Power Outage

[Peachy]

and even 300kb images should not be THAT unbearable for dial-up users, i would think.

Prelude,even a 300kb file image file would take about 45 seconds to download. For some that's unbearably slow, especially if there are more than one image.

[Prelude76]

and even 300kb images should not be THAT unbearable for dial-up users, i would think.

Prelude,even a 300kb file image file would take about 45 seconds to download. For some that's unbearably slow, especially if there are more than one image.

whats 45 seconds to a dial-up user? i just think of it as added incentive to get broadband. like a form of shock therapyon a more serious note, arent ALL images slow on dial-up? if i think back to dial-up days, every webpage slowly loaded into view. it was just part of life. banning images that are too big is going backwards to the age of 256 color GIFs, interlaced images so image is partially viewed while still loading, etc.. these days, .PNG are more and more becoming norm and they're a high-quality albeit large format. if its a real bother, why dont the dial-up users that find it unbearable simply turn off images in their web browser? just thought of something. why doesnt Firebird or IE develop an option that loads all images, except images over a certain size, say 300kb or whatever. this way, peace is achieved, and we can all go back to just using the internet.

[georgeg4]

I only wish for a 300kb image file to DL on my computer in 45 seconds . Try 112 seconds or longer ( at 26.6 kbps do the math yourselves ) and that is top speed for my isp . I have been on pages so graphics intense that I need to disable image downloading to get the page download time to less than ten minutes . So I agree with the rule 100% .And as to High speed access the only high speed that I have any access to is Sat. And on a fixed income that is impossible . $900.00 to install and $65.00 a month connection charges . I am sure there are many more in my situation as well . So until sometime in the future ( which many of us will never see ) when broadband becomes available to folks who do not live in a highly populated area we will all have to live with dial up I am afraid .

[Prelude76]

seriously though, its a good idea. why doesn't Firebird add an option "Do Not Load images over 250kb" or something along those lines, and instead you get a "Click here to load" for any images above 250kb automatically. then, this would apply to ALL websites not just this forum.

[ibe98765]

I think a revamping of that statement would be advisable in light of the facts

In the UK, 3.9% of homes have broadband. In the US, this is figure 17%

http://www.mis.ed.ac.uk/services/mobilehom...rsus_dialup.htm

Ever hear the old adage that there are 3 kinds of lies - lies, dammed lies and statistics? You need to be careful how you interpret statstics.Your quoted figures, while possibly accurate, are percentages of all homes, NOT wired homes. You might want to read the article from Businessweek magazine that I posted here:http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/forums/inde...=ST&f=10&t=2571An excerpt:Broadband is on a tear in the U.S. for the 12 months ended in June, the number of speedy, always-on internet connections has soared 43%, to 22 million users, according to market researcher RHK Inc. That's 18% of U.S. households. In four years, it could balloon to 50% of American households, estimates Forrester Research Inc. The service is surging "faster than any other consumer technology except DVDs," says Forrester analyst Jed Kolko.I think the number of WIRED American homes is something like 65-70%. With approximately 122 million homes, 70% of this number would be 85 million WIRED homes. So the broadband penetration is closer to 25-30% in the USA. As broadband prices come down, more and more people will opt for this service. Also the FTC is revising some rules which might further help broadband penetration.

[Guest LilBambi]

ibe98765,Thank you! I was looking for that article! But I was in a hurry and knew the stats I posted were within a point or two of the articles current stat for the US (17% versus 18%).You are right there are many that are wired for it but not actually using it as yet. In time that will increase, but that is not the case now.The US is not our only audience, we have members from around the globe, and many areas around the world do not have access to broadband yet.Even in the UK the figure is considerably lower than the US's 17% or 18% that was quoted.Personally I hate statistics. I have always held that in many types of surveys, data can be sliced any way they want to put a particular spin on the subject.However, the only thing I was trying to point out by using the stats is that we can not cater to one group of folks (especially since that group is such a small group in the overall scheme of things), at the expense of other groups. Particularly when one of the other groups is still such a large number of users around the world.Jeber has the right of it when he so elequently stated,

Because in this forum, we're concerned for all our members, not just those fortunate enough to live in areas where broadband is available or those financially able to afford it.

[Jeber]

Let me stick my neck out a little further and speculate that predictions of broadband expansion are based on availability, not affordability. Pollsters can easily determine which providers will expand their service, but it's harder to determine who will be able to pay for that service. Now if they get busy on that "house-wiring/dsl" concept I've heard about, or if the government decides to subsidize broadband (so that the government pays for the service, and not the people ), maybe broadband will see faster growth. But for now, a person's access to broadband depends not on their desire to have high speed access, but on their ability to receive the service and pay for it.

[zlim]

Jeber, on behalf of the dialup users here, THANK-YOU for sticking your neck out. I saw some statistics showing what percentage of the US doesn't have broadband available. (I don't want to lie with statistics and I can't find the article yet, but my feeble memory seems to remember it was more than 50%). I'll see if I can get some facts to back up my memory.I'd love broadband (and could manage at this point in time to fit it in my budget) and even though I live in a large city, last time I checked, it wasn't available in my neighborhood. Even our webmaster, Scott was gnashing his teeth waiting for broadband to come to his neighborhood. So please, those of you on broadband, don't look down your noses at us stuck in the slow lane on the information highway, sometimes getting broadband is not within our control.

[greengeek]

Couldn't agree more about the affordability of broadband. If I was on my own I wouldn't even be able to afford to use the 'net at all, I'm also on a fixed income (pension) and unable to just go out and work to earn some more cash. It really annoys me when people who have good incomes assume that everyone else can afford the same things that they have.

[Prelude76]

Ever hear the old adage that there are 3 kinds of lies - lies, dammed lies and statistics?  You need to be careful how you interpret statstics.

come on, statistics are very useful and accurate. 79% of people polled agree.

[Prelude76]

Couldn't agree more about the affordability of broadband.  If I was on my own I wouldn't even be able to afford to use the 'net at all, I'm also on a fixed income (pension) and unable to just go out and work to earn some more cash.  It really annoys me when people who have good incomes assume that everyone else can afford the same things that they have.

dang, how expensive is broadband for everyone? i;m a bit clueless to other places' prices, i can only say how much its in canada.Dial up Internet $20/monthHigh-Speed Internet $35/monthCable TV Plus $45/monthTelephone $40/monthLong Distance Phone $25/monthCar Insurance $120/monthElectricity $95/monthHeating $120/monthHealth Insurance $85/monthi'm just trying to make a point. this isnt about "rich people only" on broadband. my hi-speed bill is one of the cheapest bills i pay each month, yet gives me so much benefit. i agree its not one's fault if high-speed is NOT in your area, but if it IS and you dont have it, why even bother going online?

[Cluttermagnet]

Couldn't agree more about the affordability of broadband.  If I was on my own I wouldn't even be able to afford to use the 'net at all, I'm also on a fixed income (pension) and unable to just go out and work to earn some more cash.  It really annoys me when people who have good incomes assume that everyone else can afford the same things that they have.

dang, how expensive is broadband for everyone? i;m a bit clueless to other places' prices, i can only say how much its in canada.Dial up Internet $20/monthHigh-Speed Internet $35/monthCable TV Plus $45/monthTelephone $40/monthLong Distance Phone $25/monthCar Insurance $120/monthElectricity $95/monthHeating $120/monthHealth Insurance $85/monthi'm just trying to make a point. this isnt about "rich people only" on broadband. my hi-speed bill is one of the cheapest bills i pay each month, yet gives me so much benefit. i agree its not one's fault if high-speed is NOT in your area, but if it IS and you dont have it, why even bother going online?

Err-I think you're showing a little inflexibility. I have digital cable running through my neighborhood but I have not subscribed for cable internet because I am a notorious cheapskate and also because our monopolistic local cable company charges way more than they should ethically. The basic deal is 50.00 US per month _if_ you already subscribe to cable TV. Although I am losing track of that price structure, I believe that very basic service runs about 60.00-70.00 per month. Most pay more, some way over 100.00 and approaching 150.00. If you do not subscribe to cable TV, cable internet costs 60.00 per month. So you are looking at a minimum of 60.00 for cable internet but most people are customarily paying probably 120.00-150.00 or even more. Yikes! Cable bills are getting to look like car payments used to. No thank you!In this area, a basic phone line (touchtone standard) runs about 18.00 per month. That gets you 65 free outgoing calls per month. Extra calls add 0.08 or so per call (unlimited incoming). I'm paying currently 18.00 per month for my ISP service. They are very good, but I have found a perfectly acceptable nationwide service for 8.25 per month. I will switch over to that one at the end of the year. So for me it is 36.00 per month for ISP vs. 60.00 if I went with cable. At year's end, that drops to 26.25 per month for perfectly acceptable dialup service. You know what? I just don't do all _that_ much downloading. I have the patience to wait for the slower downloads at 28.8 or 26.4. If I really, really need that latest Linux download, I can have my buddy the next town over download it for me off of cable overnight. IMHO what is on cable TV these days is just not worth it. It is largely c**p. I don't need it, don't miss it. I live in a large metro area with extended suburbs. I can receive about 7 local VHF stations and about 15-16 UHF stations. I find plenty enough there to keep me happy. The cable vendors know fully well they are going to have to offer some better deals or settle for their present low level of market penetration. You see, I want more for the same old price. Pretty revolutionary, eh? So far, they have not budged from their position, and I have not moved from mine. It's a standoff. There are plenty of things I won't bother to download. Huge Linux distros, most Flash animations, streaming videos, etc. Cutesy animated avatars do not get me upset, though it is a rare one that I actually like. They just don't take all that long to download at 28.8. I have seen a couple I did not care for. I find them distracting and occasionally annoying, but really not worth fussing over. If I can't stand one of them, Firebird will zap them away for me. Why bother even going on line? Please! I guess I should just take myself out back and shoot myself because I dont have broadband. Jeez, I thought I was having such a lovely time on the internet. Now you've gone and ruined it all for me. OK, I admit it, if I were a gamer, I would not be saying this- but I skipped that whole computer games, PC/AT, DOS thing and jumped in right when 486/Win98 was the latest greatest. I want to do the surf/ email/ newsgroups thing and occasionally download 1-10M software utilities. I'm very easy to please. I have absolutely no interest in online gaming, swapping large video or music files. downloading huge Linux distros, or watching streaming videos or DVD's on my computer, for that matter. I can rent all the movies/ videos I want to (none), I can see all the news I want and good quality PBS stuff all for free over the air. They will not put an end to all that until the govenrment has handed over control of all media to a few greedy moneybags and they dynamite the very last TV transmission towers and close the last video rental place. Not all of us want every last thing to have to be streamed to us through one ubiquitous computer. Oh, that time may be fast approaching, but that time is not yet. I like diversity, I like lots of choice. I think there are a bunch of other folks just like that. The low market penetration numbers for broadband are trying to tell us something. (They are either high or low depending entirely upon your point of view)

[Guest LilBambi]

Broadband in different areas varies.Some folks are beginning to see price decreases - at least in areas where they actually have broadband available.It may be one of the lowest items on your list, but it is not even an availability to add to our monthly bills where we live.Monthly bills are the ones that really bite arent' they? .. They will eat you alive. "Dollar down and a dollar a week" ... seems there was a song about that at one time many moons ago ... got to the point where they couldn't even afford to live because they had so many dollar a week items in their bills.

[ibe98765]

If you want to look for broadband availability in your area, tryhttp://www.dslreports.com/I have SBC. They are offering new subscribers a lower price and yet not reducing charges to existing customers. I currently pay $50 monthly for 384-1500/128. So I searched DSLReports and read the user postings there. Found a service called DSLExtreme with high ratings and customer satisfaction. I can get the same service level I have now for only $30/month (which coincidentally is still through SBC. ).I notice that they are also offering 192-384/128 service for $24.95 monthly on a 1 year contract. If they don't offer service in your area, I'm sure there are others at similar price levels. Just be sure to read all the fine print. So DSL/Cable might not be as expensive as you think. Even 192/384 is 3.6 to 7.25 as fast as a 56k modem at full 53kbs download speed, which most people don't hit anyway.Prelude - are the prices you quoted in US or Canadian dollars?