California Leads Broadband Charge Claims 16% of country's total broadband subs According to a new study, California leads the nation in high speed customers, claiming ownership to 16 percent of the 16 million broadband subscribers nationwide. While the golden state leads in total numbers, with 2.6 million broadband subscribers, it's third in concentration, (behind Massachusetts and New Jersey) with 226 subscribers per every 1,000 households. This story, in the San Diego Daily Transcript, explores some additional numbers unearthed by the survey, such as which states prefer cable to DSL and vice versa.
|
 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| broadband??? "Since broadband has a wider bandwidth, and so can carry video, voice and data simultaneously...
...The report counts as a subscriber any high-speed line, in active usage at a home or business, with a connection that is faster than 200 kilobits per second in at least one direction."
Ain't gonna be gettin' much video over that connection. | |
|  KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | Now how bad... ...does cable service in CA have to be for DSL to end up with more total subscribers. The nation is split about 1/3 dsl and 2/3 cable, yet in CA we have more DSL subscribers than cable subscribers! | |
|  |  drjimPremium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Long Beach, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Now how bad... Good question. Everybody I know who has cable loves it. The prices are within a few dollars of each other.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
| | | | That's because you're service by PerfectBell which had DSL available 1-2 years before the rest of the RBOCs. As I have said numerous times before the best broadband service is the one available first. The smart cable companies decided to put their efforts in areas where the RBOCs weren't deploying DSL fast enough. | |
| | |  Hitman2
join:2002-11-13
Beaverton, OR | Re: Now how bad... When I lived in PacHell territory, they couldn't even figure out if I was able to get DSL or not... I got a different answer every time I called... Amazing they signed anyone up with that kind of customer service.
--
urusai na, omae wa | |
|
 oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Makes sense For the state with the largest population to have the largest percentage of subscribers. What would be more interesting is penetration percentages as in what state has the most per capita subscribers.
As far as DSL out-pacing cable in California, it's also no surprise that the natural topology of DSL lends itself to better deployment statistics in high density populations where the limitations of DSL reach aren't such a factor as they are in rural communities which dominate mid-west states. Think about it...you can drive from way north of Los Angeles to San Diego and never leave the "city" save for the occasional coastal military base. | |
| |  gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA | Re: Makes sense With regards to cable outpacing dsl, in San Diego I'd think that there are many more cable subscribers than dsl just because there are two strong companies who split up the county TW and Cox. However, in Long Beach ( a city of ~500k) I didn't know a single person who had cable, everyone who had broadband had dsl. I'm not exactly sure of the reasons but I know LA was fighting with its cable company all the time. | |
| | | djrobsd
join:2002-01-24
San Diego, CA Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: Makes sense LOL I bet if you split San Diego in half, North County would probably be 90% cable, 10% DSL, whereas the city itself probably is around 60% DSL / 40 % Cable..
Why? North County = RURAL.. LOL
Of course, SBC has added a ton of remote terminals, at least in Carlsbad and Encinitas. But they're too late, especially considering the fact that gee, let's see.. I want to pay a) $39.99 a month for 1500/128 with DSL, or $39.99 a month for 2000/256 with cable? Go fig!
[text was edited by author 2003-05-27 14:24:10] | |
| | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | said by gogeta6:
With regards to cable outpacing dsl, in San Diego I'd think that there are many more cable subscribers than dsl just because there are two strong companies who split up the county TW and Cox. However, in Long Beach ( a city of ~500k) I didn't know a single person who had cable, everyone who had broadband had dsl. I'm not exactly sure of the reasons but I know LA was fighting with its cable company all the time.
That's because Charter hasn't rolled out cable internet in large parts of Long Beach. They say they're working on it, but they've been saying that for over a year. | |
| | | |  zoom3148SupermanPremium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA |  Re: Makes sense
--
Charter Pipeline rules in Hesperia, CA, Verizon sucks..... | |
|
| |  roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | said by gogeta6:
LA was fighting with its cable company all the time.
CompanIES... 
That said, nearly all of the fighting has been with Adelphia; TWC in the San Fernando Valley and MediaOne->AT&T->Comcast in parts of the city near Compton and Culver City have provided cable modem service for years.
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
|
| roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | said by oliphant5:
As far as DSL out-pacing cable in California, it's also no surprise that the natural topology of DSL lends itself to better deployment statistics in high density populations where the limitations of DSL reach aren't such a factor as they are in rural communities which dominate mid-west states. Think about it...you can drive from way north of Los Angeles to San Diego and never leave the "city" save for the occasional coastal military base.
That, and the fact that many areas (most parts of the L.A. area now served by Adelphia, etc.) didn't get cable upgrades until well AFTER SBC/PacBell, VZ/GTE, Covad, etc. launched DSL, and some areas (most of San Jose, etc.) STILL aren't upgraded, thanks to cable companies constantly changing hands and/or politically-charged stalling of upgrades...
From what I've seen, DSL clearly has the upper hand in L.A. (with some exceptions, such as the part of Orange County served by Cox) and the Bay Area, mostly because of the slow pace of cable upgrades in those areas, but cable seems to do much better in San Diego and in the less-dense inland cities such as Bakersfield and Sacramento.
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
| |  Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | According to the census bureau in as of July 1st 2002:
US Population: 288,368,698
California Population: 35,116,033
Which puts California at about 12% of US population. So having 16% of the Broadband subscribers really isn't all that great of an accomplishment. As far as ranking 3rd in density. Even that 3rd place by density probably isn't much to talk about as I suspect that the top 10 by density are pretty close. But I'm not paying 90 dollars to download the PDF to find out.
--
Infogrames != Atari | |
| | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: Makes sense That's why I would be more interested in "per capita" deployment. It's a better indicator as to how both the providers and state regulation affect adoption by the consumers. | |
|
| | I'll take anything! Cable, DSL, tin can & string...I don't care! The first one to offer it in my area wins. | |
| | | | Re: I'll take anything! Can you get Sprint PCS? Just buy a $20 serial or USB cable and you have a 100-140k connection for virtually free. Is it against the rules? Yes, but extreme situations require extreme measures. IF YOU AREN'T OFFERED BROADBAND YOU SHOULD BE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO STEAL IT BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. | |
| | |  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Re: I'll take anything! I think your confusing broadband with food and medical care....Oooooh nevermind. | |
| | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by 2farfromCO7:
IF YOU AREN'T OFFERED BROADBAND YOU SHOULD BE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO STEAL IT BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
Jiminy H. Crackers man... you've been whining here for at least the past 2 years about this... if broadband is so important to you, why don't you just move to a place where its available?
BTW - you do realize that posting what you did could be construed as a violation of the DMCA LOL.
--
Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems because one is too lazy to learn a different OS is like saying that Ford has a monopoly in cars because one is too lazy to find a Honda dealership. | |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | DSL is not superior to cable or vice versa I started out with cable internet and was pretty happy with it while it lasted but when circumstances beyond my control made me have to dump my cable internet, DSL was my only other broadband choice.
Frankly, the only plus that cable has over DSL is a higher upload speed and the only plus that DSL has over cable is that bandwidth doesn't degrade as noticeably and as annoyingly as cable does when there are too many users on the same node. Otherwise, I think the reason why DSL seems to be more prevalent in the state is simply because more people live within the 2 mile limit to the switch in their neighborhoods, not because one is better than the other. When it comes right down to it and from what I have seen firsthand, they both have their ups & downs and the one thing you can almost always count on with either method of broadband delivery are the outtages.
--
Dear God... Protect me from your followers.»www.digitalconsumer.org | |
| |  Jammybe'suvwlPremium
join:2000-11-03
Chula Vista, CA
·Comcast
·Cox HSI
| Re: DSL is not superior to cable or vice versa Well . . .I started out with cable here in San Diego back in 1998. Very lousy service, being down the first 5 days after my installation. I was the only household on my node. I switched the PacBell's DSL which I kept for 13 months . . .constantly hassling with them over my lousy download and upload speeds even though eventually I was uncapped. I went back to my Cox cable internet even though they were still with @Home, because their download (and upload) speeds were so much faster than my 1.5/256 DSL.
Even through the transition for @Home partnership to Cox HSI I have now had no problems with Cox's service and I will never consider PacBell's (SBC) "tiered" DSL again! I love my constant high speeds with Cox (usually 3200+/256) and the ease of contacting support if needed. No more waiting on hold for the seemingly non-existent PacBell now SBC techs. Anyways . . .I pay only $29.95 a month for my Cox HSI and to receive the same speeds from PacBell would incur a monthly cost of $49.95 (or more).
Cox Rocks!
Jammy
--
The Klingon Hotsauce Queen: Where the tides of fortune take us, no man can know! ~Gowron
My Blog
| |
| | | major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: DSL is not superior to cable or vice versa said by Jammy:
Well . . .I started out with cable here in San Diego back in 1998.
I was living in SD back then and got cable internet from them in '99. It sounds like you're pretty happy with the service. Cox San Diego has always been really good about customer service but I wonder if they've oversold their cable internet yet. I may be moving back to SD and plan to check them out provided that the service isn't so oversubscribed that bandwidth is down to a trickle.
--
Dear God... Protect me from your followers.»www.digitalconsumer.org | |
|
| |
|
|
