said by Crookshanks: said by elray:
Verizon has proven this for years with Fios.
I think you meant to say DSL?
Concur with the sentiment of your post. Once you get over 3mbit/s it's really gravy to the average user. They don't notice a difference. The only users who might are those who are interested in HD streaming, but the last time I checked that can be accomplished at 5mbit/s on Netflix, so once again, these double digit speeds are unnecessary for most.
What's going to suck is I can see the MSOs eliminating the slower tiers in the future. This is essentially what the wireless carriers are doing with voice plans, and it doesn't require a huge leap of faith to see the same happening with broadband. Offer a crippled product at today's prices (say 1mbit/s for $40/mo), an excessive product that most don't need for much more (50mbit/s for $70/mo), with nothing in between, then roll around naked in the resulting pile of cash like Scrooge McDuck.
No, I mean Fios.
Verizon can't achieve much more than 30% penetration with Fios. The super-majority of potential customers aren't willing to pay the premium they charge. This has been consistent for seven years.
Google, EPB, et al, aren't going to achieve any greater subscription levels if they're charging $60-70/month for standalone broadband, in a marketplace where the MSO has a $20-40 option, or the Telco has a decent copper offering.
Not until those higher speeds become useful to Mom.
As for "rolling in cash", I think if you put aside the hyperbole, and instead, examined the annual returns, you would find that profit margins at the large MSOs and telcos isn't that spectacular year to year - and if it is, why don't you own their stock?