how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
271 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | BS like all reports I have a feeling, like all statistics, this is bunk.
Without reading the report, I belive their definition of "competitiveness" is the distribution of broadband subscribers among that state's ISPs. If a state with each county having an independent cable co, was compared to a 80% Comcast or 80% Time Warner state, the study would say the state with each county having its own independent cable co was "more competitive". Which is total BS because all cable cos have monopoly franchises and NEVER compete with each other. Same thing with ILECs, if each CO or each county had a mom and pop ILEC, thats not competition, because THEY DONT COMPETE!
My hypothesis on why poorer states have more faux-competition is, the ARPU of their customers, or profitability of their customers, is so low the national broadband ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Cox, Centurylink, Windstream, etc) have no reason to buy the 1 county big cable co or buy the independent county big ILEC since adding them would just lower their profit margin % statistics. | |
3 edits | »www.idinsight.com/documents/IDIn···port.pdf
P.S.>> The company MOVED the doc to hide it without registering. But Gigaom has it here: »gigaom.files.wordpress.com/2010/···inal.pdf
Here is their methodology:
Our Methodology in Detail
Because BroadBand Scout tracks actual Internet usage at the household level, we can begin to assess how this rolls up at any level of geography. When we considered competition at a state level, we adopted the following methodology:
• The first thing we did was to identify the top 10 broadband carriers for each state plus the District of Columbia. In every state analyzed, we observed that after the first few largest carriers that market share quickly drops into the single digits, with the maximum market share of the 10th largest carrier only being 3%.
• The next step was to determine what would constitute the most competitive environment. For this, we chose to structure our view to evaluate uniform distribution. That is, in the most competitive situation, we said that the top 10 carriers would have equal (or 10%) market share amongst these competitors.
• As states become “top heavy” or more monopolized, they tend to stray further and further away from this most competitive or equal share situation.
• To measure this difference between "actual market share" and "most competitive market share," we used a derivative of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for uniformity. This involved measuring the maximum difference observed between the cumulative distributions of providers' actual market shares and the most competitive market share.
• Therefore, states with a large difference are less competitive and those with smaller differences are more competitive.
• This statistic or measurement was then used to rank each state with regard to their competition.
Once this metric was established, we were then able to look at ancillary state-level factors such as average income, Internet usage, actual speed and many other state-level attributes to determine if there were any trends or correlations with their competitive environment. It doesn't look like a measurement of how many different ISPs an individual customer could buy from entered in to their evaluation of competitiveness.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| this methodology appears to ignore the point that BF69 makes:
areas of service (especially for cablecos) tend not to overlap.
If your state had 10 cablecos, each with 10% market share, but no overlap whatsoever in territory(ie, don't compete with another provider in their area), does that mean the state has "competitive" broadband?
I'm pretty sure it won't seem that way for consumers. | |
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
If you read our report, we make it very clear that we took market share data for each state and did the analysis. When we look at market share data by county or down further to city levels, the picture often changes noticeably. Both Adam (ID Insight president) and I (Craig Settles) agree that a company with 10% or 15% market share in the state can have zero presence in many of the counties.
The report is a high-level look at states that presents one benchmark (of which there may be many) so we can then have a discussion about competition within a context people understand. We don't say that even the states that rank high on the list have "the best" competitive situation. We say they have the most even distribution of market share (one definition of a competitive environment) compared to other states. | |
| said by CJSettles :
If you read our report, we make it very clear that we took market share data for each state and did the analysis. When we look at market share data by county or down further to city levels, the picture often changes noticeably. Both Adam (ID Insight president) and I (Craig Settles) agree that a company with 10% or 15% market share in the state can have zero presence in many of the counties.
The report is a high-level look at states that presents one benchmark (of which there may be many) so we can then have a discussion about competition within a context people understand. We don't say that even the states that rank high on the list have "the best" competitive situation. We say they have the most even distribution of market share (one definition of a competitive environment) compared to other states.
I read the report. You are providing macro level competitive analysis at the state level and maybe soon at the county level. But most people don't consider that competition. Competition is only meaningful at the individual level. That is, how many choices do I HAVE at my residence? 1 is no competition; 2 is minimal competition; 3 or more starts to be real competition.
So a more meaningful stat would be what percentage of the households in a state &/or county have 3(or preferably more) options at their location.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
