• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Broadband Users > Dial Up Users in US

GashPrex

NeoGaf-Gold™ Member

SyNapSe

Member
Wow, that was a really big jump for one year. Is broadband just more readily available? Or is it all the $29.99 DSL ads I see (only for 6 months or a year)..

but then.. they know once your hooked, you can't go back :(
 

btrboyev

Member
I don't believe these numbers are correct..last i read which wasn't too long ago had dial-up still was ahead by a far margin.
 

GashPrex

NeoGaf-Gold™ Member
btrboyev said:
I don't believe these numbers are correct..last i read which wasn't too long ago had dial-up still was ahead by a far margin.

They didn't just make it up

NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers.
 

SKluck

Banned
It's not fair when new users can get cable internet for $20 a month for a year, when I've been with them for like 3 years and am stuck at $40 a month. How about loyalty price breaks or some shit?
 

Culex

Banned
My father managed years ago, to fenaegle my cable company to lower my rate after I had repeatedly lost service for two straight months.

40 dollars a month for 3 years now, 3000/256 :)
 

Scoobert

Member
GashPrex said:
They didn't just make it up


They did. Check your quote again:

NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers.

They used 50,000 people to make these numbers. Unless I'm misunderstanding that whole part.
 

Vieo

Member
When some young genius at MIT figures out how to make a dial-up modem faster than current broadband connections, all of that is gonna change.

The Dial-up Revolution is coming...

BTW...
Did you know that AOL™ 9.0 Optimized with TopSeed™ Technology loads webpages on dial-up 50% to 60% faster than on regular dial-up?
 

GashPrex

NeoGaf-Gold™ Member
Scoobert said:
They used 50,000 people to make these numbers. Unless I'm misunderstanding that whole part.

I take you have never had a stats course huh? A random 50,000 sample is HUGE - the margin for error is extremely small, within decimal points.
 

Culex

Banned
Vieo said:
When some young genius at MIT figures out how to make a dial-up modem faster than current broadband connections, all of that is gonna change.

The Dial-up Revolution is coming...

BTW...
Did you know that AOL™ 9.0 Optimized with TopSeed™ Technology loads webpages on dial-up 50% to 60% faster than on regular dial-up?

Yes, it sends all .jpg and .gif images to a central cached server for faster loading. Doesn't work on all webpages and only for image loading from pages. If you want to download stuff, you're still shit out of luck.
 

Scoobert

Member
Not everyone of the 50,000 people is random. And 50,000 is not a whole lot when you have to take in account millions upon millions of people.
 

border

Member
Scoobert said:
Not everyone of the 50,000 people is random. And 50,000 is not a whole lot when you have to take in account millions upon millions of people.
STA2014 - Elementary Statistics

This course is an introduction to descriptive data analysis, probability, statistical distributions, confidence intervals, testing of hypotheses, regression, and correlation. Technology will be integrated in this course. (Cannot be used to satisfy upper-level degree requirements by mathematics and statistics majors).
 

Soul4ger

Member
Wow, broadband really made a huge leap forward. Last I heard, it was a very small percentage of the market that used broadband.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Scoobert said:
Not everyone of the 50,000 people is random. And 50,000 is not a whole lot when you have to take in account millions upon millions of people.
*sigh*

please please please take a statistics class. As long as the survey was implimented properly there is no reason to assume that the results are not acurate.
 
I spose what he's saying is that we don't really know if the survey was implimented properly. Broadband is a priviledge service compared to dial up -- did they make sure they were selecting from a broad economic range in the sample?

120 million homes means a lot of people have access but then.. America's a pretty big place. I think this report is probably spot on. The numbers would come crashing down when you started looking at specific upload/download rates, and who used consoles or was even interested in online gaming -- but it's still pretty impressive. The UK too has been experiencing a broadband boom.. here's a thread I made on the subject on IGN's Gamecube board:

Broadband penetration -- how it will make free online gaming a reality

I've always been of the belief that online gaming will become lucrative as broadband penetration increases. That moment is not yet here - Microsoft have invested $2 billion in Xbox Live (and rising)... yet they have seen but a few hundred million in return. Thankfully, to most gamers, money won't matter: especially given how deep they know Microsoft's pockets are, and how patient the investors seem to be. It's a long haul strategy for Microsoft and it's proving popular. But how far off is this kind of online embrace for everyone else in the business?

OFCOM, the UK's communications regulator - which tracks all forms of 'new-media' has some new findings. It predicted at the turn of the millenium, that in half a decade - broadband penetration would almost exponentially increase; the amount of online homes online at any speed in the UK having an even greater increase. Here's where we stand now:

*** 53% of Britain's homes are online.

**** One third of that, or 17.6% approx enjoy a broadband connection.

***** There are 55,000 new broadband connections made each week in the UK


If you were to only take the 25 million homes built in the UK since 1850, that's 13.25 million homes online - 4.4 million with broadband. In a perfect 2.4 children world that's potentially 53 million kids with internet access or 17.6 million with broadband. Alas, it's not a perfect world. These estimates could be skewed in either direction depending on any number of things. And of course, even if you were to try to apply them to gaming as a pro-online argument: how many of those homes own online-capable games consoles?

The good news is this: high speed internet is on the rise! And fast! I can't even imagine what US or JPN penetration is like, or what figures are like for elsewhere in Europe (although according to OFCOM, the UK is one of the best in Euroland in this regard).

I forsee having a networked home being as ubiquitous as the television set in our lifetime. And long before that kind of penetration is realised, there'll be enough people online in the world, at fast enough transfer speeds that gamers can enjoy quality Peer 2 Peer gaming with one another for free! MMORPGs will probably always have maintenance costs until someone finds a better model... but think of how exciting this is for all of you online-Nintendo-nuts!

...That critereon that Nintendo wants/needs to see before it throws serious weight behind the idea is growing. Soon we will no longer be a priviledged minority in the userbase. Soon lot's of their customers will be able to take advantage of it! If you're getting online-gaming kicks from the one manufacturer in the industry right now who can afford to do it properly: then props to you! You should be having a good time. To the Nintendo fans among you - is it really that bad an idea that Nintendo waits until they can offer something similar for free? In case you're wondering, I actually think that short wait is nearing it's end already.

Thinking on about what Reggie and Nintendo have been saying regarding wireless multiplayer too: this is bound to become a massive thing. Preston, which is no national landmark by any means, has become the first city centre in the UK to establish a city-wide WiFi network. You can bet London, Liverpool, Manchester and even smaller areas will follow - with cable companies here like Telewest/Blueyonder and NTL already pimping the latest hubs/switches and wireless routers for the modern home: for people wanting to use multiple internet-ready devices. You'll probably find companies across the pond are doing likewise. Cost-wise, prices on the hardware requirements are coming down, and the more people that lap it up, the more attractive business becomes for providers and wouldbe competition. The better the competition? It becomes even easier to bring prices down. Keep an eye out (wherever you are in the world) for the signs of growing popularity in high-speed connectivity. It's the future, I've tasted it!


The beginning of an online world as we are destined to know it?

I think so! I don't think I'm going out on a limb here: it's not the end of the world because Nintendo isn't making online games right now.

For all this talk of waiting for the right business model, and a desire to offer free online gaming - the skeptics could be forgiven for thinking Nintendo will never jump in. But mark my words on this - you can bet your bottom dollar - in the next few years, broadband is going to be significantly widespread. I believe Nintendo will make online games, and they may even encourage others to do it before that. While online gaming for me has never been a necessity, and I personally find the variety in genre and creativity of most online games to be lacking, there are some gems out there! Allow me to finish in telling you what you already know: playing Nintendo games online is gonna ROCK.

Thom
 

daMandus

Member
"NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers."

Big mistake... most of the homes with dial up probably had a busy line while browsing the net. Or not. ;)
 

snapty00

Banned
I could get cable, but it's so damn expensive. Besides, I really want DSL. I like the idea of the connection basically being "mine."
 

TheQueen'sOwn

insert blank space here
daMandus said:
"NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers."

Big mistake... most of the homes with dial up probably had a busy line while browsing the net. Or not. ;)

hah! So true lol.
 

Seth C

Member
snapty00 said:
I could get cable, but it's so damn expensive. Besides, I really want DSL. I like the idea of the connection basically being "mine."

Are you hung up in 1999 or what? Maybe you had to worry about that with cable years ago, but not anymore.
 

Seth C

Member
daMandus said:
"NetRatings, based in New York and Milpitas, Calif., used a panel of 50,000 participants selected through calls to randomly generated phone numbers."

Big mistake... most of the homes with dial up probably had a busy line while browsing the net. Or not. ;)


Of course, many broadband homes (at least cable) have kicked landline phones out the door. I know I only use a cellphone, which they won't be able to randomly get through to.
 

daMandus

Member
Seth C said:
Of course, many broadband homes (at least cable) have kicked landline phones out the door. I know I only use a cellphone, which they won't be able to randomly get through to.

So it evens out then... cool, I knew we could trust stastistics once more.

Anyway, since I don't know that much about the States and the situation over there, your statement is interesting. And not unlikely either I guess, and with IP-phones the trend could go on.
 

dskillzhtown

keep your strippers out of my American football
scola said:
*sigh*

please please please take a statistics class. As long as the survey was implimented properly there is no reason to assume that the results are not acurate.


Well, if you did take a stats class, the sample population cn be manipulated to say whatever you want. If you included only households making $100k or more, the numbers would lean towards broadband use. If you word the question, "Do you use a broadband connection?" that could include using a broadband connection at work. My point is you can make a survey say whatever who is funding it wants it to say. Note the sample was "selected through random calls." So the sample went through a filtering after initial selection.

I have designed surveys to get the responses that I want for companies because that is what was desired.
 
when you take a basic statistics you will learn that if you sample 50,000 people out of 1 million and you sample 50,000 people out 1 billion, the error for both are identical. The size of the population does not determin the error only the size of the sample does.
 

tenchir

Member
EarthStormFire said:
when you take a basic statistics you will learn that if you sample 50,000 people out of 1 million and you sample 50,000 people out 1 billion, the error for both are identical. The size of the population does not determin the error only the size of the sample does.

Like Damandus said earlier, it's only statistically accurate if there isn't a problem with the sampling. Considering they had to "call" each house to ask if they have 56k or broadband, it's already against the 56k since they could have been online at the time, so the sampling is tainted.

Do you shout out "Raise your hand if you can't hear me" into a crowd of people and then conclude there are no deaf people in that crowd?

Of course, many broadband homes (at least cable) have kicked landline phones out the door. I know I only use a cellphone, which they won't be able to randomly get through to.

You shouldn't make statements you can't really back up. How do you know "many" people have kicked their landlines when they have cable AND cellular phone? Or assuming that enough people used cell phone exclusively to say "many" and not "some" who also have broadband and not 56k.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
tenchir said:
Like someone Damandus said earlier, it's only statistically accurate if there isn't a problem with the sampling. Considering they had to "call" each house to ask if they have 56k or broadband, it's already against the 56k since they could have been online at the time, so the sampling is tainted.

Do you shout out "Raise your hand if you can't hear me" into a crowd of people and then conclude there are no deaf people in that crowd?



You shouldn't make statements you can't really back up. How do you know "many" people have kicked their landlines when they have cable AND cellular phone? Or assuming that enough people used cell phone exclusively to say "many" and not "some" who also have broadband and not 56k.


Listen to this man. He's talking about bias. You can poll a bunch of alcoholics and come up with an erroneously inflated statistic on drunk driving.

Why isn't the amount of broadband accounts a better assessment of how many broadband accounts there are? Is it cuz companies don't want to open up this info? Don't they have to report this in their yearly reports? Or is that open to 'inflation' bias from the companies?
 

Phoenix

Member
Seth C said:
Are you hung up in 1999 or what? Maybe you had to worry about that with cable years ago, but not anymore.

Actually you still do. I have coming into my home Bellsouth DSL and Comcast cable modem. My Comcast connection is far more unreliable and wavery about delivering bandwidth than my DSL line. I've been testing them for some time now and yeah - cable modem STILL has some funky usage patterns during peak hours.
 

Lazy8s

The ghost of Dreamcast past
tenchir:
Considering they had to "call" each house to ask if they have 56k or broadband, it's already against the 56k since they could have been online at the time, so the sampling is tainted.
Perhaps the study accounted for this by calling back the numbers that were busy until a response was received.
 

doncale

Banned
even though I switched from dial-up (WebTV, Dreamcast, PC) to DSL in 2002 (for PC) and then to Cable (for PC, Dreamcast, Xbox) in 2003, I don't believe there are more broadband users in the U.S. than dial-up users.


I rememeber when broadband users were only 5% in the U.S., then 10% then maybe like 15% - the most I could believe is 20%-25% are broadband users now. leaving 75-80% dialup users.


I think there might be only one type broadband service that could surpass the number of dial-up users. it's called Broadband over Powerline or BPL. it works off the electrical infrustructure. one company, Currect Communications , is offering BPL service in Ohio and in one of the smaller states on the east coast. if you are fortunate enough to have avaliblity, you can plug a computer into any and every electrical outlet in your residence. you use a poweline modem instead of a DSL modem or Cable modem. anyway here's the website http://www.current.net/

be sure to watch the vid also: http://www.current.net/WatchTheVideo/
 

border

Member
tenchir said:
LConsidering they had to "call" each house to ask if they have 56k or broadband, it's already against the 56k since they could have been online at the time, so the sampling is tainted.
If you get a busy signal, you just call until you get through, rather than throwing out the number and moving on to the next one. Seems like that would be pretty obvious to any polling agency...
 

open_mouth_

insert_foot_
My 28.8 connection has been serving me just fine for the better part of the last decade and I don't see that changing any time soon. I'm the best damn 450-ping Counter-Strike player this side of the Atlantic.
 

Lazy8s

The ghost of Dreamcast past
doncale:
it's called Broadband over Powerline or BPL
I remember when the breakthroughs in maintaining signal integrity were being made for this technology several years back. It's good to see that the service has been launched.
 

Seth C

Member
tenchir said:
You shouldn't make statements you can't really back up. How do you know "many" people have kicked their landlines when they have cable AND cellular phone? Or assuming that enough people used cell phone exclusively to say "many" and not "some" who also have broadband and not 56k.

How can you say ANYONE they tried to call up was tying up the line with the internet? You can't. You don't know. Maybe they had a dedicated line for the internet (I did). Maybe they just weren't on the internet when the call was attempted. You have no clue. Neither do I. We're both assuming something, but YOU will pretend your assumption is based on FACT, won't you, Mr. "It's already biased against 56K users?"
 

Seth C

Member
Phoenix said:
Actually you still do. I have coming into my home Bellsouth DSL and Comcast cable modem. My Comcast connection is far more unreliable and wavery about delivering bandwidth than my DSL line. I've been testing them for some time now and yeah - cable modem STILL has some funky usage patterns during peak hours.

For you. That's all that tells us. It could be your cable company. It could be your line quality. It could be the number of splitters it goes through to get to your cable modem. It could a thousand different things, and only one of them is the technology cable based broadband uses. Go ahead and blame it on that though. :)

I could say that my cable service is cheaper, faster, AND more reliable than my DSL ever was, and all those statements would be true. Doesn't make it true across the board, but it tells us just as much as your example.

Still, the "don't get cable, your neighbors will leech your bandwidth" in 99% of the cases is no more than marketing tool DSL providers use. The only real difference in the technologies involves where along the path you begin to share resources with other users. In both cases, if the provider over-saturates their available bandwidth for a certain area, service will suffer. At some point between you and the cable/DSL provider your data is sharing space with others in the area, no matter which service you choose.
 

Tsubaki

Member
SKluck said:
It's not fair when new users can get cable internet for $20 a month for a year, when I've been with them for like 3 years and am stuck at $40 a month. How about loyalty price breaks or some shit?

That makes no sense... couldn't you "cancel" your current service and sign up as a noob to get the discount?

I mean, when I subscribed to DSL, it was $50/mo. Then they had a promo for new customers for $35/mo., and I asked them if I could get that price. They said I could, as long as I sign up for a year's worth of contract, which is essentially the same as cancelling my current service and starting anew but w/o all the trouble.
 

doncale

Banned
my Cable internet is significantly more reliable than my first DSL provider, DirectvDSL, and slightly more reliable than my 2nd DSL provider, SBC Yahoo! DSL.
 

pestul

Member
SKluck said:
It's not fair when new users can get cable internet for $20 a month for a year, when I've been with them for like 3 years and am stuck at $40 a month. How about loyalty price breaks or some shit?
Yeah dude.. you must be able to sign up for a new contract guaranteeing your commitment for a year.
 
Top Bottom