AllThingsD » dial-up

Dial-Up Lifers Still Love AOL

John Paczkowski — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:35:52 +0000

At its peak, nearly a decade ago, AOL had some 26 million dial-up subscribers. But in recent years, those numbers have dwindled as consumers migrated to more modern, speedier offerings that don’t require an antique Global Village Teleport 56K. Frankly, who wouldn’t?

Turns out, a lot of people. Millions, actually.

As Dan Frommer points out over at SplatF (worth bookmarking if you haven’t done so already), AOL still had 3.5 million dial-up subscribers as of the end of September. And interestingly, most have been using the service for an average of more than 10 years.

Sadly for AOL, the maturity of that subscriber base is in no way a guarantee of retention. The company still lost about 630,000 subs in the current quarter compared to last year. Ugly news, particularly since a lot of AOL’s profit comes from its access business.

You've Got Labor Problems, Again! AOL's HuffPo Gripe Seems Very Familiar.

Peter Kafka — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:30:39 +0000

Internet site asks users to help it grow, hits the big time, forgets about the little people.

Huffington Post contributors griping in the wake of the site’s sale to AOL? Sure. But it’s also the same gripe that AOL users made in the dial-up era.

And–pay attention, angry bloggers–some of those AOL users eventually got paid!

The bad news: They had to go to court to get their cash, via a class action suit they filed in 1999. And they didn’t see a check until last year.

As the Columbia Journalism Review reminds us, the old, pre-Time Warner AOL used to rely on an army of volunteers–”community leaders”–to do essential gruntwork like moderating chatrooms. Wired called it a “cyber-sweatshop.“

And while it took a decade, the plaintiffs in the AOL case did end up with something for their trouble–a $15 million settlement, handed out last year.

Of course, 30 percent of that–$4.5 million–went to the lawyers, court documents show. But that’s still $10.5 million divvied up among a couple of thousand former chatroom monitors. You can’t retire on that, but you could buy a few MacBook Airs.

So could HuffPo’s angry bloggers get something for their troubles? Seems like a tough case to make: One big difference between AOL’s unpaid workers and HuffPo’s unpaid writers is that AOL really did treat its workers like workers.

It recruited them through want ads, held them to time commitments and compensated them with benefits like free or discounted dial-up access. (Remember that?)

HuffPo’s writers, on the other hand, simply handed the site some copy, which it ran–just like the people who submit op-ed pieces to newspapers. And I never hear about them demanding cash for their work. It seems quite clear that the trade is your words/their distribution.

Still, you never know! And I’m sure there’s at least one attorney, somewhere, who’s ready to try it out. Let’s check back in a decade and see how it panned out.

As Egypt's Last Internet Connection Goes Down, Alternatives Appear

Arik Hesseldahl — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:50:29 +0000

Even as the main Internet service providers in Egypt were shut down last week in a move to quell anti-government protests, one connection remained online: The Noor Group (usually found at www.noor.net). Its ties to various financial concerns and the local stock exchange gave it some political cover.

Now Noor is gone too, reports Renesys, the Internet intelligence research firm that has so closely followed the Egypt’s strange disappearance from the digital realm.

That has some Egyptians turning to spotty dial-up connections cobbled together by Internet activists, most of them in Europe. Telecomix, an organization that promotes Internet freedom, published a list of reliable numbers that Egyptians can call with their modems. The French Data Network reactivated a barely used but still perfectly functional bank of modems.

For those with functional fax machines, a German outfit called We Rebuild set up a fax-to-Internet service that allows Egyptians to send fax messages that can then be relayed as email messages or posts they can publish immediately.

Finally, some folks at Google, Twitter and SayNow, the phone service that Google acquired last week, hacked together a Speak-to-Tweet service for Egyptians to use: Call an international number, leave a voice message and it’s published on the Twitter account @speak2tweet. People in Egypt can hear the same messages by dialing the same numbers used to send the messages.

Here’s one message from an Egyptian woman speaking in English:

Almost Famous: Ben Zotto of Cocoa Box Design

Drake Martinet — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:05:56 +0000

This week, we coffee’d at Coupa Cafe on the Stanford University campus to interview Ben Zotto. He’s the mind behind Cocoa Box Design, the app company responsible for Penultimate, a sleeper hit at the iPad App Store.

Who: Ben Zotto, lead everything (it’s a one-man shop).

Ben was at Microsoft and worked for Xoopit, the email-enhancement start-up acquired by Yahoo (YHOO).

What: Ben’s Penultimate brings a Moleskine notebook-style user interface to the iPad. He just released an update that allows you to rest your palm on the screen while writing, the same way you might with a pad and paper.

Why: It has been in the top tier of the Apple (AAPL) App Store for weeks.

Where: cocoabox.com (Web site); @cocoabox (Twitter); San Francisco (analog place)

Who Else: Apps like PaperDesk and Idea Boards use the pen-and-surface interface. Penultimate does drawing a little differently, though. Ben says it’s about the ink.

Five Stats You Won’t Find in His Facebook Profile:

Worst Job: I’ve been pretty privileged. I was a short-term photocopy runner for the Junior World Ice Hockey Championships in Geneva when I was in my teens. It wasn’t bad, but I don’t suppose it played to all of my strengths.

School Days: I grew up in Boston, but we moved to Switzerland during my high school days. I left eighth grade in Massachusetts, maybe never before having left the state. And within a month of arriving in Geneva, we were on a history class trip to Florence. It was awesome.

Geek Crush: There are a lot of guys from my Microsoft (MSFT) days who are my programming heroes. Guys like Tracy Sharpe and Dinarte Morais. I’m also a big fan of Wil Shipley.

It’s something about his combination of making beautiful and functional software and being fiercely independent–you know, a coffee shop denizen–that I’m attracted to. I actually found the designer I worked with on Penultimate through him.

Gadget Freak: I don’t carry a lot of gadgets. I am pretty picky about my work set-up, though. I use an Apple extended keyboard from the 1980s with the heavy-duty key switches that I rescued off eBay (EBAY) and the Microsoft optical IntelliMouse, which is, for my money, the best mouse developed so far.

Early Internet Memory: Right after I moved to Switzerland, I had a friend back in Boston who would email me. It was probably 1992, so it wasn’t really email. He found some dial-up number at MIT that had an open gateway.

It wasn’t obvious then how you would send an email to an internal address where my dad worked. It was one of those early u-u gateway/bang-this/bang-that things. He finally figured out how to get it to work, and my dad’s secretary would print out these letters from my friend Micah back in Boston.

That was how I heard the news from Massachusetts for a little while. Micah is a recent recipient of a Ph.D in computer science from UPenn. Not a fool.

Bio in 140 Characters

Ben had an international childhood. He has worked at Microsoft, Xoopit and Yahoo. He writes software that he hopes is beautiful and useful.

The Five Questions

How long have you been developing Penultimate? Why is it a killer app when so many others don’t seem to be?

Originally, I developed an app called Handwriting for the iPhone. There was potential there, with the touchscreen, to give a personal touch to messages through handwriting that wasn’t there before. For that reason, I spent a lot of time working on the graphics math for the ink.

I wanted the input to really resemble the handwriting of the user. It turns out that getting digital ink to look real is a really subtle thing. I spent a lot of time getting it to move right, getting it to feel smooth and whatnot. I finally got it where I was happy with it.

I released the app and basically, nobody bought it.

People responded well, but I realized that anyone who used the app would only use the surface that they could see within the bounds of the iPhone screen, even though I made it so that you could scroll around easily to get a bigger surface for writing.

Size was clearly an issue.

The iPad coming out meant that all of a sudden something that was just more of a single tool like handwriting could be scaled up into an app with real uses, and all it took was more screen real estate.

Steve Jobs, in his iPad release presentation, said that if they’d added a stylus, they’d have gotten it wrong. Does the success of your app fly in the face of that vision?

It’s funny, I’d never heard that until now. I didn’t watch that speech.

When the iPad came out, I got this vision of doctors walking around making notes, and it looked like there would be lots of use cases where a keyboard just wasn’t ideal.

People would need to input info standing up, while moving and in portrait mode. From the pictures, it wasn’t clear the keyboard would be great for that.

I developed Handwriting and Penultimate to be used with your finger, and that’s how I use them most. And I think Apple has good reasons for not pushing that. They could have developed handwriting recognition, but for them, that draws away from what they are really trying to sell.

Handwriting recognition is really hard, and as soon as you do that and say you are going to do it with a finger, you have people saying, “Why doesn’t this thing recognize my handwriting better?”–instead of marveling at all the amazing things you can do with the platform.

Have you faced issues from Apple, developing a popular app that goes a little against the grain?

I’ve heard complaints about the App Store, but I’ve had a pretty good experience so far. It usually takes them about 48 hours to approve updates for my stuff. That said, there are some hardware things I’ve run into.

A big one is trying to get palm rejection in my app so that you can place your hand on the screen to write and not have it register as a touch.

On the iPad, Apple doesn’t expose those drivers to developers. On the MacBook, for instance, you can hook in the driver and get all the data–the width of the touch, rotation, everything.

All that is closed off for the iPad, so getting the natural handwriting position has been really challenging. I’m playing with that right now because it’s been one of the loudest requests.

You are embracing this use case that Apple seems to wish wasn’t there. What other requests are you getting from users who want to be able to write on their iPads?

I think form-filling is a big one. There are apps that do that, but their ink technology isn’t as good as mine, which is why I think I get those requests even though there are other apps in the field.

I got this great email from the head of a police department, who said that out in the field there are all these forms he has to fill, and he wants to take them with him and not have to bring paper.

There are all kinds. I got mail from a roofing contractor who wants to be able to snap his drawn lines to a grid to draw quick plans.

I’ve got friends who are doctors who think it’s a great idea, but say they could never use it because of HIPAA.

There seems to really be a lot of uses for being able to write by hand and make notes in this very natural way.

You worked in regular software before you did this. What is fundamentally different about developing for this platform? What are people missing about that?

I think a big difference today is that people expect updates much faster than before. It’s fundamentally different than shrink-wrapped software world, where you would spend lots of time making and refining a product, packaging it and shipping it out.

Today, people expect to see some kind of update or fix every couple of weeks and they expect them to be free. If you don’t issue an update for a while, people might begin to think you are dead.

Because the mobile platform apps are these single-use things, there is a perception that they are smaller or more simple and that therefore there is an entitlement to future updates. It’s great for users but really hard for developers.

There’s this ever-present question: “How much software is ‘three dollars worth’?”

The In Living Color Interview

[ See post to watch video ]

If It's Tuesday, It Must Be the National Broadband Plan–If Your Connection Isn't Too Slow, You Can Tune In Online

Kara Swisher — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:33:28 +0000

Finally, after much advance leakage, the Federal Communications Commission will unveil its National Broadband Plan on Tuesday, March 16.

The two key questions about the effort to get the United States up to speed, so to speak, with decent digital access: Will it be toothless or not and will there be any money to pay for it, given the cash-strapped federal government?

A possible highlight of the plan concerns whether spectrum should be allocated for a free or inexpensive high-speed wireless service. It was a notion mentioned by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at a meeting in Washington, D.C., earlier this week.

This is not an idea that telecom providers have warmed to in the past, of course, since they so enjoy sticking it to consumers with spotty service and high prices.

And if the report proposes the restoration of some regulations lifted in the previous Republican administration, you can be sure the Prada-wearing political lobbyist brigade will be at the ready.

What the FCC opus will surely point out is the obvious: The U.S. needs high-speed access to improve dramatically across the nation, especially for poorer citizens and in rural areas.

As BoomTown and many others have pointed out many times, our high prices and low speed make the U.S. the laughingstock of the digital world.

And the federal government’s lack of attention to the one innovative arena this nation shines in–tech–is appalling.

The plan will be the first big move by Genachowski, the longtime Internet exec who will appear as a speaker at the eighth D: All Things Digital conference in June.

One certainty about the latest plan: It will be a long document of hundreds of pages, so save some trees and get it online here at the aptly named Reboot.FCC.gov site.

In fact, the FCC open commission meeting, where the plan is being unveiled at 10:30 am ET on March 16, will be streaming live on the Web at the site.

A recent FCC report noted that two-thirds of consumers in the U.S. have some sort of broadband connection. On average, they pay $41 for this sometimes dubious privilege.

Incredibly, six percent of Americans still use dial-up access and four percent have no broadband at home at all.

Not surprisingly, poor people access the Web a lot less, although longtime gaps among races are closing, with African-Americans and Hispanics gaining in access and usage.

So whatever the FCC proposes, at least it will shine a light on this critical issue.

And a new plan is better than none at all–I think–so let’s see what’s what on Tuesday.

Tim Armstrong Makes One Last Pitch for AOL: "No More Hail Marys"

Peter Kafka — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:15:56 +0000

AOL is about to cut ties to Time Warner (TWX), and CEO Tim Armstrong has been making his case to current and potential investors. Here’s one last pitch, delivered to the crowd at the annual UBS (UBS AG) Media and Communications Conference in New York.

Note to readers and/or Engadget editors: This liveblog is not an official transcript. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one. Cool? Cool.

Q: Why leave Google, which is awesome, for AOL, which is not?

A: The Internet is still at an early stage. AOL is a global brand, and that’s hard to build. We have a unique set of assets. AOL can be core and central to where the next $50, $100 billion are going. And we have unique talent to make a run at it.

Q: Please explain your strategy.

A: “Content, ads and communication.”

Q: Why is this turnaround different than other AOL turnarounds?

A: I can tell you whatever, but you need to see metrics move to believe me. But we have a good strategy. “You have to maniacal about the piping,” and in the past AOL wasn’t. We had terrible integration of acquisitions, systems. You want to be able to take $25, $40 million ad deals and run them through the piping and we haven’t been able to do that.

Q: Please explain AOL’s content strategy.

A: We launched our content platform last night. A single platform. It uses data, helps scale to content producers and will work with thousands of partners. It differs from Demand Media et al in that we already have scale for production and scale for advertising. We can snap those two platforms together. [Note: No mention of robots yet.]

Q: Is AOL interested in video or other self-produced stuff?

A: Sure. Video’s important to us. We’re also interested in what we would call “niche at scale.” As a collective whole, we have 70 or 80 properties and will go up to 100. We want to aggregate uniques that will be attractive to advertisers. We want to own the equivalent of the top 80 or 90 cable channels on the Internet. We’re also very interested in local, via Patch [which Armstrong invested in before AOL bought it].

Q: How do you market all this content?

A: By the way, everyone thinks our traffic comes from the access business. That’s not true. It’s a minority of our traffic. Also, when you produce your own content, you can distribute it and get traffic back. You also need to make this stuff shareable on the Web. We’re getting mass scale distribution from platforms like Twitter and, of course, search.

Q: There’s a big gap between your monetization and Yahoo’s (YHOO). How do you change that?

A: I can’t tell you! It’s how I got my job. Ho ho ho. Okay: AOL went to a network-based strategy a couple of years ago, which cut into the pricing yield, and that is now changing. We addressed this in the summer and fall. Also, AOL, shockingly, had under 1,000 customers on ad platforms when I showed up–700, actually. At Google (GOOG), we had millions. So we had a clear dialogue about what had happened. Also, the salesforce needed to be restructured, different tiers of the salesforce. And we also needed a self-service option you can use with a credit card. “Look, this is why they hired me….If we can’t make that business work, I think we have big issues.”

Q: What’s up with search?

A: We like Google and are still talking to them. We’re also talking to “other partners.” Last time, the deal was done “purely for money,” and that had benefits and some downside. This time, the pricing may be different, but it’s not the only thing that determines value.

Q: Please be more specific.

A: Okay. We’re really big on music. But if you go to AOL search for music, you get a subpar version of Google’s search for music. There are too many ads on the page. So why don’t we set up a onebox-like search box and send people to AOL music? For example, let’s think about trading search dollars for display dollars. We want to make money on ads in a much more natural and healthy way.

Q: What about investments in content?

A: Sure. We’re making nominal investments in content and a putting a lot of money in technology and infrastructure. In terms of M&A, we will sell off stuff that doesn’t make sense and do tuck-in buys.

Q: How does your local strategy differ from others?

A: We do real local, not quasi-local. We put editors in communities to actually get the stuff and monitor and update platforms. “It’s a risk, it’s a bet,” but early results are promising.

Q: Your ad business is much less profitable than that of your peers. What up?

A: Our hamburger stand says “really cheap burgers at really cheap prices,” but we’re actually serving sea bass, and we should be charging for that. We told customers, via Platform A, etc., that they could buy us really cheap. Also, cost structure: We’re taking out a third of the business. Access was making money, and things “kind of got loose” at the rest of company. But advertising can be nicely profitable with content and we can do that.

Q: Okay, but when do ad biz profits become self-sustaining?

A: Not in 2010, but sooner than five years. I own two percent of the company, and I want it to work. Morale is already better than when I got here.

Q: Are you removing all premium inventory from Ad.com?

A: Don’t believe what you read! Internet! Bad! An analyst said we might do it. What we’re going to do is “sell Superbowl product at Superbowl pricing.” [i.e., a nonanswer]

Q: What’s up with the access business and the traffic it generates?

A: We have 100 million users. Five million people get “paid services” from us. Half of those are dial-up users. But people think that 70, 80, 90 percent of traffic comes from access. That’s not the case.

Q: What’s up with mobile?

A: We want to increase consumer mobile traffic. We have lots of Apple Store downloads. We’ll do more consumer downloads/traffic. And we’ll build our mobile ad business after that, probably in 2011.

Q: What do Federal broadband access plans mean for your business?

A: All of us believe that there will be some “tail” of dial-up access for some time. But it’s not going away, and the decline is actually moderating [which makes sense--if you're still on dial-up now, what are you waiting for?]

Q: Please reiterate profitability plans for display/content/ads.

A: In reality, we’re “marginally” profitable now, but that’s not good enough.

Q: If you reprice ad business profitability, what does that mean for you?

A: I don’t want to set goals, but we’re not off by single digits. It’s significant.

Q: Talk about your communications business, please.

A: We have AIM, ICQ, email–all big opportunities. We need to clean up current products and services. Communications products “were recipient of problems” in the past. AOL tried to jam Bebo and AIM together, which didn’t work. We also slammed our stuff with way too many emails. I tried AOL email when I started and got 15 to 20 ads. Not a great user experience. It’s “project hygiene.” We also believe people want a unified platform across devices and we’re working on that.

Q: Talk about compensation.

A: I had the money options at Google, which got moved into AOL options at market value. Plus salary blah blah. I didn’t take a bonus this year “because I don’t think I should have gotten paid for laying off a third of our employees.” [All of this is discussed in the proxy, no?]

Q: Here’s a softball about your management team. How awesome is it?

A: Totally awesome. We’ll add more over time. On the engineering side, I was surprised that we weren’t chasing good engineers when we got here. “We have spent a lot of time and energy on the subject matter.” Culturally, our “internal mojo turned around,” and now the engineering community gets that we “have a big-hair problem” but that we have tons of use so things they do here have a big impact.

Q: Brand strategy: How do you extract brands people don’t know about while promoting the main site and vice versa?

A: We think about this like Disney (DIS), I think. By the way, there are two brands. The financial media brand is battered–worst merger in history, etc. But consumers like the AOL brand. Tomorrow, we’re giving AOL users a a 50 percent promotion via Target (TGT) on “very good toys.” So in the Disney way, there’s the brand people like, and we have other brands people like, just as Disney has ESPN. So we’ll have non-AOL brands launching, and we’ll refurbish the AOL brand itself.

Q: Whither MapQuest?

A: MapQuest is still Top 20 search term. It has a large market share. The technology has not been focused on in a number of years. We’re changing that. Partners are inquiring about MapQuest, and I think what we’ll do is an operational partnership with them. We feel like its a “very, very valuable property.”

Q: What are best metrics to evaluate AOL’s turnaround/growth?

A: Unique visitors [which is what everyone says now]. We need a turnaround in domestic display, which you should see in 2010. And then we need to generate cash, because that’s what healthy companies do. In terms of that cash: No more “hail Marys” where we take cash from access and make big bets on things that we don’t know about [i.e., Bebo]. We will want to fund the Web services business with cash from the Web services business.

Earthlink: Why Haven't They Bought AOL's Dial-Up Unit?

Eric Savitz — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:49:48 +0000

Earthlink (ELNK) is an odd company: it continues to generate more and more cash from the terminally ill (and steadily shrinking) dial-up Internet access business. Its coffers are bursting at the seams. Judging by the company’s valuation, the Street doesn’t see a whole lot of value in the core business. But there certainly is intrigue over the cash–including whether the company will eventually buy the AOL dial-up access business.

This morning, Earthlink posted Q4 revenues of $216.1 million, right in line with the Street at $216.2 million. But the dial-up Internet access provider posted profits for the quarter of 25 cents a share, falling short of the Street by 13 cents. Note, however, that results include a $78.7 million noncash impairment charge, partially offset by a $56.1 million tax benefit. Revenues dropped 23.4 percent from a year ago.

Read the rest of this post

Getting a New Windows Computer With XP

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:45 +0000

Here are a few questions I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability.

I am in the market for a new Windows computer, but I prefer the Windows XP operating system, not Vista. I understand Microsoft has now barred the major PC vendors from selling XP systems. Is there a way I can get around this?

If you want a new, brand-name PC that comes pre-loaded with the seven-year-old Windows XP operating system, you can still get one through an odd and circuitous process. Most major PC makers will sell you selected Vista models with an option, which sometimes costs extra, officially called a “downgrade,” but sometimes marketed as an “upgrade” or “bonus.” You may have to hunt through the selections offered by the computer makers to find one that has this XP option.

When you order a PC in this fashion, you are technically buying a Vista machine, and Microsoft counts it as a Vista sale. But the computer company actually loads XP on the new hardware, in place of Vista, before it leaves the factory. In many cases, you also get discs containing Vista, in the event you wish to switch to the newer Vista operating system later.

I was wondering if you could give me some suggestions of a small, light portable radio-type gadget with earbuds that would be good for me while I do athletic activities like riding my bike. I want something that will give me different pre-programmed selections of music, not something that I have to load with music (I don’t remember names of songs). I love my Sirius satellite radio in my car.

My first reaction is to suggest you simply get the portable, small, personal Sirius radio that is meant for carrying on your person. It’s called the Stiletto 2 and costs around $300. Like the one in your car, it does require a subscription, but it is much smaller. I haven’t tested it, but you can get more information at sirius.com.

However, this unit isn’t in the smallest class of portable music players, so another alternative might be to get a very small portable player, which, while it allows you to download music, also has a built-in FM radio. Among these is the smallest Microsoft Zune, called the Zune 4 GB, at about $100, and the Sansa Clip, starting at about $35. Neither requires a subscription fee. Information is at zune.com and sansa.com.

The popular Rhapsody subscription music service is also available on portable players, and offers pre-programmed channels of music. Some of these players also include FM radios. Information on these is at learn.rhapsody.com/devices.

Last week, you said you didn’t know of a dedicated gadget that simply allows people to both send and receive emails. What about the MailBug?

Thanks for reminding me. The MailBug, which I haven’t tested, is a small, text-only terminal for sending and receiving email over a dial-up connection. It costs about $125 and requires a companion email service that is about $100 a year. It’s made by a company called Landel and can be ordered at mailbug.com.

While the device itself can’t send or receive photos or other nontext attachments, account holders with access to a computer can view such attachments via a Web-based version of their email accounts.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Best Buy Lands iPhone Deal

John Paczkowski — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:00:12 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

The Median U.S. Broadband Speed? Finland's Divided by 10.

John Paczkowski — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:59:11 +0000

An estimated 15 percent of Americans still use dial-up to connect to the Internet. And they might as well. Because according to a new study by the Communication Workers of America, the typical real-time Internet connection speed in the United States isn’t that much faster. CWA’s Speed Matters survey found the median download speed in the U.S. to be a mortifying 2.35 megabits per second.

Pathetic. In Japan the median download speed is 63.60Mbps. In South Korea it’s 49 mbps. For crying out loud, in Finland it’s 21.7Mbps.

How is it that the median download speed of the country that invented the Internet is this abysmal? No wonder it’s fallen to 15th place among industrialized nations in the percent of the population subscribing to broadband. No wonder broadband adoption slipped to a seven-year low in the second quarter of 2008.

The Median U.S. Broadband Speed? Finland's Divided by 10.

John Paczkowski — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:59:11 +0000

Pathetic. In Japan the median download speed is 63.60Mbps. In South Korea it’s 49 mbps. For crying out loud, in Finland it’s 21.7Mbps.

AOL's Ad Business Not So Much "Leading" as "Leaden"

John Paczkowski — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:29:38 +0000

The wheels have apparently come off of AOL’s advertising business–not that they were ever really on in the first place. On Wednesday, Time Warner reported a 26 percent decline in second-quarter income as the troubled Internet division continued to weigh on its performance. Revenue at AOL fell 16 percent in the quarter, while ad sales rose just two percent. In contrast, Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) all reported double-digit ad growth in the same period.

Numbers like that don’t speak well to AOL’s future as a successful advertising venture. And with losses in its access business mounting (604,000 subscribers in the second quarter alone), the division isn’t in the best of health. Little wonder, then, that Time Warner (TWX) announced today that it will indeed split AOL’s dial-up-access business from its advertising and content business. Beginning in 2009, the two divisions will be run independently. “We’ve now made key financial and strategic decisions that will enable us to operate the access and audience businesses separately,” Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes said on a conference call with investors this morning. “We have the necessary flexibility to do something strategic with either of these businesses today.”

Translation: Either could be sold or merged with another company. And, according to people familiar with the situation, Time Warner hopes to do one or the other with both divisions. The company has recently held informal discussions with Yahoo and Microsoft about AOL’s advertising and content business. And it’s said to be aggressively searching for a buyer for its access business.

AOL's Ad Business Not So Much "Leading" as "Leaden"

John Paczkowski — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:29:38 +0000

Earthlink Boosts Full-Year Guidance; Stock Rallies

Eric Savitz — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:16:40 +0000

Earthlink (ELNK) shares are on the rise this morning after the company posted better-than-expected Q2 profits and raised its full-year guidance.

The provider of dial-up Internet access services posted Q2 revenue of $245.6 million, right in line with the Street. But profits of 48 cents a share beat the Street consensus of 36 cents by 12 cents. The company said it finished the quarter with $441.6 million in cash, up $121.6 million from one quarter earlier.

Read the rest of this post

You Can Have My 28.8 Kbps Penril When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Hands

John Paczkowski — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:26:52 +0000

Dial-up users don’t like broadband?

Obviously, that’s why they’re dial-up users.

An estimated 10 percent of Americans are surfing the net via dial-up connections, according to a report released Wednesday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (PDF), most of them by choice. And 62 percent of dial-up users reported no interest whatsoever in upgrading to broadband.

Price was obviously an issue for some (about a third) and access an issue for others (24 percent), but 19 percent said that nothing can convince them to get broadband. Which means broadband growth in the states may be nearing a plateau. “… Solving the supply problem where there are availability gaps is only going to go so far,” said John Horrigan, the study’s author. “It’s going to have to be a process of getting people more engaged with information technology and demonstrating to people that it’s worth it for them to make the investment of time and money.”

And until then, the percentage of adult Americans with home broadband connections will continue to hover around 55 percent.

Microsoft's Next Move Still Imminent

John Paczkowski — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:00:17 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Microsoft's Next Move Still Imminent

John Paczkowski — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:00:17 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

T-Mobile Service Ties Cellphones to Home, With Some Sacrifices

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:01:00 +0000

The poor landline home phone is getting less and less respect. Increasing numbers of people don’t even have traditional landline phone service anymore. These folks prefer to rely on their cellphones, which can be cheaper to use and carry a number that travels with a person instead of being locked to a house.

Many others keep their landline-phone service grudgingly, only because it is needed for things like fax machines. But even they often use their cellphones at home, because their friends and family members dial their cellphone number routinely, and their personal phone books are inside their cellphones.

[ See post to watch video ]

But there is a big drawback to using a cellphone at home, especially in a large house: You have to schlep it around with you from room to room. By contrast, landline phone service can be used via either cordless or corded extension phones. Now, T-Mobile, one of the big U.S. cellphone companies, is rolling out a new system that it hopes will make cellphone service at home more convenient and even cheaper to use.

The service, being introduced this month in two test cities, Seattle and Dallas, allows you to use a cellphone account with any corded or cordless home phone, with multiple extensions, for just $10 a month. That very low price gets you unlimited domestic calls.

This new T-Mobile service, tentatively called Talk Forever Home Phone, is likely to be available nationally in a few months. It works via a special Wi-Fi wireless router that you must buy, with a two-year contract, for a one-time charge of $50. The router, which can either replace or supplement your existing wireless router, is essentially a stationary cellphone that marries an in-home Wi-Fi network to the T-Mobile cellphone network.

I have been testing the new system and found that it worked well, and it was extremely simple to set up and use. For my tests, I used a cordless phone supplied by T-Mobile, which included a base station and one extension handset. I was able to make and receive calls all over my home in exactly the same manner, and with exactly the same quality, as I do with my normal cordless landline service.

While T-Mobile is selling this cordless phone as a $60 option, it isn’t necessary for use with the new $10 service. The only new hardware that is required is the special Wi-Fi router.

However, there are some significant downsides to the new T-Mobile service that might make people think twice about dumping their landlines. For one thing, it doesn’t work with fax machines, home-security systems and other devices that rely on dial-up modems. Also, unlike landline phones, it doesn’t automatically transmit your home address to 911 emergency centers. You have to manually supply that address to T-Mobile during signup, and the company then sends it to your local emergency center.

Another downside: You must be a T-Mobile cellphone customer to buy and use this $10 monthly home service, and your T-Mobile plan must either be an individual plan costing at least $40 a month or a family plan costing at least $50 a month.

Finally, while you can transfer your current landline phone number to this new service, it cannot share your existing T-Mobile cellphone number. So people who are used to calling you on your cellphone will still do so, and you will still have to race for the cellphone or carry it around to receive those calls. You also can’t transfer your cellphone’s address book to the new home phone.

The special router is made by Linksys and looks very much like a typical Linksys router, except for the fact that it has two standard telephone jacks in the back and slots inside for T-Mobile SIM cards, the same kind that are inside a T-Mobile cellphone.

You can use the special router as a replacement for your current Wi-Fi router, but I just plugged it into an existing port on my old router, inserted the SIM card, and then plugged the cordless-phone base station into one of the phone jacks. It worked immediately, and didn’t affect or degrade my existing Internet service.

In addition to enabling the phone service around my house, the router was also usable by my computers for Internet connectivity, though it doesn’t support the new, fast “n” flavor of Wi-Fi.

This new system is not a so-called voice-over-Internet-protocol phone system, such as Vonage. It doesn’t carry your phone calls wholly over the Internet, but merely uses the Internet to get them to the T-Mobile cellphone network, which then carries the calls as if they had been made on a cellphone.

T-Mobile says the system will work fine even if you don’t have T-Mobile cellphone coverage at your house, because the call doesn’t rely on the cellphone network for its first leg and only is routed to the cell network once it reaches a T-Mobile switching center.

If you are a T-Mobile customer and can live with this system’s drawbacks, the $10 monthly fee may be hard to resist. But this new system is far from a perfect replacement for landline phones.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Vodafone Slags T-Mobile iPhone Deal

John Paczkowski — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:00:35 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Nothing That a Two-Tiered Internet Couldn't Fix, Right?

John Paczkowski — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:01:14 +0000

In 2010, it could take as long as two minutes to download an episode of “Chad Vader–Day Shift Manager” from YouTube, instead of the few seconds it takes today. This according to a new study from Nemertes Research Group, which claims that the Internet could be approaching its capacity. “Our findings indicate that core fiber and switching/routing resources will scale nicely to support virtually any conceivable user demand,” Nemertes explains in “The Internet Singularity, Delayed: Why Limits in Internet Capacity Will Stifle Innovation on the Web.” “But Internet access infrastructure, specifically in North America, will cease to be adequate for supporting demand within the next three to five years.”

And what does that mean in lay terms? “Users will experience a slow, subtle degradation, so it’s back to the bad old days of dial-up,” said Nemertes President Johna Till Johnson. “The cool stuff that you’ll want to do will be such a pain in the rear that you won’t do it.”

To avoid such a scenario, Nemertes says backbone providers need to invest up to $137 billion in Internet infrastructure capacity–more than double what they’d planned. If they fail to do so, we may see that slow degradation to which Johnson referred and a stifling of innovation. “It’s important to stress that failing to make that investment will not cause the Internet to collapse,” Nemertes explains in its paper. “Instead, the primary impact of the lack of investment will be to throttle innovation–both the technical innovation that leads to increasingly newer and better applications, and the business innovation that relies on those technical innovations and applications to generate value. The next Google, YouTube or Amazon might not arise, not because of a lack of demand, but due to an inability to fulfill that demand. Rather like osteoporosis, the underinvestment in infrastructure will painlessly and invisibly leach competitiveness out of the economy.”

Nemertes’s last point about underinvestment in infrastructure is one worth noting. Because in the run-up to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the incumbent telecoms promised to provide fiber-optic connections to millions of households across the country. In exchange, they were given some $200 billion in tax cuts and higher service rates to pay for it. But the telecoms didn’t spend that money on fiber upgrades–they spent it on long distance, wireless and inferior DSL services. “By 2005, if the Bell companies had actually delivered on their broadband promises, approximately 86 million households would have had fiber-optic-based services,” Bruce Kushnick, executive director of New Networks Institute, explains in “The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal.” “These state commitments also would have rewired schools and libraries, hospitals and government offices. And in most states, the plan called for ALL customers to be rewired equally, whether they were in rural or urban areas, rich or poor. Universal broadband was to be accomplished state-by-state because customers were, in essence, de facto investors funding these network upgrades.”

Something to think about when the Nemertes’s study begins popping up in telecom arguments against Net neutrality, as it almost certainly will.

Nothing That a Two-Tiered Internet Couldn't Fix, Right?

John Paczkowski — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:01:14 +0000

Something to think about when the Nemertes’s study begins popping up in telecom arguments against Net neutrality, as it almost certainly will.

Using the iPhone Overseas for Data Purposes

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:01:00 +0000

There’s no other major item most of us own that is as confusing, unpredictable and unreliable as our personal computers. Everybody has questions about them, and we aim to help.

Here are a few questions about computers I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability. This week my mailbox contained questions about using an iPhone overseas for data purposes, running Microsoft Office 2000 on Vista and using broadband-provider email in two locations.

You recently wrote that iPhone owners using the device overseas must roam on AT&T at high rates, because the iPhone won’t work with SIM cards from foreign carriers. You noted that AT&T has a monthly plan that cuts these per-call voice rates somewhat. But what are the options for using an iPhone overseas for data purposes, such as email and Internet browsing?

Until Apple initiates iPhone service with foreign carriers, which is expected to be a gradual process that will begin in Europe, iPhone owners traveling abroad will be forced to roam on AT&T and to pay through the nose for data as well as voice calls made over cellular-phone networks. They won’t be able to buy cheaper service from a local foreign carrier and enable it by simply replacing the phone’s AT&T SIM card with the local carrier’s.

In addition, it is important to note that, even if you are willing to swallow these huge voice-and-data rates, you must call AT&T (formerly Cingular) before you leave the U.S. with your iPhone (or any AT&T phone) to modify, or “provision,” your calling plan so it will even work overseas.

Here are the details. Note that these prices and plans apply to many other phones AT&T sells, not just the iPhone.

To recap the voice-calling situation, AT&T charges very high fees, which can be mitigated a bit by adding a special $5.99 monthly add-on feature, called AT&T World Traveler, to their plans. This voice feature allows you to roam in 190 countries and gives you discounts on calls from 80 countries. For instance, in France, Italy, Germany, and Britain, you pay a still-high 99 cents a minute, compared with an even worse $1.29 without the plan. In Hong Kong or Israel, you pay a whopping $1.99 a minute, instead of an even more outrageous $2.29 or $2.49, respectively, a minute.

For email and the Web, the best bet for iPhone owners is to avoid using cellular networks and employ the phone’s Wi-Fi capability, which can cost nothing extra. Try to find a free or reasonably priced Wi-Fi hot spot in which to check email and do Web browsing. You may even be able to make cheap voice calls this way using Internet-based calling services like JaJah (mobile.jajah.com) which, in my domestic tests, worked properly via the iPhone’s Web browser.

However, if you need to check email constantly or frequently, you are unlikely to be able to depend solely on the Wi-Fi method. You can rely on AT&T roaming to do this over foreign cellular services, but, as with the voice call situation, it will cost a fortune.

AT&T offers an add-on plan for $24.99 a month, called the “PDA/Smartphone/iPhone International Data Plan.” This is on top of the $5.99-a-month voice plan, and is also additive to the $20 a month for unlimited data when in the U.S. that is built into your base plan. But it isn’t unlimited. You get only 20 megabytes of overseas data use a month, and pay a stiff $.005 a kilobyte for all data use above that.

Plus, this international-data plan only works in 29 countries. Outside those countries, the cost is an astounding $.0195 a kilobyte, or roughly $20 a megabyte. To put that in perspective, a single email with a medium-resolution picture attached could amount to a megabyte. More information is at www.att.com/wirelessinternational.

One more note: apparently AT&T can and will cancel your roaming service overseas if it notices what it considers an unusually high number of calls being made. One reader with an iPhone reported that, after arranging belatedly in Europe to get the voice-roaming service, he was suddenly cut off when he reached India, with AT&T explaining the cutoff as an attempt to prevent suspected fraud.

According to this reader, AT&T said he had been cut off “because there were ‘too many calls from India and other countries’ and they did not think it was possible anyone could be doing that for real, so to protect me, they cancelled the service.” An AT&T spokesman says the company can’t comment on the details of this particular case without knowing the traveler’s phone number.

You say Office 2003 runs OK on Windows Vista. I have been using Office 2000 and it does everything I need. Will it also run OK on Vista?

Microsoft doesn’t officially support Office 2000 on Vista. It may work, but I haven’t tested it.

Is there a way that I can use my same email address both at my home in New Jersey and at my winter place in Florida, even though I have broadband Internet service in New Jersey but am limited to dial-up Internet access from a different provider in Florida?

Some broadband providers also make available a supplementary dial-up service for their customers, which may be free or cost extra. Check with your broadband service to see if it offers this option.

If not, you could simply use an email account that isn’t necessarily tied to an access provider at all, such as Web-based email services from Yahoo, Google or Microsoft. You could switch to one of these permanently, and use it in both locations, or you can forward your main email address to one of them while you are in Florida. People who send you email wouldn’t have to learn a new address and many Web-based services allow you to set your main address as the “reply-to” address for emails you send.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online free of charge at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com

The Practical Case Against File Sharing

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:01:00 +0000

There’s no other major item most of us own that is as confusing, unpredictable and unreliable as our personal computers. Everybody has questions about them, and we aim to help.

Here are a few questions about computers I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability. This week my mailbox contained questions about getting viruses from file-swapping services, other options beyond dial-up Internet access, and buying a Mac desktop computer.

If you have a question, send it to me at mossberg@wsj.com, and I may select it to be answered here in Mossberg’s Mailbox.

Are there problems with using file-swapping sites like Kazaa, as long as you have a good antivirus protection program? I don’t mind paying for individual songs, but other sites like iTunes or Rhapsody often don’t have the songs I want.

Yes, there are problems. The first are the ethical and legal issues arising from obtaining somebody else’s copyrighted intellectual property without paying for it, from a person who isn’t licensed or authorized to distribute it. The other sites you mention, iTunes and Rhapsody, are legally licensed to distribute music. Kazaa and its ilk aren’t, nor are the people who make music available through them. Your argument is like rationalizing buying stolen TVs because your local Best Buy didn’t have the model you wanted.

If your conscience can get past that, there are practical issues. These sites are major transmitters not only of viruses, but of spyware, which your antivirus program can’t stop. Even if your PC has a full, up-to-date security suite, with antispyware software, you are asking for trouble by downloading from “file swapping” sites. Many of the people I hear from who have had to take drastic, costly steps to save heavily infected PCs attribute their problems to the fact that their kids were frequenting file-sharing sites.

I currently have dial-up access to the Internet, which is slow. I pay a total of $35-$40 a month for the Internet service itself, plus a dedicated phone line. I see ads that claim I can give up this dial-up service and the extra phone line and somehow get higher-speed Internet access for less. Is this true? I do not have a cellphone or wireless service into my house, though I do have cable TV.

You can definitely save a lot of money on your Internet service, and drastically increase speed at the same time. And you don’t need cellphone or wireless service at all. They are irrelevant. Your choices are DSL from your phone company, or cable-modem service from your cable TV provider. Either will give you a high-speed broadband connection that is much, much faster than your current dial-up service — without tying up your phone line. You can go down to a single phone line for making voice calls.

DSL tends to be a lot cheaper, so I recommend DSL if you want to save money. And, while the low-priced DSL service is a lot slower than a cable modem, it is much cheaper and still is roughly 15 times as fast as your current connection.

Verizon offers a low-end DSL service for $14.95 a month, with the first month free. It’s much faster than what you have now, and you wouldn’t need the second phone line. Other companies may have similar offers. But you should go to your phone company’s DSL Web site first to see if your house qualifies for DSL. Not all homes do; it depends on how far you live from the nearest phone company facility.

I am a Windows user who wants to switch to Mac, and I have found two options suitable for me. The first option is to buy the $1,299 iMac G5. And the second option is to buy the Mac mini with the 1.42 GHz processor, 1 GB of memory and a 100 GB hard drive.

It all depends on what you do on your computer and on what your plans are. The mini, configured as you specify, will cost you $500 less than the iMac. But it is less powerful and less full-featured than the iMac. And it lacks a monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers, all of which come with the iMac. If you have all of these on your Windows PC, and like them, and don’t plan to keep the Windows PC, you can switch them over to the mini. But you’ll still have to buy a peripheral called a USB hub, because the mini has too few ports. If you want to preserve your Windows machine, you’ll have to buy new peripherals, or a gadget called a KVM that allows the mini and your Windows machine to share the peripherals.

The iMac G5, in my view, is the best consumer desktop on the market, and the $1,299 model has just been upgraded, without a price increase. So, if your computing needs are modest, your budget is limited and you’re ready and willing to switch over your Windows peripherals, the mini would be a better bargain. But the iMac is the better computer.

* * *

Because of the volume of e-mail I receive, I can’t routinely answer individual questions by e-mail, or consult on individual problems or purchasing decisions. I read all questions I receive and select three each week to answer in the column.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com