GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | How many find this info useful?
Seriously, has anyone actually gone one way or the other based on which industry technology is ahead in terms of total subscribers? No news like ... well ... non-news. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| It's pricing...
Generally speaking cable HSI is relatively expensive and some providers have severe penalties (like Comcast at 30%) if you don't subscribe to CATV. Some DSL providers have similar bundling requirements although some now offer dry loop services on the mid and upper tiers (eg Verizon), but POTS is still very popular so the "general public" doesn't see any real impact of a telco POST/DSL bundling requirement.
So long as the larger DSL providers continue their $13-$15 service promotions and cable remains at $45 or more, you'll see DSL become more and more popular despite the speed difference, loop restrictions and the like. It seems to me that few people are really concerned with outright top speed and get broadband to get away from the inconvenience and slowness of dialup. I suppose they see little performance difference between 4Mb cable HSI and 768kbps DSL in everyday use...at least enough of a difference to them to warrant 3X the price. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to GhostDoggy
Re: How many find this info useful?
It speaks to what is motivating people to buy. Comcast CEO Roberts says pretty much that speed sells, but this information, if correct, would say different and that it's price that sells more than speed. IOW, if Comcast introduced a 700kbps tier for $15, they too would see the blitz of new subscribers like Verizon was able to do with their ridiculously cheap $15 tier.
Some here complain that the US is lacking in broadband penetration and this information could be saying that price, not availability is the reason. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| But we are not talking about a specific cable provider vs. a specific telco provider for one's given local setting. The information in the news headline is industry-wide, which is more moot and useless than useful for someone making a decision on their local geography.
BTW, those complaining are typically those with 'wants' and no 'will'. Its like providing those in rural location because they want technology but not have to do anything to get it (like move). |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Mark Twain
Lies, damn lies and statistics. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to GhostDoggy
Re: How many find this info useful?
Of course we're talking about specific providers. Look at why DSL subscriber numbers have increased so much and which providers are responsible for it. It is just a few specific large telco providers generating these increases, namely SBC and Verizon with their dirt cheap promos.
On the other side who is the largest broadband provider overall...Comcast...so what the CEO of the nation's largest broadband provider is saying and how his "speed over price" strategy (which is apparently shared by many cable operators) compares to this information is also certainly relevant.
You just look at the headline and dismiss the entire story without understanding the implications to providers which could be that Roberts is wrong; price sells...speed doesn't. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to oliphant
Re: It's pricing...
""Generally speaking cable HSI is relatively expensive and some providers have severe penalties (like Comcast at 30%) if you don't subscribe to CATV. ""
So I have 2 cars, if I insure my Mazda with Geico and Pontiac with Statefarm its going to cost more than if I have them both insured with 1 company. I get a discount if I have both under 1 plan.
I'm not gonna tell Geico, "Why do I have a penalty for only having 1 car?"
I don't see how people can justify it as a penalty. As a customer, I see it as a discount for being loyal. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
3 edits | I see it as a penalty mainly because for us ATTB subscribers it amounted to a price increase. Prior to Comcast, we didn't have bundling penalties. The price was the price whether we subscribed to CATV or not. When Comcast took over, us without CATV saw a 30% increase in rates.
On the other hand I would also argue where is the discount in the other direction. Why don't CATV subs have a 30% penalty for not subscribing to HSI? CATV rates are the same (at least from Comcast), whether you subscribe to HSI or not.
The reason is simple, it's because HSI is the product in demand and Comcast is looking to dissuade people from jumping ship from what many consider substandard video quality to DBS by making their HSI bills go up more than any savings DBS would provide.
In your insurance example it would be like you being with Geico and you're rates for having 1 car is $500. State Farm buys Geico and sends you a letter stating that because your homeowner's policy isn't with them they're raising your car rate to $650. Those who happen to have their home policy with them stay at $500. Now as far as YOU'RE policy is concerned is that a discount, or a penalty? I would argue penalty as in neither example did anyone get a discount. They either saw a price increase or their prices stayed the same...no one's price dropped...no one got a discount. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to oliphant
Re: How many find this info useful?
To the individual consumer its meaningless. Why? Because how many consumers have the luxury of having more than one cable provider or more than one telco provider at their home for consideration? For most, its either an A or B proposition. And whichever one provides the best return on whatever interests that one consumer is probably not going to be dependent on whether cable or telco is ahead on the global scale. I'm living proof of such a consumer.
Of course I just looked at the headlines. Its the headlines that is spoose form the basis for the news bit, which is what I was responding to. Price didn't sell for me, because the lower price was overly limited in terms of return for that price. $42 vs. $35, 4-meg vs. 1.5 meg. Yeah, I happily paid $7 more for almost three times the bandwidth. |
|
antenna4
Premium
join:2006-03-25
Columbus, OH
| You Get What You Pay For
In my case, it's the old, "you get what you pay for" situation. I have had both cable and dsl, and for me, the cable is faster and much more stable than dsl. Yes, it's more expensive, but atleast I get what I pay for...a solid connection that never goes down, tech support here in town that speak english, and the fastest speed I can buy. I just cancelled my dsl today. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
2 edits | reply to GhostDoggy
Re: How many find this info useful?
It's not meaningless because pricing by these giant providers is rarely local. A franchise rarely (if ever) charges different rates depending on whether or not you as an individual can get DSL or cable. Sometimes they'll give you a "leave the other guy" discount but that is about it. On a regional basis cable and DSL providers like Comcast and Verizon are in direct competition.
The information, again if true, states that price sells and that if you (a broadband provider) want to compete and grab up new subscribers you have to do it on price more than speed and this would certainly have implications to consumers who would/could in the future see more promos rather than speed upgrades as a result.
Giant providers who set these trends like Comcast and Verizon do business on a much larger scale than individual subscribers. Their strategies are regional where very often they're competing with each other even if not directly competing for each individual subscriber.
And the fact that you happily paid $X for whatever is the opposite of what this story is stating. According to this story, it could be inferred that people prefer paying $15 or whatever the cheap DSL rate may be (which is what is driving subscriber numbers up for DSL) for 768kbps or 1.5Mb service than $45+ for 4Mb+ service.
The relevance to you could be the $7 difference. For those who are in markets where the giants compete the relevance is more obvious.
These DSL subscriber growth stories are basically saying that if the telco wants a shot at subscribers like you who are willing to pay a bit more for speed, telcos have to drop their prices big time. You may not be willing to take the speed cut for $7, but for a $25 difference you may...at least that is what the sales trends are implying. And for the public in general which are in greater number than the DSLR 'speed freaks', price appears to be even more important. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Comcast
| reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy  :{... snip snip snip ...} Of course I just looked at the headlines. Its the headlines that is spoose form the basis for the news bit, which is what I was responding to. Price didn't sell for me, because the lower price was overly limited in terms of return for that price. $42 vs. $35, 4-meg vs. 1.5 meg. Yeah, I happily paid $7 more for almost three times the bandwidth. Prices for DSL are much better up here. Comcast charges $43 for their 6MB/384K package (if you have cable) while at&t charges $28 ($40 after 1st yr) for their 3-6MB/384-608K package (need phone line). Higher upload speed is important to some, also part of the reason I may be switching. As a note, cable prices have historically been going up while DSL prices have been going down. In a year for DSL prices may be even lower, or they could be higher, you don't know. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to GhostDoggy
Oliphant, did you based your broadband Internet connectivity on whether or not cable or telco was ahead in the industry as a global whole? Somehow I am doubting you did, and its the headline I'm lambasting. Its the headline that is suggestive.  |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to TheGhost
And again, while every market is different...you'll find overpriced or substandard services all over the place, the providers setting the trends are the handful of big ones...SBC/ATT, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, TW etc. Changes in subscriber numbers for small companies like Speed Factory have no impact, but if Comcast or Verizon makes sudden drastic strategy changes, like $15 DSL...they're large enough to have a significant impact in subscriber numbers which is the case of SBC and Verizon certainly did.
That makes this story relevant as I would guess the vast majority of current or potential broadband subscribers are serviced or would be serviced by one of the giants rather than a local ISP like DSL Extreme or Cablelynx. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
2 edits | reply to GhostDoggy
I didn't consider the global market where DSL obviously kills cable in subscriber numbers because this story is specifically about the American broadband market and how DSL is rapidly catching or possibly passed cable in subscriber numbers after a decade of cable HSI dominance in the US.
quote:
...that suggested DSL had now taken the lead in America
More importantly, and the relevance of all of this which I think you are missing is WHY.
Why now...why after 10 years did this suddenly happen?
Price. Verizon and SBC's very aggressive price structure after starting out at $50 for 768kbps when cable was at $29. Now the tables are turned and for many potential broadband subs, DSL is $15-$20 and cable $45+.
This latest study putting cable ahead wasn't about cable vs. DSL...it was the affect of household income in what service they chose...it all comes back to price. Price is driving up DSL sales to the point of catching cable rather than cables' more-speed strategy putting cable farther and farther ahead of DSL. |
|
mesmerMAN
join:2006-01-18
Miami, FL | reply to antenna4
Re: You Get What You Pay For
thats nice, one succesful cable story. i might consider cable, but i am afraid that my area is too popular with cable, so my speeds+stability wont be as reliable :/ |
|
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
·Cox HSI
2 edits | reply to antenna4
Every region is different. In my case, I pay $35 a month for Verizon's 3000/768 DSL versus $56 for the comparable 3000/256 package from the cable co...all things being equal, I pay less and get more. The cable company offers a much higher tier (5000/512 I believe) than Verizon currently does, but I don't care since the price is way too high (damn near $70 when said and done).
The crux of the article is that when it comes to broadband, "it's the price, stupid". In my area, Verizon is the better value for HSI...but naturally, your mileage may vary. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to oliphant
Re: How many find this info useful?
said by oliphant :It speaks to what is motivating people to buy. Comcast CEO Roberts says pretty much that speed sells, but this information, if correct, would say different and that it's price that sells more than speed. IOW, if Comcast introduced a 700kbps tier for $15, they too would see the blitz of new subscribers like Verizon was able to do with their ridiculously cheap $15 tier.
Yes, and a substantial number of those 'new' subs would come from their own customer pool. Hence why you won't see low dollar tiers until if and when retention forces their hand.
FWIW: Roberts will claim that whatever he's offering at any given time is what 'sells' -- after all, he's a CEO; the truth isn't usually their strong suit.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :It's not meaningless because pricing by these giant providers is rarely local. A franchise rarely (if ever) charges different rates depending on whether or not you as an individual can get DSL or cable. Sometimes they'll give you a "leave the other guy" discount but that is about it. On a regional basis cable and DSL providers like Comcast and Verizon are in direct competition. I live in an area that has another cable company as a competitor and prices are lower because of it.
Also, with FIOS coming in, Comcast is very worried about their customer base.
said by oliphant :The information, again if true, states that price sells and that if you (a broadband provider) want to compete and grab up new subscribers you have to do it on price more than speed and this would certainly have implications to consumers who would/could in the future see more promos rather than speed upgrades as a result. Considering many people still do not see the need for a high speed connection, price will win out over speed unless you are the uber-techies like the ones that come to this site.
said by oliphant :These DSL subscriber growth stories are basically saying that if the telco wants a shot at subscribers like you who are willing to pay a bit more for speed, telcos have to drop their prices big time. You may not be willing to take the speed cut for $7, but for a $25 difference you may...at least that is what the sales trends are implying. And for the public in general which are in greater number than the DSLR 'speed freaks', price appears to be even more important. Very true. |
|
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
·RCN CABLE
| rockem sockem
I can't believe nobody mentioned the picture on this post headline. Rockem Sockem Robots! I have not seen these in years. I remember being able to push head down a little harder so it would not come up easy. It had joysticks and was multiplayer. Thanks BBR for the trip down memory lane. Ok concerning cable vs dsl, I chose cable for speed and reliability. FIOS is probably never coming to my neighborhood (blue collar, middle income, 30mi south of chicago)for at least 20 years. |
|
