My survey on cable:
Know three people who have tried it:
One in Salt Lake City tried cable for several months, gave it up for DSL. Said cable was simple off line more often than not. Not so pleased with DSL either, but more reliable.
One in Fremont, CA, got cable, after about two weeks of it never working, had them take it out. He cannot get DSL, so he uses a 56k modem.
One in Alameda, CA, is reasonably pleased with cable. Seems to be available most times. However, he has internet availability in the office, so probably a day off here and there is no major bother to him.
The ex-CEO from ADC said the problem was that not enough people were willing to pay $40 for broadband. I think he is wrong. IF there were reliable (>99%) broadband, that overall was noticeably better than 56k modems, I think a lot of people would sign up for it. After all, for $20 more per month, you free up a phone line, and get faster speed.
For that matter, if 56K modems worked without constant waiting, and at speeds normally approaching 56k, a lot of people probably would not have a great desire for broadband. For functions such as reading bulletin boards, the main wait is waiting for the download to start for the next page. I've had this problem for all three ISP's I have used. I assume it is endemic. I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 just to have my ISP work halfway to the potential of 56k.
I wonder when available services will really improve for the common consumer. |
