Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Says There's 6 Million Unhappy DSL Users Left To Target (dslreports.com)
Karl Bode, writing for DSLReports: As we noted last week, cable is effectively demolishing phone companies when it comes to new broadband subscriber additions, and Comcast still says the company has plenty of room to grow. Comcast and Charter alone added 500,000 net broadband subscribers last quarter, while the nation's biggest telcos collectively lost 360,783 broadband users during the same period. With AT&T and Verizon backing away from unwanted DSL users, and Windstream Frontier and CenturyLink only eyeing piecemeal upgrades, the bloodshed is far from over. Speaking this week at the Nomura 2016 Media, Telecom & Internet Conference, Comcast VP Marcien Jenckes stated that the company has plenty of unhappy DSL customers left to nab. In fact, Comcast says the company still has around 6 million DSL subscribers in its territory, many of which are likely frustrated by outdated speeds.
What about the 20+ million unhappy Comcast subscribers? Shouldn't they target some of them for better service?
Wait, this is Comcast. Those people are already in the gallows.
The happy Comcast customer is a myth, just like Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Sure, there may be some unhappy DSL customers remaining to poach, but thanks to their legally-regulated monopoly, Comcast's own service is unreliable, awful and badly, badly overpriced too. These customers are jumping out of the frying pan, and into a bigger frying pan. Switching to Comcast will likely make their internet faster when it works, but it will also make it much more expensive and their happiness won't improve one iota.
three times now. Even offered to handle the last ~800 from the road to no avail. Meanwhile Windstream keeps raising price -- now nearly $80 for a measly 6-Mbps.
Comcast is delusional if it thinks speed is the major bottleneck between subscribers and happiness. It is but one of many issues, though it is somewhat significant. By far, the bigger issues are:
1) Price. High speed Internet access in America is way over priced, and way under-delivered.
2) Lack of choices. We need the municipalities to own the infrastructure, and multiple, competing private companies to administer it. It's the only model that works.
3) Availability. High speed Internet is available in probably 10% (or less) of America, despite decades of massive tax cuts to Internet providers for the sole purpose of connecting America. The corruptions needs to stop, and we need to get our money back.
Maybe Comcast isn't interested in building the infrastructure to offer service solely for internet-only customers.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Have gnu, will travel.
It's hilarious that they think I'm unhappy. Since I canceled my Comcast service I've never been happier. My 20Mbps Centrylink DSL is fast enough and reliable.
As for them being "slow" to roll out new service. They offered fiber at my condo in Salt Lake City six years ago. It was expensive and I had to spend $1500 to run it from the pole but it was available. From what I understand they're upgrading the lines in my current neighborhood to fiber as well.
Funny how things work when there is competition. My condolences to anyone with no options.
Let them eat bits.
My girlfriend and I finally reached the breaking point with Time Warner and cancelled our "working when it wants to be" 100 megabit service for a perfectly stable 7 megabit DSL connection. It was a matter of maintaining sanity and we are much happier with it. Also, no more burning up mobile hotspot bandwidth every time it flaked out.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Where are you at? In most of the US the phone company is restricted from requiring phone service to get DSL. Call your provider and ask for "naked DSL". I know Frontier and CenturyLink offer it in most/all of their territories.
If speed and price are the only considerations, maybe.
I live in a rural area in NC. While DSL would be insufficient for my needs (I have Spectrum/TWC), friends of my parents are totally happy with the local telecom. Sure, it simply doesn't have the speed that cable does, but it's more than enough for them. Furthermore, the large cablecos cannot touch the level of service that is standard with the local telecom. If they ever have problems, a guy is usually there within 45 minutes.
So it all depends on what your needs are, and more importantly, where you live.
Less popular channels are often delivered through "switched digital video" (SDV), which delivers only those channels that someone in a particular neighborhood is watching. It's more like multicast video-on-demand, such as pay-per-view boxing, than like traditional digital cable TV channels.