Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Cox Raising Broadband Pricing
11 Jul, 2008
Cox is apparently ignoring the recent Pew Internet research results which suggested that broadband pricing is still too high. According to BroadbandReports.com, Cox is raising their broadband pricing for many of their broadband tiers in several markets. Apparently, their "economy" tier will rise to $19.95 from $16.95 and their "value" tier to $29.95 from $26.95. Their “preferred” and “premiere” tiers are also rising to $44.95 and $59.95 respectively. These identified prices include bundle discounts for taking video. The Pew Research Center recently released their 2008 Home Broadband Adoption Study, in which one of the finding suggested that high prices for broadband is impeding higher broadband penetration rates for the U.S. The Pew results indicate growth in broadband penetration is relatively flat and “35% of dial-up users say that the price of broadband service would have to fall,” in order for them to give up dial up for broadband.
Of course that’s one opinion in the broadband pricing debate. Broadband carriers tend to have a different perspective, especially as the appetite for bandwidth continues to climb. Satisfying that growing subscriber appetite, while also holding the line on price is a challenge, they say. If the trend continues where broadband consumption continues to grow at a rapid pace, and there’s no indication it won’t, broadband carriers will continue to explore raising prices. Maybe even at the expense of slowing penetration growth. How are you coping with finding the right balance between price and penetration?
Pew report
Read the report again -- there's more to suggest it's their economic status and desire to use the internet than it's broadband pricing.
Of course, everyone would like it priced to zero, but that's not viable unless the gov't helps in a big way.
Broadband Pricing
My take is a bit different. I got road runner in 1997 and I believe it was 3 meg then. Now it is 6.5 meg and the price went up 2 dollars, to $46.95. I dont have any other service with Time Warner. I have DirecTV and Vonage which beats the bundle by about $20.00. The quality is better with satellite, Vonage I don't care and the bandwidth is the best in the area. If someone would offer a 50 meg deal I will probably jump on it. Greensboro, NC will probaly take some years to really see competition. It will have to be AT&T with Uverse.
Post new comment
About Telecompetitor
- Comcast Brings Wideband to the Northwest
- Muni-Wireless Not Dead Yet
- Is Three Screen Convergence a Pipe Dream?
- Verizon Joins CDN Movement
- iPhone 3G Coming to WalMart
- Verizon’s Turn for Smartphone Spotlight with BlackBerry Storm Launch
- Verizon Business Teams With Nortel for Managed Telepresence Service
- Full Speed Ahead for Clearwire and WiMAX
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?

digg this story
google

skeptical
forgive me, but i'm a little skeptical of these phone and cable companies crying about broadband pricing. Is it just me, but aren't all of these companies enjoying record profits. Is "holding the line on price" really a challenge? I doubt it.