May 22, 2002

1:25 PM

"We have done more than 100 surveys and reports since late 2000 and this survey has the most overwhelming, and negative, response to a company or technology we have ever seen." A survey by investment and research firm ChangeWave of its clients who are current and former subscribers of America Online showed that 40% of respondents were dissatisfied with the service.
posted by tranquileye (22 comments total)

The demise of AOL has been predicted for as long as I remember (pre-1992). So long as Dialup technology is king AOL will be here. And when (if) Broadband reaches critical mass AOL will adapt.
posted by stbalbach at 2:08 PM on May 22, 2002

I've already seen a commercial for broadband AOL. Here's their page for DSL service. Someone else can dig for details. My guess is with the AOL inflation, it'll probably be around $65 a month.
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:17 PM on May 22, 2002

I've got a feeling that Microsoft (-->MSN) is a shareholder at ChangeWave...
posted by kchristidis at 2:21 PM on May 22, 2002

I was flipping channels yesterday and saw a woman pushing a computer on a shopping network say "You'll have to have an internet connection, and since AOL is pretty much the best...."
posted by rushmc at 2:27 PM on May 22, 2002

well, it is the best. it has 'america' in the name. how could it be second rate? why do you hate america so much? why do you want the terrorists to win? quit your subversive, anti-american ISP and get a REAL AMERICAN internet connection! you'll be glad you did when it comes time to report suspicious neighbors to the homeland security police.
posted by quonsar at 2:39 PM on May 22, 2002

I think the new version of AIM has a button for that built in, quonsar.
posted by rushmc at 2:59 PM on May 22, 2002

I enjoy seeing AOL bashed, but no one on Mefi has yet to come up with a valid bash (although the discount ISP link in the last thread came close). The occassional horror story does not an indictment make. Moreover, they have a very, VERY good deal with free phone calls and directory assistance (no longer free in the Verizon Empire) And I've substituted a whistle from Wallace and Gromit for "You've Got Mail." So AOL isn't that evil.

Here's a question. Typically, I connect to AOL at 48K. How much of the speed I experience is attributable to AOL, and how much to the connection speed? And I'm talking about browsing the Web with IE on my Mac; not using one of AOL's proprietary services (which I never use).
posted by ParisParamus at 3:06 PM on May 22, 2002

so who's more doomed, AOL or their millions of subscribers who complain but don't do a damn thing about it?

i have countless friends who pay the money and pout but dont jump ship. and in this age of DSL and cable modems where they'd be getting 7-10 times the speed for less than double the price, there's no excuse not to switch.

and yet they don't.

if AOL were a cult we'd be investigating their literature, but they're not, their whiney users are just pathetic lazy imbeciles who deserve what they have.
posted by tsarfan at 4:11 PM on May 22, 2002

whiney users are just pathetic lazy imbeciles who deserve what they have.
you have just described the typical american technology consumer.
posted by quonsar at 4:17 PM on May 22, 2002

and in this age of DSL and cable modems where they'd be getting 7-10 times the speed for less than double the price, there's no excuse not to switch.

i'm sure this has been noted before, but if you include the need for a second phone line with the cost of a dial-up, the cost of broadband is usually comparable, if not cheaper.
posted by dogmatic at 5:08 PM on May 22, 2002

dogmatic...not true.

My phone line costs 18 bucks a month, unlimited local calling. DSL costs 50 bucks a month, which does not include the phone line. Therefore, 36 a month for two phone lines, or 68 for a line and DSL.

Prices are still outrageous, and will continue to be that way until the internet reaches its next level, whatever that may be. (I'm still hoping for virtual reality)
posted by BlueTrain at 5:23 PM on May 22, 2002

You can get no-ad unlimited dialup for $12. I use them, and I'm currently connected at 53.2 Kbps.

"Compatibility with every major OS - Windows 9x/Me/NT/2000/XP - MacOS, Linux, etc."

I used to have 768 symmetrical DSL with two fixed IPs. I'll go back to something similar eventually, but until I move this will do fine.
posted by NortonDC at 6:06 PM on May 22, 2002

What's interesting is that only 8% cited AOL's content as a reason for having AOL as an ISP. That's about what I suspected, but it's an astonishing low number. The thing is, I suspect that figure has changed little over the last few years.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:42 PM on May 22, 2002

I was an AOL subscriber back in the early 90s. I gave them a shot and they blew it. I left and never came back.

I can't believe it's still online.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:56 PM on May 22, 2002

Actually, I read recently that AOL was having a hard time picking up broadband customers. When people finally do switch, why would the pay extra for AOL access? (The short answer is, they don't.)
posted by ph00dz at 8:05 PM on May 22, 2002

ME TOO

hehe

Does anyone else find it curious that although those dissatisfied AOL users have had access to the internet for some time, and as such would easily have access to alternatives like Earthlink and other ISPs, they nevertheless remain AOL users?

When I'm dissatisfied with a service, I obtain that service from another provider. That seems logical to me. Why are these people sticking with a company that's not giving them what they want? either there's something freakish about my 'logical thinking', or there's something to be said for, well, what's said about AOL users around the net.
posted by clevershark at 9:06 PM on May 22, 2002

Ufez: actually, where I am, the AOL+DSL cost is just $31.05/mo, with a free 30-day trial and no contract. But if you cancel before 36 months they get to charge you a $99 install fee, big whoop.
posted by dhartung at 9:20 PM on May 22, 2002

My phone line costs 18 bucks a month, unlimited local calling. DSL costs 50 bucks a month, which does not include the phone line. Therefore, 36 a month for two phone lines, or 68 for a line and DSL.

Yeah, if you have a free dialup. AOL's cost $23.90 a month now, making it $59.90 for two lines and AOL, or $68 for the DSL. If it's true that only 8% of AOL users use it for the content, I think the other 92% (especially the 40% that don't even like AOL) might be surprised to find that it's only about $8 more a month (give or take, depending on the cost of a phone line) to go DSL. And the speed is worth it.

I think perhaps the large majority of dissatisfied AOL users in this case either don't know about the slim cost difference, don't think it's worth it, or feel too intimidated by computers to make the switch.
posted by nath at 9:55 PM on May 22, 2002

AOL's cost $23.90 a month now, making it $59.90 for two lines and AOL, or $68 for the DSL.

Or worse -- I don't have a landline (I survive on a cheap cell plan, which I'd have anyway), and my cable modem costs $45 monthly . . . For a $15 savings per month.
posted by dogmatic at 2:57 AM on May 23, 2002

I suspect a major reason AOL has so many subscribers is the impression (however false) that it's easier to sign up for than other ISPs.

And a major reason for sticking with it even if dissatisfied is that's where all your email goes. The longer you have an email address, the more resistant you are to changing it.

My parents have Time Warner cable modem service, but they still use AOL primarily for email. And what boggles me is they use an AOL dialup connection to get there. Heh.
posted by Foosnark at 10:23 AM on May 23, 2002

My parents have Time Warner cable modem service, but they still use AOL primarily for email. And what boggles me is they use an AOL dialup connection to get there. Heh.

Be a good son and tell them how to set up the TCP/IP access on their sign-in screen.
posted by chuq at 11:03 AM on May 23, 2002

(Or daughter. :-)
posted by chuq at 11:05 AM on May 23, 2002