Cable Still Ahead of DSLDespite recent Pew claims ( old news - 09:13AM Friday Jun 02 2006) Running contrary to a recent Pew study that suggested DSL had now taken the lead in America, Leichtman research claims that cable is still in command. The latest research studies income and broadband connectivity choices and finds more affluent customers are flooding to cable: •Thirty-seven percent of all households with annual household incomes over $75,000 subscribe to cable broadband and 27% subscribe to DSL•Among all households earning $30,000-$75,000 per year, 21% subscribe to DSL and 18% to cable Analyst firm IGI believes DSL will beat cable by year's end.
|
 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
edit:
June 2nd, @09:19AM
| 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
| Re: How many find this info useful? 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). | |
| | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
June 2nd, @09:35AM
| 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. | |
| | | | | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| 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
edit:
June 2nd, @10:02AM
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: How many find this info useful? 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. | |
| | | | | | TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
| 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
| Re: How many find this info useful? 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. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Re: How many find this info useful? 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
| Re: How many find this info useful? 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. | |
| | | | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by oliphant :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. On the other hand, Comcast continues to report some fairly impressive numbers for quarterly net internet subscriber additions, somewhat begging the question of how important aggregate numbers are in comparison to continuing to add subscribers while maintaining a margin that ensures corporate profitability. In addition, CEO-speak always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since if price were a non-factor, Comcast would have ditched their $19.99 for X months introductory offers a long time ago.
One interesting aspect of the aggregate balance of DSL subs versus Cable subs becomes linkage to other services and potential opportunities. Assuming that the stereotypical DSL subscriber also has RBOC DSL and POTS, with a similar relationship between cable internet and CATV, is there a correlation with the opportunity for the third leg of the data, video, and voice triad? | |
| | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| 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 | |
| | | bchris02
join:2006-05-25
| "Some here complain that the US is lacking in broadband penetration and this information could be saying that price, not availability is the reason."
I think you are on to something here. Most people I know can get broadband in some form or another (excluding Satellite). However, most people just choose to stick with dialup because they would rather pay $9.99 than $25 for DSL or $40 for cable. | |
| | | 
BloodRoses
The Purple Faerie
Premium
join:2003-03-17
New York, NY | I couldn't have said it better. Most people want less cost, and even the power users want more speed AND less cost.
--
Cheers,
Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.com | |
| | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| 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
edit:
June 2nd, @10:17AM
| Re: How many find this info useful? 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. | |
| | damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| The news in and of it's self is not necessarily useful, but as far as I'm concerned, it's good new. I find it encouraging in that as DSL surpasses cable, in general, cable companies will begin seeing the need to be more competitive, which eventually equates to better offerings at better prices. Also, if DSL offerings were to get significantly better, I'd switch.
News doesn't have to be "useful". A lot of news is just interesting and informative.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
|
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. | |
| | LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| 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
edit:
June 2nd, @09:45AM
| Re: It's pricing... 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. | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Mark Twain Lies, damn lies and statistics. | |
| 
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. | |
| | 
mesmerMAN
join:2006-01-18
Miami, FL | 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 :/ | |
| | |
antenna4
Premium
join:2006-03-25
Columbus, OH | Re: You Get What You Pay For That is a concern, but I know most people in my neighborhood have cable internet and my speeds seem pretty steady, even in the evenings. It maybe different from neighborhood to neighborhood though. | |
| | 
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Tempe, AZ
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
June 2nd, @11:10AM
| 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. | |
| | jebba2005
join:2005-01-13
Portland, ME | Where I live dsl options are 3 times faster then cable on the download side, upload 2 times. I havent had a single second of down time in 10 months. | |
| | attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| said by antenna4 :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. OK.. maybe your dsl speed sucked but that is not always the case. Most user just need broadband connection that is cheap and many times faster then dialup
you're comparing apples and bananas here between dslvscable
It make economic sense for me to stick with cheap and fast
6.0/768 @ 29.99
your cable provider need to lower price to attract dsl user that wants speed and cheap too
cheap is good
money saved is money earned...
your extra money that can be used to feed 3rd world country such as africa... | |
| ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
| 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. | |
| | dummy1
join:2003-04-05
South Elgin, IL
edit:
June 2nd, @12:40PM
| Re: How many find it useful? I'm as reliant on the net as the next guy, but if I had the luxury of living somewhere outside of the ratrace, I would not move..are you kidding me? They have it made. We are not at a point where they need to move to get broadband..if they don't have it now it's just a matter of time.
said by GhostDoggy :Its like providing those in rural location because they want technology but not have to do anything to get it (like move).. | |
| | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: How many find it useful? said by dummy1 :I'm as reliant on the net as the next guy, but if I had the luxury of living somewhere outside of the ratrace, I would not move..are you kidding me? They have it made. We are not at a point where they need to move to get broadband..if they don't have it now it's just a matter of time. You are very correct!
I live in rural Indiana (town of about 300 people), my nearest town is 23,000 people, and that is a good 20 minutes away. I'm pretty much surrounded by corn fields and wheat farms.
About 2 years ago Verizon put a DSLAM in my local CO. Within months, Comcast decided to finally offer HSI. We had cable in the area since the early '90s, and Comcast had been delivering HSI to the nearest town (LaPorte) since @Home was around, but they ignored my area until Verizon wired my town saying that "there were not enough subscribers to justify such an expensive outlay", which is what they said a week before I got the mailing that Verizon had DSL in my area.
Time and someone moving a piece on the chess board is all it takes. I am also feeling a fios install soon because Verizon has been dropping fiber up and down the main highway going through my town for the past 2 years. The COs have been interlinked with fiber for years, but so far they have dropped about 5 fiber trunks into the ground and are running them down smaller country roads and the major highways.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| DarkSly
join:2004-12-10
Danvers, MA
| What is more important? What is more important, subs or revenue?
DSL may have more subs than Cable at years end, but cable makes up to 3.5x revenue on their subs than DSL.
Providing customer support and network stability to that many customers for a service that is only generating $15 a month revenue does not sound very economically sound to me. Tech visits and customers support calls cost money (having techs on call and individuals to answer phones in call centers).
I am in no way an economist, so I hope someone on here can help me to understand how the DSL companies are making a profit on DSL, or are these DSL customers just being gouged on land line phones and "shady" recovery fees? | |
| | 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Re: What is more important? Its all about the contract the first year it will be 15 bucks the second 30 of a two year contract thats how Telocos make that money | |
| | | DarkSly
join:2004-12-10
Danvers, MA | Re: What is more important? people are signing 2 yr contracts for Internet services now? Geez | |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Flip Flops How many people switch from cable to dsl or vise versa | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | and the bottom line is.... broadband in the U.S. still sucks compared to most advanced countries. | |
| | 
chd176
join:2003-01-10
Winfield, AL | Re: and the bottom line is.... This is true and how many times is this Cable vs DSL going to be played out and called "news"? It all depends on your area and the providers when comparing DSL vs Cable.
--
1.5/256 CenturyTel PPPoE DSL line | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| said by nasadude :broadband in the U.S. still sucks compared to most advanced countries. You should go over to Korea for three weeks to live and work away from Seoul in places that tourists do not normally go and make a total life experience comparison rather than just statistical comparisons read on the Internet about one minute factor of life.
Granted we have a LOT of room for improvement as far as Internet access (starting with the industry and ending up at the Dems and Repubs), but I think I will not be in a hurry to move to what some people consider "BroadBand Heaven".
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: Of course price sells said by kfsutops :There is a reason WalMart pretty much dominates everywhere you go in the US. My sister wouldn't get broadband. I told her that she could Verizon for the same price she was paying for AOHell (which you definitely can't do with cable) and she switched. Yes AOL, I pushed someone to cancel your service. The truth is... lower price good for everyone.
Cable is very expensive that I would probably not use it even if its twice as fast and cost 50 percent more.
speed is not everything but cheapness is...
Would I go for 10/1 at 49.99
probably not...
WHY?
20 dollars more just for a little faster speed is a waste of money.
 | |
| | | 
Steve Mehs
Go Sabres
join:2005-07-16
| Re: Of course price sells quote:
20 dollars more just for a little faster speed is a waste of money.
When you download files that are a few GBs in size every little bit helps, that's why I pay $30 extra for 1Mb more. Dead Slow Line will never be a consideration. $40 for 7/384 is very reasonable IMO, $70 for 8/512 is not really, but I pay it anyway. | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | Rich people live in the woods. Central Offices are usually in the town center. Rich people tend to live farther away from center city making DSL less attractive. | |
| | attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: Rich people live in the woods. said by batterup :Central Offices are usually in the town center. Rich people tend to live farther away from center city making DSL less attractive. It is attractive to anyone whether rich or poor.
Why spend more if you can spend less?
Rich are very thrifty and poor are not. | |
| | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Rich people live in the woods. said by attsbcisgay :said by batterup :Central Offices are usually in the town center. Rich people tend to live farther away from center city making DSL less attractive. It is attractive to anyone whether rich or poor. Why spend more if you can spend less? Rich are very thrifty and poor are not. I know the rich hire illegals to work as virtual slaves, is that what you mean by thrifty? Are you saying cable is cheaper then DSL? I don't think so. | |
| | | | attsbcisgay
join:2003-03-18
Beverly Hills, CA
| Re: Rich people live in the woods. said by batterup :said by attsbcisgay :said by batterup :Central Offices are usually in the town center. Rich people tend to live farther away from center city making DSL less attractive. It is attractive to anyone whether rich or poor. Why spend more if you can spend less? Rich are very thrifty and poor are not. I know the rich hire illegals to work as virtual slaves, is that what you mean by thrifty? Are you saying cable is cheaper then DSL? I don't think so. Trust me the rich are very cheap compared to the poor. They rarely spend money on anything that is not necessary. They are rich because they make lots of money...
My aunt is rich she runs a business I'm talking millionaires and if she can save just a buck, she will!
Thought she has a 100,000 dollar sport car.
I'm not talking about super rich like wal-marts ceo.
So you misunderstood me...
if a user has a choice between DSL at 12.99 or 17.99
over cable @ 42.95
DSL would be a better choice if the speed is almost as good
But not all cable user has this choice so who knows | |
| | | | | 
rivalman
Rival
join:2004-01-18
Calgary, AB
| Re: Rich people live in the woods. Wow! You guys pay a lot for your internet there. I pay $49.95 for 7 down and 1meg up. And that's in Canadian dollars!
Woot woot! I'm sure there are some better deals out there anyway.... I wonder... what is the best deal out there in USA/Canada?
As for Dsl, well, here it's not too great. Telus, our company up here, does not believe in good prices for their service. 2.5meg down and 1 meg up = $64.95, um.... NO DICE!
Shaw is the way to go here in Calgary Canada. | |
| | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Rich people live in the woods. said by rivalman :Wow! You guys pay a lot for your internet there. I pay $49.95 for 7 down and 1meg up. And that's in Canadian dollars! Advertised speed is only on measure of the service. Cable companies usually impose some sort of usage cap. DSL 24/7 full out no problem. | |
| | | |
|
|
