Beta
×

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 Majority in US

CmdrTaco posted about 10 years ago | from the that-seems-a-bit-fishy dept.

The Internet 387

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."

cancel ×

387 comments

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

Spyware? (5, Insightful)

kmmatthews (779425) | about 10 years ago | (#10015262)

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? (4, Informative)

Papineau (527159) | about 10 years ago | (#10015317)

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? (5, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | about 10 years ago | (#10015376)

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.

The way things are today (1)

BubbaThePirate (805480) | about 10 years ago | (#10015410)

consent is probably clicking "yes" on Neilsen's EULA :)

Re:Spyware? (1)

Ced_Ex (789138) | about 10 years ago | (#10015323)

It's pretty similar to those Nielsen ratings boxes they attach to your tv.

I don't think they could compensate me enough to have one of those installed at my place.

Re:Spyware? (4, Funny)

stretch0611 (603238) | about 10 years ago | (#10015355)

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? (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#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).

Re:Spyware? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015377)

We only wish you were kidding. =(

There's also people who like gator's little information collection spyware program.

Re:Spyware? (1)

kmmatthews (779425) | about 10 years ago | (#10015406)

That in my mind brings up the question of culpability.

If someone intentionally hampers $DEVICE and makes it liable to cause others harm (by infection, waste of bandwidth, etc), shouldn't the person that commited those acts (or the owner of $DEVICE) be liable?

For example, if someone removes the seat belt from thier car, (why, I don't know, and yes, this is a contrived example) and then a passenger gets in and is injured in an accident (and it can be proven passenger would not have been injured had a seat belt been installed), isn't the owner/modifier of the vehicle liable? (E.g. even if s/he wasn't at fault for the accident..)

Re:Spyware? (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10015470)

If someone intentionally hampers $DEVICE and makes it liable to cause others harm (by infection, waste of bandwidth, etc), shouldn't the person that commited those acts (or the owner of $DEVICE) be liable?

I spent the time patching the system to the latest of everything, newest SP at the time, all the protection programs I could find, etc. Everything was set to run basically w/o userintervention.

He took over because he obviously knows more about computers than I do (being a devout WinME supporter) and went ahead and removed those pesky pieces of software.

I refused to help from then on out. Let him handle it when the machine is so slow and the webpages won't load properly.

Re:Spyware? (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | about 10 years ago | (#10015392)

this is akin to hardware "spyware"

Actually it's more like Nielsen [nielsenmedia.com] , Arbitron, Hooper [museum.tv]
and other media ratings services that have been in use since advertising began in radio in the 1920's.

I was an Arbitron participant one year and kept a booklet of all the radio I heard for a week. Shortly after that a TV ratings service asked for the same, and I was glad to send them back a book mostly blank except for a few half-hours watching Nightly Business Report ;))

Re:Spyware? (1)

kmmatthews (779425) | about 10 years ago | (#10015435)

Right, but with a system where you intentionally mention what you watch, you have more protection.

What about idiot web sites that encode user name/passwords in the URL? Or other sensitive information, for that matter.

The people running this report then have that information. Sure, the company doing the report might not use it or even look, but can you be sure about the minimum wage monkey they've hired to pore through the reports?

Re:Spyware? (1, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10015496)

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.

DEATH TO JEWS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015265)

DEATH TO NIGGERS

PRAISE ALLAH!!!

I love gay sex btw. Just not with black men or dirty crooked kikes...

Thank you

NetRatings Confirms It... (5, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 10 years ago | (#10015267)

Dial-up is dead!

it was ME! (3, Funny)

ack154 (591432) | about 10 years ago | (#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! (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | about 10 years ago | (#10015416)

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.

Re:it was ME! (2, Funny)

ack154 (591432) | about 10 years ago | (#10015478)

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 (2, Funny)

soloport (312487) | about 10 years ago | (#10015481)

A new type of "haves and have knots"?

(I'd be in knots, too, if I still had dial-up).

Re:it was ME! (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 10 years ago | (#10015514)

I got high speed for the first time about three weeks ago. Of course, it's because I just moved to Korea (which the gov't here says has the highest per-capita broadband rate in the world). I've been living on dial-up for -- what? -- ten years...?

On a related note, (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015269)

A majority of dead Iraqis want Bush and his Nazi party out of the White House... NOW!

Brought to you by Swift Boat First Posters for Truth.

This just in.... (4, Funny)

wo1verin3 (473094) | about 10 years ago | (#10015274)

.... virus / spyware / trojan / hacking activity has grown 51%.

Re:This just in.... (1)

kmmatthews (779425) | about 10 years ago | (#10015310)

That does raise a good question - shouldn't people be somewhat responsible for maintaining thier computers? e.g. so those computers aren't used a spam zombies, etc, or worse.

You maintain your car, don't you?

If someone were to wreck into my car because they hadn't properly maintained thier car, wouldn't they be in a position of facing some sort of negiligence charge? If so, why doesn't the same thing apply to computers? (Granted, at the current date and time, it's rather difficult for the home user to keep thier Microsoft box secure, but we're getting there.)

FIRST REPLY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015275)

WOOHOO

OMG my first first post??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015278)

hello me troll!

And with it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015281)

...comes unprecendented amounts of spam and viruses.

How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015284)

How do people stand dial-up? I would be all over this issue if I didnt have several choices in my small town for broadband.. ewww dial-up!!

Re:How? (5, Informative)

PhilipPeake (711883) | about 10 years ago | (#10015344)

Because in HUGE areas of the country there is no alternative other than slow, clunky, high-latency, expensive satellite connections.

I have broadband only because I have the knowlege to set up a 1 mile 802.11b point to point link to someone willing to let me put DSL on their phone-line.

Before that, I lived with a 56k full-time dial-up connection for many years.

Price. (4, Informative)

LighthouseJ (453757) | about 10 years ago | (#10015347)

As someone moving from home (dialup) and to school (broadband), the answer is price. My parents get dialup for something like $14 a month, whereas 3Mbps cable internet is a shade under $60. People that get dialup don't get it for it's speed, they get it for the price. My parents don't use the internet at home so they don't know the aggrevation of trying to download a 266MB Windows XP SP2 update over modem.

Re:Price. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015382)

dear god.. $60 for 3Mbps? eek. In canada I pay $40CANADIAN for that, if I buy a $60 modem, I could get 5Mbps for the same price.. eeeek

Re:Price. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015475)

I pay $40CANADIAN

I wish I could get broadband for US$3.89.

Re:Price. (1)

Klar (522420) | about 10 years ago | (#10015532)

LOL.. although according to the bank of canada, $40CDN=$30.86US as of noon today. Canadian $ has been making a comeback--time to go shopping in the states!

Re:How? (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | about 10 years ago | (#10015468)

A lot of people I know don't do anything more than read email, or at best get the latest scores for their favorite sports.

It's hard to sell these folks on the idea of paying 5 times as much by telling them it'll be "faster", when their entire online experience lasts a half hour a month.

The "killer app" for broadband hasn't really materialized yet.

That said, I could never go back to dialup.

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015492)

What about high-speed light things. Always connected by cable or dsl, dont have to worry about the phone line. Usually not much more money than dial-up, and several times faster

In other news... (5, Interesting)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 10 years ago | (#10015290)

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.

Re:In other news... (1)

ack154 (591432) | about 10 years ago | (#10015341)

and residential porn downloads
Soooo... is that bad?

Re:In other news... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015367)

Yes. All porn downloads should be industrial-sized. Let's step it up, people!

Re:In other news... (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 10 years ago | (#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.

Broadband prevalant bewteen 18-20 year olds? (1)

ZephyerX75 (775476) | about 10 years ago | (#10015299)

Its cause they like to download pron XD, they need that broadband.

Re:Broadband prevalant bewteen 18-20 year olds? (3, Funny)

Kjuib (584451) | about 10 years ago | (#10015346)

That only applies to 48% of the 51% which is interesting due to 76% of the 49% which are on dial-up. This concludes that 99% of percentages are made up along with 99% of females on net being naykeed.

HPB's (5, Interesting)

Ikn (712788) | about 10 years ago | (#10015300)

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.

Re:HPB's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015417)

now it seems dial-up users are definitely becoming the minority

Yes. This is true. This is because that's what "51% of internet users have broadband" means.

Fantastic! Goodbye HTML! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015303)

I can skip all that messy HTML/CSS stuff now and just make my web pages giant graphics. Text is so over-rated.

College (5, Insightful)

dlosey (688472) | about 10 years ago | (#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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015415)

That age range is popular because internet and email is needed for schooling.

Suuuuure, that's what Billy says he needs it for. Surely it can't have anything to do with the fact that "teh IntraWeb is full of teh b00bies!"

Re:College (1)

red_flea (589243) | about 10 years ago | (#10015531)

Or it could be that we don't pay our own ISP bills... Aside from you backward schools, for those living on campus, the bill is included in dorm costs, which my parents are paying. :)

Broadband... (0)

BoldAC (735721) | about 10 years ago | (#10015305)

the total number of Americans using the Internet at home grew less than 10%

American internet-use has peaked. The asian controls now are the majority of internet users...

Are any of you paying translators to convert your sites due to this amazing trend? I don't know what to do. Our companies missing half of their potential customers?

AC

Re:Broadband... (1)

og_sh0x (520297) | about 10 years ago | (#10015395)

Not really. You forget that, while most Americans and many other 1st language English speakers are uni-lingual, many people who speak other languages are bi- or multi-lingual, speaking English out of necessity. Especially Internet users, considering that English is still the language of choice (although Chinese certainly has a chance at claiming that crown.)

Re:Broadband... (1)

stratjakt (596332) | about 10 years ago | (#10015519)

I R KOREA KEKEKEKKKE ^_^

"Chinese" isn't a language. They speak all kinds of languages and dialects in China. IIRC, mandarin is the most popular. There's little point in learning to speak "chinese" because the odds that any given Chinese person you try to talk to speaks the same dialect you just learned is fairly low.

Re:Broadband... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015399)

Are any of you paying translators to convert your sites due to this amazing trend? I don't know what to do. Our companies missing half of their potential customers?

I will be glad to translate your writing to English. I'll even do the same for Slashdot, if they don't pay me in LNUX options.

... In other news: Congratulations! (4, Funny)

Lord Haha (753617) | about 10 years ago | (#10015306)

(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...)

Re:... In other news: Congratulations! (1)

celeritas_2 (750289) | about 10 years ago | (#10015414)

The reason...in my 30 seconds of thinking about it...that the US is behind on broadband use, is because of people like me. I can only get broadband in two ways: crappy satalite for $100 a month, and paying 3.5 million to lay cable line five miles into town where broadband is still much overpriced. I pay 20 a month for dialup which is nearly as much as some people in cities paying for 512 k. The lack of competetion amongst dialup providers is getting better, but is still a problem.

Re:... In other news: Congratulations! (1)

stretch0611 (603238) | about 10 years ago | (#10015419)

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.

Re:... In other news: Congratulations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015469)

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...)

Well at one point they had over thirty million subscribers, not sure what the current number is. If that is still accurate then about 50% of the dial up users left out there are using AOL (yes I know they have broadband now too, but I don't think too many of their customer base actually have enough sense to upgrade). Thats FAR too many idiots out there for me...

So, what's next? (2, Interesting)

pubjames (468013) | about 10 years ago | (#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?

Verizon FIOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015353)

Verizon is beginning to role out up to 30-Mbit/s fiber connections, with the 5 Down / 2 Up Mbit/s connection priced at $40/mo, and 15 Down / 2 Up at $50/mo. The 30 MBit down / 5 Up is expected to be about $200/mo.

Re:So, what's next? (1)

rkrabath (742391) | about 10 years ago | (#10015383)

I have an idea for you:

A neighborhood LAN, which will grow and interconnect to other LANs to form a MAN, which will further interconnect to form a country wide WAN. The growth of this could be amazing. Internet conenction sharing, neighborhood routing, etc.

The internet of the future comes 300ft at a time.

That's a start (1)

Swamii (594522) | about 10 years ago | (#10015314)

Now all we need is a fiber optic majority.

This is Likely Not Very Accurate (1, Insightful)

Coffee Warlord (266564) | about 10 years ago | (#10015318)

"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. Personally, I still think the vast majority of folks are using dialup. There's a whole lot of people who just dial in, check their mail, log off

Re:This is Likely Not Very Accurate (1)

Ced_Ex (789138) | about 10 years ago | (#10015413)

That is a good question. Where exactly are these random 50k participants chosen from? Are they all over the US, or some select parts?

I wonder if any of the participants reside in places like Alaska, or South Dakota. Just seems like those places amongst many aren't likely to have vast options on their method of connecting to the net.

Re:This is Likely Not Very Accurate (4, Insightful)

AEton (654737) | about 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:This is Likely Not Very Accurate (2, Interesting)

Daniel832US (530981) | about 10 years ago | (#10015515)

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 :(

Re:This is Likely Not Very Accurate (1)

happyfrogcow (708359) | about 10 years ago | (#10015454)

not to mention those who have broadband but don't have a land line phone so they can't be contacted through a random phone number list.

skewed both ways, eh?

Re:This is Likely Not Very Accurate (1)

Otter (3800) | about 10 years ago | (#10015459)

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.

Dial Up Endangered? (1)

grunt107 (739510) | about 10 years ago | (#10015321)

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)

This changes everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015327)

I guess now it's OK to vote for Bush. Kerry promotes broadband. [usatoday.com]

A victory for big old media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015328)

With the restrictive TOS and intoxicating speed, people are being placed on the unidirectional, mass media owned Corporate Internet.

P2P and any open ports will soon be outlawed because they are only used by criminals "stealing" copyrighted materials and of course, terrorists.

Brought to you by Comcast...

In other news... (4, Funny)

indros13 (531405) | about 10 years ago | (#10015329)

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."

49% is still way more that it should be (1)

CodeMaster (28069) | about 10 years ago | (#10015335)

With the low prices of Cable/DSL - even for a "slower" 1.5Mb service, I can't believe that anyone is still signing up for those "optimized" (it's called a proxy stupid) dialup services.

Last time I had to dial in - I just logged off after a couple of minutes to prevent a small mass murder of bystanders... ;-)

get a free ipod [freeipods.com]

Re:49% is still way more that it should be (0, Flamebait)

zaren (204877) | about 10 years ago | (#10015503)

$60 a month is a "low price" for cable - or (where I live) $100 a month for 144 DSL, when compared to $15 a month for "optimized" dialup?

Re:49% is still way more that it should be (1)

greechneb (574646) | about 10 years ago | (#10015525)

My dial-up is $15 per month, DSL, and wireless internet are $50 per month. Not worth it for me. I download at work, transfer to keydrive or cd, and take stuff home. I don't want to use a computer after I've been working on one all day long anyway.

I've found... (2, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | about 10 years ago | (#10015340)

...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.

Living IN (1)

suso (153703) | about 10 years ago | (#10015342)

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"

Compared to Canada (1)

yamla (136560) | about 10 years ago | (#10015361)

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 provider or ADSL provider actually blocks servers, but they do not officially allow them either. I could almost certainly find cheaper packages but not by very much.

Re:Compared to Canada (1)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10015520)

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 it for the time being. Anything is better than a horrible TOS *and* port blocking.

Re:Compared to Canada (1)

happyfrogcow (708359) | about 10 years ago | (#10015530)

Virtually no package from our cable provider or ADSL provider actually blocks servers, but they do not officially allow them either.

Yeah, i found that Time Warner RoadRunner explicitly forbade running servers, but didn't anything to stop you (3+ years ago). But now after a year of no net access except at work, I'm going to get SpeakEasy DSL because they explicitly say you can run whatever you want (maybe with the exception of e-commerce stuff?).

I'd rather pay a little more to a fair company than, pay anything to a restrictive company.

Problem in the survey method (5, Funny)

kaosrain (543532) | about 10 years ago | (#10015366)

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.

Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015369)

You can thank crappy 56k porn stream for wide adoption. Oh, and the promise of MP3s and warez helped too. I still see broadband ads that tout the benefits of faster music downloading (and not necessarily iTunes et al *wink*).

People VOLUNTEERED for this?!?! (1)

ewhenn (647989) | about 10 years ago | (#10015370)

....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... (3, Insightful)

Saxton (34078) | about 10 years ago | (#10015374)

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

Re:Not so fast... (2)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10015411)

(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 (2, Informative)

Ann Coulter (614889) | about 10 years ago | (#10015379)

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.

18-20?? A useless statistic... (1)

MixmastaKooz (621146) | about 10 years ago | (#10015390)

US. Broadband was most prevalent among people ages 18 to 20.

Well...that stat didn't suprise me: A big portion of 18-20 year olds are in college, of course they'll have access to broadband! But then again, my conjecture depends on this: Did they count dorm rooms as "home usage" in this?! Kids just out of high school might not have the resources to set up a broadband connection...unless they were provided one by their dorm/apartment complex...

That is quite a jump (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 10 years ago | (#10015400)

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.

Broadband Quality (1)

Launch (66938) | about 10 years ago | (#10015404)

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?

Statistics should be taken by Area, not Population (4, Interesting)

guitaristx (791223) | about 10 years ago | (#10015405)

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!

18 to 20? (1)

krygny (473134) | about 10 years ago | (#10015437)

"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?

Heres your answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015509)

Colleges offer broadband on campus. When kids go home to rural suburbia, they may have to go back to using the phone.

Sample Contamination issue. (2, Insightful)

olclops (591840) | about 10 years ago | (#10015438)

"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 itself skew the sample results? After all, people who have broadband are far more likely to answer the phone when the pollers call. No dial-up busy signals to contend with.

Re:Sample Contamination issue. (1)

freak4u (696919) | about 10 years ago | (#10015504)

Good point. Isn't that one of those things that you learn in Statistics class; to make a valid sample and make sure it's not contaminated? Then again, statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to. 95% of all Statistics are made up ;)

big picture (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 10 years ago | (#10015450)

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.

and 45% have no internet access at all (2, Interesting)

n-baxley (103975) | about 10 years ago | (#10015451)

a statistic not to be overlooked.

Please God, don't make me ever go back... (1)

Ravensign (134410) | about 10 years ago | (#10015461)

Dear God,

Please, pretty, pretty please, don't ever make me go back to Dialup.

If necessary, you can take any limbs of your choosing, just please leave a mouse hand and at least one eye.

Thanks.

Re:Please God, don't make me ever go back... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015535)

What good is a mouse hand and one eye if you lose the one member that you need to view asian lesbien pr0n?

Well, can you think of a better use for broadband?

Broadband? (3, Interesting)

Honest Man (539717) | about 10 years ago | (#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?

majority (0, Redundant)

RU_Areo (804621) | about 10 years ago | (#10015491)

perhaps technically a majority but when speaking in terms of 63 and 61 million people is it even worth reporting?

People use dialup?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10015495)

I've been on broadband for over 5 years. When I see someone do dialup I just get this "WTF?!" expression. I can't believe it. Some people still use dialup? Inconceivable!

Are such statistics useful? (4, Insightful)

leonara (87228) | about 10 years ago | (#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 (2, Insightful)

mabu (178417) | about 10 years ago | (#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.

What kind of price/bandwidth ratio do you have? (2, Informative)

bludstone (103539) | about 10 years ago | (#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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>