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. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
2 edits | 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. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to oliphant
The income data is also important to the story. Higher family incomes, where cable is king according to this data, would more than likely translate to those 3000+ sq. ft. boxes in suburbia where DSL doesn't have nearly the market presence.
6000 cable speed tiers paired w/HBO packages fits well with 75k and up incomes. Conversely, singles and couples living within city limits -- and on lower incomes -- have choices and therefore might choose a lighter speed service to cut costs.
Just a thought.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| True, there are many variables that aren't included in these statistics which could explain such a small difference like 12% (in this latest study). It could be price, availability, wealth or something else we haven't thought of. A 12% difference with a +-2.5% error isn't really hugely significant, in that I think affluence is playing a smaller role in people's decision to buy broadband rather than the price itself.
By this I mean that I think people rich or poor are logically less likely to have a "need" for broadband at $45+ while "rich" and "poor" will jump on $15 DSL if it meets their needs...even if they could afford more they choose not to afford more. |
|
