assured that this is a business manuever. It is not unheard of for companies to declare bankruptcy for protection against their creditors in times of economic strife. Last I checked the tech industry has been hit hard in the market and it would actually be quite good for the company to not be liable to it's debts for the time being until the market restablizes. Excite@home refusing new subscriptions *temporarily* is a part of their filing manuever and by no means implicates their doors and windows being boarded over. So please, don't have any nightmares of returning to the days of 9600 baud and the pleasant screams of a modem handshake.

Capitalism at work. (2, Insightful)

pommaq (527441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423541)

I don't see broadband dying. I do see a lot of providers going under, but in most cases, it is quite well-deserved. There is demand enough to go around. The Internet has become an integral part of both businesses and homes. Any self-respecting (desk jobs, at least) business will have an always-on connection today. Even my non-nerd friends get cable or DSL at home simply because they spend time on the Internet, and they want fast and convenient access to it.

However, a lot of providers got caught up in the hype. They raked in millions of investor money, set stupidly optimistic goals for themselves and got proverbial suits waaay too large for their proverbial bodies. Take Exodus for example, with their we-will-withstand-a-nuclear-war-bunkers.

So basically, any firm who has asked itself "do the clients really need this, and can we afford to run it in the long term" will do just fine. This is perhaps the Old Economy way of doing it, but hey -- the time of crazy new business models with investors on speed is past. Perhaps rates will go up, perhaps one provider will establish itself as the Sole Monopolistic Ruler, perhaps we'll all get screwed in the end. But it's just capitalism. Nothing new.

I'll but not dead (2, Insightful)

fizzbin (110016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423552)

I think Cringely's actual comments are true enough:

Broadband IS dead, or certainly dying. By this, I mean that the industry for providing homes and individual users with Internet access at speeds in excess of 500 kilobits-per-second is not generally viable, and the current players in that business are likely to decline over time.

But that's not "dead" or even "dying". I'll believe "dead" when Comcast turns off my Internet service.

Cringely may have good insights but he needs to lose the sensational headlines.

Re:I'll but not dead (4, Funny)

Surak (18578) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423714)

But that's not "dead" or even "dying". I'll believe "dead" when Comcast turns off my Internet service.

Yeah, and RoadRunner isn't going anywhere eit.*(P&(_&* ^)*(&PFSAS


grave implications to publishing (3, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423553)

Yes, established interests want to suppress this. Did you really expect the phone companies to give up their lucrative long distance communications rape? Nope, DSL is not going to happen with phone companies in charge of things. Do you expect the cable company to give up charging absorbadent fees to serve? No, they like their @work revenues, and you can expect poor TOS and port blocks. Of course the makers of slave-ware like M$ do not want a media capable of sustaining the development and distrobution of free software. Expect them to use DRM to eliminate all but approved filesharing by certified software. Do you expect existing publishers to support potential competition? No, don't expect the New York Times or any other publisher to cover the issue fairly. They all want to devide up this new media among themselves like traditional broadcast.

They are all wrong. The net is the future of publishing. It is a public resource and should be protected by existing laws. To deny any person the ability to publish on the web on their own terms, without editorial control like any meat space news paper, it to deny that person constitutionally protected rights of free speech and press. There are no valid techincal justifications for this kind of violation. Effective public legislation should be going in the opposite direction, and those companies who oppose the public interest like this should be stripped of their franchises.

We must not let anti-terrorist hysteria accelerate the loss of our rights. The USA ACT destroys our fourth amendment protection for security in our homes, possesions and personal effects. Beware of Anti-Hacker legislation that removes your first amendment rights to free speech and press.

Canadian Rural Broadband Plan Likely to Die (2, Interesting)

frank249 (100528) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423555)

A Globe and Mail article [] states that a $1.5 billion Cdn plan to bring broadband service to every rural Canadian will likely not go ahead due to the need to spend more money on security. Its a shame as farmers should have the right to download porn in a timely fashion as the rest of us.

Re:Canadian Rural Broadband Plan Likely to Die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423618)

The initiative, though, is idiotic. If it is truly feasible to have broadband to a certain place, the private sector will do it. The only places lacking it are a bunch of useless communities in the three territories; northwestern BC; the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec; and all of Labrador.

(That said, it makes more sense than a hell of a lot of the other stuff the Liberals do does. Fountains in Shawinigan! Let's have more of 'em!)

How is it in the UK then? (0)

Second_Derivative (257815) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423563)

I live in the UK and I just my new DSL in. It costs insane amounts of money (equiv of $200/mo) but I get a 5-IP block and 256kb/512kb of up/down bandwidth and it's very low-latency and reliable (well, between 5am and 10pm anyway, Demon seem to like doing maintainance at midnight). From what I can tell broadband is only on the up in the UK - are we really beginning to beat the US here? if so it's going to be the biggest irony I've seen in a while ;)

Yeah, like Video Gaming died in 1984 (1, Troll)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423567)

Looks like it's time for the Japanese to come rescue the U.S., again. Just wait 'till the Pokemon generation takes over the telcos! As it is their mgmt probably still pines for the days of leasing handsets forever, while being governed by senators old enough to have been personally acquainted with Thomas Edison.

Uh, I don't think so... (3, Interesting)

Dirty Sanchez King (527962) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423575)

Then, there is an inevitable fall off in demand.

Demand, as far as I can tell, has not slipped. Availability is the problem. I would sign up right now, if only DSL or cable were offered here. This is true for my co-workers and some of my neighbors.

Broadband is in the hands of large companies (2)

Skynet (37427) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423579)

Broadband is not dead. Broadband is really in the hand of large companies.

We have seen Northpoint, Covad, Rhythms and now @Home all go down the tubes. These were all pretty much small companies who's business plans were centric to broadband, with exception of @home but it got bought by a doomed DotCom) But pretty much their ENTIRE revenue stream came from providing people service. The growing pains of emerging technolgies have really hurt these companies as the cost to set up and run service has been consistently outweighing incoming revenue. I would like to see some of their business plans and ETA to profitability.

On the other hand - Who is still providing service? The major players left are the baby bells, and Roadrunner. All companies that get their major source of revenue from something else OTHER than broadband. The baby bells get it from telephone service. Roadrunner gets it from it's media conglomerate father. Starting to make sense?

We're slowly seeing the remaining DSL assets get bidded on and bought by major companies. Maybe that will help their businesses survive and not leave their customers "out in the cold."

I feel curious. (2)

flynn_nrg (266463) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423580)

Here in Europe ADSL seems to be profitable for all companies providing the service. I pay about 35 USD /month for a 256/128Kb connection. Is it much cheaper over there un US so those companies are losing money? What's the exact reason why all of them are going down the drain?

Re:I feel curious. (2, Informative)

rcs1000 (462363) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423710)

OK. 'ADSL seems to be profitable for all companies providing the service.'

From whence came that gem of wisdom.

In the UK the largest ISP, Demon, owned by Thus, is unprofitable. BT charges all DSL ISPs an astonishing $60 a month for use of their copper. ISPs can only charge a small mark-up (c. $10). Would you like to run a broadband ISP on $10 per month? To make things worse, BT then limits the number of sign-up to 10 a week. That's right - you can only sign up 10 customers a week and only have $10 a month to maintain your equipment, rent your bandwidth and hire your support staff. British broadband ISPs are losing money hand-over-fist and when the VC money runs out will need to merge.

In Germany, T Online, the largest broadband ISP is signing up lots of customers. Germany has the largest ISDN user base in the world and is the process of converting them to ADSL. Unfortunately T Online isn't making money out of broadband either, as customers are paying less per month for ADSL than they did for ISDN and T Online has to buy expensive equipment and do lots of costly installations.

I'm not saying broadband is dead. Of course it isn't. Technology pundits should be banned from making ridiculous statements. But is true that there is no viable business model for providing ADSL right now.

CRTC is maybe not so useless (1)

GodSpiral (167039) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423581)

In Canada, we've seen regulatory agency take a significant leadership role in deploying broadband.

Its affordable, intensively advertised, mostly reliable. FCC needs to take the same leadership. I'm growing more left wing in my old age...

As I understand it though, Excite@home's business model is as a portal. They pay local utilities (including my isp) for subscribers, and hope those subscribers give a flying fuck about their home page. I'm not sure if its a one time payment (probably is if TV Cable network model is followed), but if it is, then it going OOB won't affect my isp in the slightest. Similarly if it has to fire sale the portal.

Re:CRTC is maybe not so useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423640)

The CRTC is *fucking* useless.

Broadband here is ubiquitus because Shaw, Rogers, and their ilk see big money in it. There is big money in it because of some sort of vagary in our culture which has resulted in nearly all of our 60+ year old retirees gleefully downloading music from the internet.

Excite actually works the other way. According to Shaw's financials, Shaw pays ATHM approximately $7.50 per subscriber (that uses ATHM) for email/DNS/whatever services. All subscribers since mid-summer have been on Shaw's internal services, thus cutting ATHM out of the picture. Once the remainder are transitioned, Shaw's gross operating margin (on the broadband) will increase by 50%. For what it's worth, Shaw's capital expenditures on broadband are presently 400% their operating income. They're sufficiently large to handle that with ease.

Given that I'm not a Rogers customer or shareholder, I couldn't give you much information on them.

Not dead in the Southeast! (2, Informative)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423587)

I would like to say that this man is an idiot.

I am a residential customer of Bellsouth Fastaccess DSL, I pay 45$ a month for 1.5 mbits down, and 256 kbits up.

I have yet to have any service outages, and while the service is PPPoE based, it still works wonderfully reliably.

My friend just signed up recently, and there's no reason to suspect his experience will be different.

Just check, and notice how almost every entry on Bellsouth is a "smooth ride", or at least, acceptable.

Broadband is far from dead.

Here it's very much alive (2, Informative)

KGBear (71109) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423596)

I'm in Brazil. I've 2 DSL connections, one at home, another at the office. Both are provided by one of the local phone companies. Telefonica's DSL offer is called "Speedy" and comes in one of two flavors:

The "domestic" Speedy grants me a static IP address and is supposed to have the low ports (0-1024) blocked - but they aren't. It costs around US$ 45,00 /month in total. The one I have at home is 128 Kbps.

The "business" Speedy at the office gives me 5 static addresses (although not in the same net block) and is currently 256 Kbps. It costs around US$ 80,00 and is promised to never have any ports blocked.

Both flavors can be juiced up to 2 Mbps if I'm willing to pay up to US$ 400,00/month.

Technically the service is provided by the phone company and you shouldn't need a specific ISP for it to work. Legislation, though, forces customers to sign up with the provider of their choice for what is essentially an "Internet tax" - it's the workaround found to resolve jurisdiction over the service.

I call it a tax because the ISP side of the equation is totally unnecessary. The thing works equally well with or without the ISP. All the ISPs do for Speedy customers is to provide support - which I don't need anyway.

Anyway, the formula seems to be working and a big portion of my city's Internet connection has become DSL lines, both for home and for business purposes.

Hmm. (2)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423608)

Well.... I know in Canada, at least one of the major cable companies (Shaw Cable) who, of course, runs Shaw@HOME, has told customers that it will be continuing service regardless of what happens to @HOME.
Network service will stay.. what will go are the @home specific services: email addresses, website, etc. They are already transitioning existing users, and signing new users up, using email addresses I believe.

As for DSL.. It's widely available in Canada... and doens't appear to be going bankrupt.. perhaps because it's actually run, for the most part, by our phone companies, not by middlemen (which, if you ask me, is the real problem)

Broadband is dead ( or at least very ill ) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423626)

This is probably a good thing for the majority of us. The web site designers with T1-itis will be forced to clean up their act and go on an eye-candy diet, (every web site should be viewed over a 28.8 dial up connection before being promoted into production). It would also benefit network admins whose bandwidth is being consumed by employees surfing those bloated sites.

Broadband is dead, pfffffffft (1)

shut_up_man (450725) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423660)

Gotta love the way a Broadband Is Dead story appears on Slashdot two stories after a story on wireless broadband in Maine. Hmmmm...

As far as I'm aware, "broadband internet connection" just means "fast net", right? It's pretty silly to say that fast net connections are all dead, now and for the forseeable future. I have DSL, my friends have DSL, and many of my workmates have just gotten DSL. If all our DSL companies went out of business simultaneously (insert telco conspiracy theory here), we'd go to someone else with our money, or run 802.11x, or string cable across rooftops, or dig trenches and lay optic fibre, or we'd move somewhere where we can. Hell, we might even start our own local broadband company.

Broadband's too simple a concept to die, really. It's like normal net, except faster. Duh.

retarded post (2, Interesting)

mrm677 (456727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423678)

This is a stupid post?

I live in a city of 150,000. Just signed up for DSL yesterday. I had 3 local choices for DSL (not Cable though).

Broadband is not dead where I live (Wisconsin). Shit, my 65-year old father has DSL and he lives in a town of 8,000!!!

How much trouble is cable having? (2)

neema (170845) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423689)

At first, I wanted DSL for broadband over cable. I called Verizon or whoever it was I was getting it from and they told me I was in perfect shape to receive it.

And then they told me I was too far away.

And then they told me I was fine again.

And so on.

Finally, After about a month and a week or two, I just called Time Warner to get road runner. By the weekend, it had been set up.

I'm not suprised these guys are losing tremendous amounts of money. (DSL)

DSL's wounds are self-inflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2423700)

i had DSL since it came out in my area. At first it was pretty fast & reliable. Then swbell started advertising the hell out of it until they had more demand for it than supply. Service went to hell soon, & swbell apparently isnt interested in upgrading the network, so disconnects & slow lines became everyday fare.
whats the point in paying extra for broadband dsl when much of the time its no faster or more relaible than dialup? Also tech support was non-existant, always getting connected to the tech support sub-contractor of the month. who, of course has no idea what DSL even stands for.

sadly enough ive switched to TW/AOL cable & love it. Its faster than DSL ever was, & when i call them, THEY ANSWER THE PHONE!

this is very important. all business folks pay attention, you will only have a successful business if the business plan includes answering the phone when paying customers call. seems strange i know, giving people what they pay for, but i digress.

so when you say DSL is dying, i say good riddance.

feeeeeeeew (2, Funny)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 12 years ago | (#2423726)

I read the subject like "Borland is dead" and got worried until I read the subject again :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?