This is very amusing. When Verizon first announced their improvement in DSL bang for the buck, most analysts dismissed it as cable has already won in their playbooks. Now we have a recognition that the phone companies may be serious and this may impact their profits, but may be good for their service bundles.
The game isn't over (yet) .. Canada and Korean have well over 50% broadband penetration and the US is around 22%. It will be expensive to compete, but Verizon is already installing substations to move their footprint out. Two friends have switched from ComCast broadband (which has some problems in Central NJ) to the 1.5 Mbps Verizon DSL service and report that performance is generally better (except on middle of the night downloads of huge files) and customer service is much better -- oh yeah - the email servers work too:-)
For $30 to $60 a month people expect high levels of service. I'm very happy with my Optimum Online service, but that seems to be the bright spot among broadband providers.. Their email service is poor (I use a third party for most of my email, so it doesn't matter) and tech support isn't very good, but the basic service is worth the price.
What the business reports miss is that the cable guys see broadband as a cash cow to help fund their digital set top box push towards video on demand nirvana. The financial assumptions I've seen for VoD makes me think that cable companies and their stockholders are in for a very bad wake-up.
I'm also guessing that the cable guys are going to have to improve their broadband service quality and price structure. If I was in a ComCast/Verizon or TW/Verizon region, I'd go for Verizon at the moment.
___
It is interesting to note that in many areas it is still difficult to get cable or dsl access. Two friends in Silicon Valley are out of DSL range and no cable service is offered. Another friend in San Francisco is unable to get cable and the DSL backlog is over a month.
Real competition would be a good thing.
5:48:05 AM
|