30% of U.S. Households Stuck in Dial-Up Hell

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Are you in the miniority of the US still stuck with connection speeds less than 0.2 megabits per second? A report from the FCC found that in fact, 30% of all US households in the US are still below that threshold.

About 80 percent of households in the top 10 percent of earners have Internet connections faster than dial-up. For the households in the lowest 10 percent of income, 45 percent have connections faster than dial-up.
Click to expand...
 
I couldnt handle dial-up in 1999. I would probably stop using a computer if I had to use dial-up now.
 
Back when I was hearing a squelch from the modem I would be pleased as punch to have 0.2 Mbps speeds :D
 
Judging by two of the above comments, you should know that some people are oblivious by choice. I know it's a foreign concept on THIS site, but reality is there is a part of the population that DOES NOT CARE about even using the internet, and those folks certainly will not willingly pay for fast internet service. It's a matter of personal preference.
 
If it was still that slow I would buy hard copies for everything and steam sales would be off the shelf cause it would take days to download.
 
Days to download try weeks lol. I think I was using satilight dial return back in 1999 lol was like 350kbps down and dial up , upload lol really sucked for gaming.
 
Hay I believe that wrong in not 0.3 mbps should that be 0.03 mbps you need 256k DSL for 0.3 mbps right.
 
Stopped using dial up in 1997. At dial up speeds today you'd have to watch a webpage load it would be like super lag.
 
In my surrounding area here in North Carolina, all you can get is dial up just about. There is no Cable TV on most of the roads. Cable TV / Internet is only available to the very few people that live on the main road. Thousands live on a road connecting to the main road. But because the Cable TV lines go straight down the main road then the entire area is considered to have broadband access.

In the FCC report they would show up as people that have access to broadband but stay on dial up. At least that's what my state representative told us some years ago.
 
Bootleg Usher said:
Have dial-up speeds increased at all over time?
Click to expand...

Yes, I had a 300 baud modem, then a 2400 baud modem (with v.42BIS bitches!!!!!!) then a 28.8kbps modem, then out came "56"k but I never went that fast and jumped right to 1.5Mbps DSL.

But remember, that was a slightly different technology in that basically your ISP (or BBS) basically had the same equipment you had, where as with DSL technology your ISP does not have a DSL modem just like you have at home to do the talking to. Plus DSL technology, doesn't occupy all the channels of your phone line.
 
BBA said:
Judging by two of the above comments, you should know that some people are oblivious by choice. I know it's a foreign concept on THIS site, but reality is there is a part of the population that DOES NOT CARE about even using the internet, and those folks certainly will not willingly pay for fast internet service. It's a matter of personal preference.
Click to expand...

Or their more than happy with their smart phone plans and that's not factored into the "internet speeds". I'm pretty sure more than 55% of the lowest 10% of income earners have cell phone coverage of some sort that gets them on the internet in some way.
 
Bootleg Usher said:
Have dial-up speeds increased at all over time?
Click to expand...

They can't increase from 56k because of the limited bandwidth of plain old telephone lines and something called the Nyquist rate. They can and do roll out lines with greater bandwidth, but when they do they use the extra bandwidth for DSL.
 
Ya same for me - best I could get in WV was 33.6 dial up in 1999. Moved back to New England and jumped on the cable modem thing. I wouldn't be surprised if 56k dial up modems are still the only option in that particular part of WV - it's pretty rural there.

The thing is, no matter how many articles people write about this, no matter how many times it's discussed - it's not going to change. The technology isn't there. What company is going to lay down miles and miles of cable to service the three houses on that road? It doesn't make financial sense. They are lucky to have electricity (and it was so rural - not even everyone had that - yes seriously - in 1999)
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yes, I had a 300 baud modem, then a 2400 baud modem (with v.42BIS bitches!!!!!!) then a 28.8kbps modem, then out came "56"k but I never went that fast and jumped right to 1.5Mbps DSL.

But remember, that was a slightly different technology in that basically your ISP (or BBS) basically had the same equipment you had, where as with DSL technology your ISP does not have a DSL modem just like you have at home to do the talking to. Plus DSL technology, doesn't occupy all the channels of your phone line.
Click to expand...
Me I start out on 14.4 all way to Dual 56k Modem "Diamond Suprasonic II" then ISDN, DSL and I even had the Joke one way Cable Modem carp Ekk!!
 
30%?!

Holy hell, I thought we as a nation were nearly all broadband by now. I assumed that maybe only 10% or less of the population still has dial-up, not nearly a third!
 
Internet should be treated just like a utility. No different that power imo.
 
bacon said:
Internet should be treated just like a utility. No different that power imo.
Click to expand...

So every month they give us a bill on a data rate per usage? Also should they enact 'conservation times' requiring lower usage during peak hours? haha

I get where you are coming from but the problem is, who is going to pay for it to run to a few houses? Say there is 10 houses down a stretch of road, it may cost the company about $5k-$10k or more to provide for those 10 houses. Lets say only 4 of them subscribe to service and being that they have been used to dial up all this time, more than likely would get the lowest speed package anyways. Yes there is a lot of assumptions, but the truth is, there is no money to be gained.

I remember getting informed from roadrunner back in 2000 that to run a repeater at the end of my street to provide to the area could be done but would cost me $3000 to install it. I'd imagine it has gotten more expensive over time.
 
This study is suggestive of one of the big issues. Some people have not yet understood the value of broad band. One funny thing that will happen is a skip of landline broad band. Many people who are in the lower classes are experiencing their first fast internet through mobile devices. These people then falsely believe that mobile phones are superior. Mostly because the vast majority of their only experience with broadband has been over loaded library or public wifi connections other than that they think 56k is fine. So they favor paying for cell service over broad band and talk it up. Seen a number of these people. It is sort of the same effect that caused the iphone to blow up, most people just had little to no experience with smart phones prior to the iphone it was their first introduction and they were comparing it to flip phones.
 
Must be why AOL still exists, least their dial-up is now free for those who can't afford broadband or simply pinch pennies.
The crazy part is, what computer younger then 10 years old still has a modem?
 
Been rocking 56kbps til the end of 2009.
Coarse, it was nice that my neighbors had an open wifi on broadband. :)
 
If you're mostly using email, and in an offline manner (like using outlook, etc) where all it does online is send/receive, it's not too bad. You can usually even configure it to not automatically download attachments above a certain size, etc.
 
Sky15 said:
I have not had dial up since 1999.
Click to expand...

This. I got my first DSL broadband connection in Jan of 2000. Bellsouth's 1.5Mbps ADSL baby. I was so baller I had two of them w/ load balancing router. My house was the LAN party house on the weekends.

Ah the good ole days.
 
I was on dial-up until 2001. My usual connection speed was 24.4 to 26.4k. Very rarely I'd connect at 28.8k (yeehaw.)
 
cageymaru said:
In my surrounding area here in North Carolina, all you can get is dial up just about. There is no Cable TV on most of the roads. Cable TV / Internet is only available to the very few people that live on the main road. Thousands live on a road connecting to the main road. But because the Cable TV lines go straight down the main road then the entire area is considered to have broadband access.

In the FCC report they would show up as people that have access to broadband but stay on dial up. At least that's what my state representative told us some years ago.
Click to expand...

Well sure, if it's anything like rural Iowa, then "technically" they do have a choice:

(prices for 3Mbps DSL based on quota)
iowa-prices.png


(source: http://arstechnica.com/business/201...t-blows-try-300-for-3mbps-dsl-and-a-data-cap/)

I wonder why people don't want it eh?
 
Pretty sure a 3Mbps connection can not download 100GB of data in a single month and that's assuming the connection is at 100% full throttle and you're getting the full 3Mbps connection which is unlikely with DSL.
 
Skillz said:
Pretty sure a 3Mbps connection can not download 100GB of data in a single month and that's assuming the connection is at 100% full throttle and you're getting the full 3Mbps connection which is unlikely with DSL.
Click to expand...

You serious?

You must be joking.......... 3Mbps connection cant download 100gb in a month maxed out?
 
Skillz said:
Pretty sure a 3Mbps connection can not download 100GB of data in a single month and that's assuming the connection is at 100% full throttle and you're getting the full 3Mbps connection which is unlikely with DSL.
Click to expand...
3,000 kilobit a sec / 8 bits * 60 sec * 60 min * 24 hour * 30 days = 972,000,000 kilobytes ~ 927Gigabytes
 
30% on dial up seems an incorrect number. Akamai's latest report puts 73% of all US traffic at over 4mbps. Somehow I doubt that the majority of the remaining 27% (lower than the claimed 30%) are using dialup over slow DSL or GSM. I could see some dialup still in use in unique situations, but I seriously doubt we are more than a few % for that type of connection.
 
doz said:
I couldnt handle dial-up in 1999. I would probably stop using a computer if I had to use dial-up now.
Click to expand...

Dialup was fine before the internet was easily accessible. You logged in to BBS system with a bank of modem for incoming connections.
Who can forget the Apogee BBS where you could score games like commander Keen and DOOM.
Not bad when game were typically 2 or 3 meg.
 
griffinhart said:
30% on dial up seems an incorrect number. Akamai's latest report puts 73% of all US traffic at over 4mbps. Somehow I doubt that the majority of the remaining 27% (lower than the claimed 30%) are using dialup over slow DSL or GSM. I could see some dialup still in use in unique situations, but I seriously doubt we are more than a few % for that type of connection.
Click to expand...

If an area is still on 1950's telephone lines like my area in North Carolina, DSL connections aren't supported as the lines are too noisy. When it hits 100 Fahrenheit, our phones and electricity typically stop working during the hottest time of the day as the lines start to sag on the poles and the connections within the phone boxes become loose from the effects of the heat.
 
BBA said:
Judging by two of the above comments, you should know that some people are oblivious by choice. I know it's a foreign concept on THIS site, but reality is there is a part of the population that DOES NOT CARE about even using the internet, and those folks certainly will not willingly pay for fast internet service. It's a matter of personal preference.
Click to expand...

Some people have no other alternatives. If you want a fun time, price out rural internet options.
 
ep0x73 said:
Must be why AOL still exists, least their dial-up is now free for those who can't afford broadband or simply pinch pennies.
The crazy part is, what computer younger then 10 years old still has a modem?
Click to expand...
My work's Acer Aspire M3800 PC!
 
Semantics said:
3,000 kilobit a sec / 8 bits * 60 sec * 60 min * 24 hour * 30 days = 972,000,000 kilobytes ~ 927Gigabytes
Click to expand...

Dang, messed up my calculation in my head. I got 90.5GB before I posted. :eek: I think I divided by 1024 one too many times. Oops.
 
Wow I figured most people in the states had FTTH these days.

I remember dialup, the biggest thing was not just how slow it was, but how unreliable it was and the fact that it tied up the phone line. We got ADSL in the early 2000's, it was the most awesome thing. A whooping 1mbps, and always on! Though a lot of people turned off their modem at night because they were scared of hackers. :D Speaking of hackers, anyone remember dialup viruses? It would use your modem to dial oversees calls and rack up a huge phone bill. I'm actually surprised there arn't such viruses for cells yet.
 
BS 30% are stuck because that's where they choose to stay. There's cellular 3g or 4g mobile hotspots (or just get a tether app on your phone), as well as satellite internet like wildblue and hughnet that cover 100% of the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top