Oh, yes. I stand corrected. I have seen the "giggly girl" commercial. It doesn't stand out in my memory because it wasn't an ad against AOL. Also, what good parent would encourage their teenage daughter to flirt on the Internet like that? I am no advertising expert, but I say that (so-call "feel good") ad campaign was flawed at inception. AT&T needs to use a "compare cost" ad to gain market share against AOL. Please refrain from any snipe remark about how AT&T would have done it if it works. It hasn't done it, that's a fact. It did work, against other long distance competition. Sooner or later AT&T will use it on AOL.
Yesterday you accused me of having tunnel vision. But then you insist that for the next 5 years, 33/56K will be enough for the masses because all they want to do is email. Sounds like you also have a case of tunnel vision. If email is all, why not stay with 9600 baud?
There are always problems with new technologies. Not so long ago there was no 56K standard. These problems will eventually be solved. The key is that they are now affordable and usable. Unlike ISDN, xDSL and cable modems are $40 or less per month, flat fee. Most colleges already offer free Ethernet in dorm rooms. When the word gets around, that parents can spend $40 per month FLAT FEE and get unlimited minutes to talk to their children, either through a computer or a set-top box, they will justify the cost and the need for faster than 33/56K access.
Quite a few people I know, myself included, have a 2nd phone line just for Internet access. That extra line adds $30 to my basic phone bill when all taxes are added. Plus $20 I pay for ISP service, the total comes to $50 per month. If I can get rid of that 2nd line and access the net for about the same price, I'd do it in a heart beat. So would thousands of others. I don't have the hard figures, but the fact that new telephone area codes are necessary, seem to suggest a lot of people are using a 2nd phone line for Internet access. (Yes, I know they also add the line for fax.) |
