How Much Will Consumers and Business Pay for Really-Fast Broadband?

As the Federal Communications Commission shifts universal service programs to support broadband access rather than voice, the European Commission pushes for ubiquitous 30-Mbps service across the community, with a further objective of 100-Mbps service for roughly  half of potential consumers by 2020, it is fairly clear that there is widespread support for the idea that faster broadband can have important economic and social benefits.

If Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gets his way, the FCC will set a goal of 100-Mbps service delivered to 100 milliion American homes by 2020. 100 Mbps or faster is the FCC goal

Genachowski says his preferred approach to a national broadband policy would require ISPs to offer minimum home connection speeds by 2020. The “100 Squared” initiative might in fact be too modest a goal, he suggests.

"We should stretch beyond 100 megabits," he adds. But "availability" is only part of the business equation. Demand is the other part. And at least so far, there isn't much evidence that substantial numbers of businesses or consumers are willing to pay for 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps or potentially 1 Gbps service. 

It might be a different story is the cost of such service were no more than what consumers now pay, but it seems highly doubtful investment can be raised, if that were to be the expected outcome.

Few customers now buy 50-Mbps services where such speeds are available, in large part because the cost is in the triple-digits range. Proponents might argue that the goal is 100 Mbps for not much more money than people now pay for 4 Mbps or 7 Mbps service, but it is hard to envision how even "free" opto-electronices could support such a value-price combination.

In other words, even if all the active elements actually were provided for free, could service providers actually build ubiquitous networks offering 100 Mbps or faster speeds, and price in middle-double digits? So far, the answer appears to be negative.

About 60 percent of the cost of building an FTTH network is construction work, ducts and cables, not to mention cabinets, power supplies and other network elements. Still, in some dense areas, it might be possible to do so, since the construction and cable might amount to about $1200 per home passed. Again, keep in mind we assume totally free opto-electronics.

In suburban areas the business case is marginal, at best, since about $2400 might have to be spent on construction and passive elements.

Since the FCC goal only calls for connecting 100 million homes out of possibly 113 million, we can safely assume the cost of most rural networks of such capacity need not be considered.

Of course, opto-electronics are not "free." But the point is that construction costs, were nothing else an issue, would still be a tough proposition, if the goal is very high speed access at prices most consumers would pay.

American consumers will be paying more for broadband in the future, if for no other reason than that most mobile plans will require it, and those charges will be paid for on a "per-device" basis, not "per home."

What seems improbable is that U.S. consumers are willing to increase overall broadband spending by an order of magnitude (10 times) to have 100 Mbps or faster service on a fixed basis.

One can of course argue from history. Prices for lower-speed broadband services have declined over time, while the prices for the faster tiers have remained stable, but speeds have increased. The issue is how much price compression is possible.

"In order to earn a return for investors, you have to be conscious of what consumers will pay. I don't know this is something consumers will pay for," Piper Jaffray analyst Christopher Larsen says. "It's a nice goal, but it's a little on the over ambitious side."

And in a capital-intensive business such as communication networks, being too early, with too much additional capacity, processing or storage, can be ruinous. One might point to the dramatic bubble in capacity investing, competitive local exchange networks or e-commerce sites around the turn of the century.

Equally to the point is the serious gap that developed between 3G mobile networks, especially in Europe, and the promised new applications that proponents expected would develop.

It has been roughly a decade since European mobile operators placed big spectrum bets on "third generation" mobile broadband, and then largely watched as killer apps failed to emerge, customer use of the new networks remained sluggish, and executives ruefully noted they had overpaid for spectrum.

As operators now gear up for a transition to 4G, we will hear similar talk about new applications the network will enable. The difference is that, a decade after launch, the  "killer app" for 3G turns out to be mobile broadband access.

Right now, 4G is mostly “just” faster access. But 4G looks to be a potential replacement for fixed-line broadband, so maybe, early on, a lead application for 4G will be displacement of fixed-line broadband connections, and not any particular new application.

Some might argue that a lead app for 4G is turning out to be personal Wi-Fi hotspots, for example, another “access” function. A decade from now, we are likely to have discovered that some important new applications, enabled specifically by 4G, have arisen. But it will take some time, if 3G is any predictor.

At some point, the gap can be bridged either by “build it and they will come” improvements in processing, storage or communications that outstrip known demand, or “build it and they will come” applications that might be usable by only a fraction of potential consumers.

Some think the logjam can be broken only by moving faster towards faster networks, to create the right environment for application developers. That tends to be an opinion held by people whose core business interests do not require investing the money.

Service providers are quite a bit more circumspect, and “greed” is not the primary reason for such views. In fact, experience teaches service providers that consumers are quite careful about spending their own money on communication services, devices and features.

One case in point is a study of small-business broadband by Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, which conducted a nationwide survey on behalf of the Small Business Administration.

The really significant finding is that respondents won't pay all that much for 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps connections. Businesses Want 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, but won't pay

And price resistance is stubborn. Even when the price for such a service is just 10 percent to 20 percent higher, businesses are significantly less likely to switch to a 100-Mbps service from what they currently buy.

As you might guess, if small businesses are hesitant to spend 10 percent to 20 percent more to get 100 Mbps, they are even more hesitant to spend more for an extremely fast Internet connection of 1 Gbps. This is especially true for prices that are 40 percent or more higher than their current prices.

If you asssume the average prices now range between $70 a month to $124 a month, then survey respondents show significant resistance to paying much more than $84 to $149 a month for 100 Mbps service, or $98 to $174 for 1-Gbps service.
This graphic might confuse you. The taller the bars, the less likely the respondent is to take the action indicated. The tallest bar, a score of "5" would mean "highly unlikely" to take the action. SMB broadband demand report

A score of "1," shown by a shorter bar, would indicate strong willingness to take the action.

The point is that small business users aren't willing to spend much more to upgrade from their current level of service to 100-Mbps service.

The most surprising finding is that even the same prices, or prices 10 percent 5to 20 percent lower do not cause small business respondents to become certain of switching. Scores around "3" indicate a "maybe, maybe not" attitude.

No matter what these respondents say about wanting higher speeds, they don't appear to be willing to pay much of anything for it.

U.K. Will Not Reach 30 Mbps Broadband Access Goal by 2020

Rural fiber infrastructure cost

BT Group Director of Strategy and Policy Sean Williams considers the EU target of 30 Mbps to all citizens by 2020 as "not achievable for any country." 


That doesn't mean complete or even substantial failure. In fact, one might argue the opposite. 


BT does seem to believe it will be possible to provide 30 Mbps access to about 90 percent of the U.K. population. 


For the final 10 percent of homes or locations, 2 Mbps might be more reasonable, for all sorts of good reasons related directly to the cost of building communications infrastructure in rural and isolated areas. Some might argue that the cost curve looks very much like the curve that describes the cost of providing health care to people, where most of the cost is incurred late in life. 


Likewise, the cost of building facilities to the last couple of percentage points of locations is very high. That's one reason satellite broadband providers have a business. The core market is about two percent of U.S. households, for example. 


The high cost of reaching the last 10 percent of locations in either the U.K. or U.S. markets always will be a problem, at least when using fixed networks, whether the services are narrowband or broadband . EC broadband target unreachable 


So some might argue that 90-percent coverage of the United Kingdom with 30 Mbps service by 2020 is not in any way "a failure." It is a success. But the problem with all infrastructure goals is that it always is a stretch to reach the last 10 percent of potential customers with networks of any kind.

Ofcom Warns of "Low Interest" in Super Fast Broadband

Ofcom chief Ed Richards has warned that cash-strapped U.K. consumers lack enough incentive from access providers to upgrade to "superfast" broadband packages. In other words, "prices are too high."


"For superfast broadband, subscriber numbers are still low, perhaps because the nearest thing we have found to a ‘killer app’ so far is the demands of the multi-user household," Richards said. "The fact that we cannot identify specific ‘killer apps’ beyond bandwidth hungry teenagers is in some ways beside the point." Ofcom boss warns of low interest in 'superfast' broadband

That argument illustrates an important, and sometimes overlooked, aspect of national broadband plans. Some supporters of faster broadband think the "problem" is availability. But there is a mounting amount of evidence that "availability" is not the problem.

For whatever reason, including compelling applications or prices, where super fast broadband is available, and a workable definition is access at 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps at the moment, demand has tended to be low, even in some markets, such as Singapore, where prices are low, by global standards.


Time Warner Cable in early 2010 had about nine million high-speed access customers. It had about 20,000 customers for its fastest DOCSIS 3.0 service, which depending on configuration can support speeds up to about 43 Mbps per 6 MHz channel in the downstream direction, or more, if more bandwidth is made available.


All that means is that few customers are willing to pay $100 a month or more to get really-fast broadband access running at speeds of about 50 Mbps maximum. Low demand for 50 Mbps?


Fiber access does not sell itself, BT has found. As it begins to market its new fiber-based access services, BT has found that consumer demand for 40 Mbps Internet access is less robust than some had anticipated.

"Cardiff has been given a head start by Openreach but some fiber-enabled parts of the city are proving to be a bit slow out of the blocks to take up the opportunities fibre presents," said Richard Hall,BT Openreach NGA Deployment Director for Wales. BT UK Frustrated by Lack of Superfast FTTC Broadband Uptake

"With the notable exception of Whitchurch, residents are proving slow to take advantage of the technology on their doorstep and so we are working with the local council to raise awareness and drive demand," he said.

In the U.S. market, service providers have not fared much better with sales of 50 Mbps or faster services, which largely remain products bought by business customers. Another typical U.S. market issue also could be a factor. Customers in these areas already can buy fast service from Virgin Media.

1/2 of New Virgin Media, BT Broadband Connections are for 30 Mbps or Faster

About half of new connections for high-speed broadband service at Virgin Media and BT in the United Kingdom are for service at 30 Mbps or faster. That is a pretty big deal, as up to this point, take rates for "super fast" service have been fairly minimal. 


This level of service, as a stand-alone product, retails for £35 ($56) a month on Virgin Media networks.  That's an important fact. Many have argued that even when "super fast" services are available, price is a barrier. 

Virgin Media is still on target to meet its coverage target of its 100 Mbps service being available to its complete cable network by the middle of 2012, this represents roughly half of U.K. households. 1/3 of UK Virgin Media customers can get 100 Mbps


By way of comparison, in Denver Comcast sells 20-Mbps connections for about $68 a month on a standard basis. CenturyLink sells a 40 Mbps connection for about $80 a month, where it is available, as a stand-along product. The Comcast Xfinity service running at up to 100 Mbps costs about $200 a month. 


The Xfinity 50 Mbps service costs about $150 a month. 50 Mbps Xifinity Most observers would say the 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps services are purchased mostly by business users.


German cable network operator Kabel BW claims that around 40,000 customers are using broadband with speeds of 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps. About three million homes are able to buy service at those rates. So buyers represent about one percent of customers. 100-Mbps demand

Also, the price for the 50-Mbps access service is about $41 a month. Kabel BW has found only about one percent take rates, at prices of $41 a month. 

So long, broadband duopoly?

Analysts at the Federal Communications Commission appear to agree with forecasts that project 90 percent of the U.S. population is likely to have access to broadband networks capable of peak download speeds in excess of 50 Mbps as cable systems upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0. See http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan.

But FCC analysts also estimate that about 15 percent of the U.S. population is likely to be able to choose between two providers, both cable a telco. At first glance, this would seem to be a problem for most telcos other than Verizon.

If in fact a large percentage of the U.S. broadband customer base does decide to buy 50-Mbps services, or even faster services, many telcos are going to be at a huge disadvantage, if one assumes broadband access will be the foundation service for most telcos.

As necessity typically is the mother of invention, one wonders whether ways of using fiber-to-neighborhood networks will be capable of upgrading to speeds not possible so far, much as cable operators are working on new ways to boost their own broadband speeds. One should not discount the possibility, or the incentives for suppliers to come up with such solutions.

On the other hand, "headline" speeds, as important as they are for marketing purposes, might not necessarily correspond to consumer buying preferences in the near term, or even in the medium term. So far, few U.S. consumers have decided 50 Mbps access services were valuable enough to buy them, where such services are available.

If that remains the case, services offering 20 Mbps or 25 Mbps might be good enough, at least for the medium term, and urban fiber-to-neighborhood networks ought to be able to reach 40 Mbps, as Qwest already offers in Denver, for example.

Telcos with lower density serving areas and longer loop lengths will find it rather expensive to match that sort of speed using any hybrid network (fiber distribution, copper access). But much might hinge on the actual state of end user demand (willingness to pay).

Nor should observers think there is no more speed that can be wrung out of all-copper access networks. A reasonable way of putting matters is that additional copper pairs can be bonded to achieve higher speeds. There are technical issues, of course, ranging from availability of requisite pairs in existing cable, and interference issues within cables. But researchers already are working on ways to create higher-speed circuits by using more extensive bonding.

Oddly enough, the dwindling number of fixed-line voice circuits actually helps to some extent, as it frees up additional copper pairs, in some cases. It isn't easy, but sometimes extensive pair bonding will prove workable. Beyond that, the costs of fiber-to-customer infrastructure continue to improve, especially where either aerial plant or underground conduit are in place.

So it is not clear that cable's current advantages are of a permanent nature. That might be the case, in some areas and perhaps in many areas. But telco executives have powerful incentives not to concede the long-term future.

And since all observers now agree that the goal of 100 Mbps, within a decade, is the aspirational target the market likely will support, technologists and business planners will be looking at any number of solutions. At one level, the issue is technological: how can it be done? At an equally important level, the issue is how to match investment to expected revenues.

One might argue that with multiple 4G wireless networks and growing use of mobile devices, actual end user demand at fixed locations might not grow as rapidly as some forecast. A large number of fast, but not super-fast connections--both mobile and fixed--might well prove quite workable.

That doesn't mean telco planners can avoid the work of figuring how to pay for and build networks running up to 100 Mbps at some medium term point in the future. But the scaling might wind up being more graceful than people sometimes assume.

So long, broadband duopoly?

Few U.S. Consumers Buy 25-Mbps Services

It appears there is almost no U.S. consumer buying of the highest-speed broadband access services, according to Federal Communications Commission data.

Of services offering 25 Mbps or more bandwidth, business buyers register something on the order of two percent of total broadband subscriptions.

Consumer take rates are low enough not to register on the graph. One might argue that take rates for the higher tiers among consumers are so low only because the 25 Mbps services are not available in most markets. That's true. See http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2010/12/us-broadband-access-not-as-bad-as-some.html.

But even where such services are available, take rates remain quite low. Low enough, in fact, that U.S,. service providers never disclose the numbers.

How Much Demand for 100 Mbps?

While next-generation fixed-line broadband speeds will at some point increase dramatically to 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps, or higher, in some cases, just seven percent of European online households will pay more for higher speed, says Forrester Research analyst Ian Fogg. Some argue that will resolve itself in time. Up to a point, that probably is true. But between "here" and "there" is a transition period where deployed capital could be terribly wasted.

And it is not as though the communications industry has no experience with the dangers. An overly-enthusiastic approach to mobile 3G services nearly bankrupted many mobile providers across Europe in the first decade of the 21st century. All of that should suggest the wisdom of matching broadband supply to demand, when the transition from 3G to 4G, or 10 Mbps to 50 Mbps, does not necessarily provide an obvious end user value as great as the transition frm dial-up to broadband access.

One can argue that prices for higher-speed services are too onerous, but that simply begs the question. Given a choice, nearly all consumers opt for reasonably-fast or moderately-fast services, instead of the "blindingly-fast" services.

One can argue that the only reason is "price," but that argument is akin to saying that most people would buy a Lexus if it cost as much as a Honda Civic.

But more than 70 percent of U.S. broadband customers are happy with their overall service, ranking it between an 8-10 on a 10-point scale, according to Leichtman Research Group. A mere 3 percent scored their service with a 3 or less on the recently conducted survey, while just 26 percent said they’re “very interested” in receiving faster speeds at home. See http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/062210release.html.

Leichtman Research Group finds that 71 percent of US broadband Internet subscribers are "very satisfied" with their current Internet service at home (rating satisfaction 8 to 10 on a 10-point scale), while just three percent are not satisfied (rating satisfaction 1 to 3).

Overall, 66 percent of broadband subscribers rate the speed of their connection 8 to 10, while six percent rate it a 1 to 3.

None of that necessarily and directly speaks to the issue of how much demand there might be for faster services, though. About 26 percent of broadband subscribers are "very interested" in receiving faster Internet access at home than they currently receive, while 44 percent are not very interested.

What is not clear, though, is how much of that potential interest can be converted to actual buying of higher-speed tiers, and, if so, how fast those tiers would need to be, and how they would have to be priced, to move consumers to act. Many consumers might be happy enough to migrate from tiers operating in the 3 Mbps to 5 Mbps range up to 8 Mbps to 10 Mbps, particularly when there still is no compelling new application that requires such bandwidth.

"Next-gen broadband will not be such an easy sell, as there's little pent-up speed dissatisfaction," at least not yet, says Fogg.

Try and find any U.S. service provider, offering actual speeds of just 50 Mbps, talking about the take rates for such services. If you cannot find any company willing to talk about take rates, that is likely because the take rates are so low.

German cable network operator Kabel BW claims that around 40,000 customers are using broadband with speeds of 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps, at a time when 50-Mbps service costs about $41 a month.

 About three million homes are able to buy service at those rates. So buyers represent about one percent of customers. What is not clear is what percentage of those buyers actually are businesses, rather than consumers, either.

Economic Impact of Higher-Speed Broadband Remains Unclear

Logic suggests that there is some positive relationship between broadband availability and economic growth, though it is hard to separate "causal" from "correlated" effects.

"We estimate that between 1998 and 2002, communities in which mass-market broadband was available by December 1999 experienced more rapid growth in employment, the number of businesses overall, and businesses in IT-intensive sectors," say researchers By William H. Lehr, Carlos A. Osorio and Sharon E. Gillett of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and  Marvin A. Sirbu, of Carnegie Mellon University. See http://www.broadbandproperties.com/2005issues/dec05issues/Measuring%20Broadband%20Eco%20Impact,%20Lehr,%20Gilett,%20Sirbu.pdf.

Connected Nation likewise argues that broadband promotes economic growth. See http://connectednation.org/_documents/Connected_Nation_EIS_Study_Full_Report_02212008.pdf. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development likewise concurs. See http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/7/40781696.pdf.

What remains unclear is what relationship exists between "ultra-high" broadband and merely "fast" broadband. One might legitimately point out that it is hard, in advance, to determine the impact of features not widely used. But the question is a fair one, given the huge investments that will have to be made to provide 100 Mbps service, for example. If one assumes investmetn capital will be scarce, a rather reasonable assumption, then the question becomes a matter of where to make broadband investments to reap the highest social reward.

These days, it is hard to argue that returns are not greater in the wireless, than in the fixed network sphere.

Nor is the eivdence about how broadband availability affects rural areas uniformly clear or positive. See
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/rural-broadband-no-job-creation-machine/. In fact, Professor Raul Katz says it simply isn't clear whether broadband in rural areas is all positives, and no negatives. See http://www.elinoam.com/raulkatz/Dr_Raul_Katz_-_BB_Stimulus_Working_Paper.pdf.

Beyond that, the issue is whether the economy and society are better served by investment in mobile or fixed networks, beyond a certain point, if choices have to be made. And few would doubt that choices in fact must be made. There simply isn't enough capital, or enough demand, to invest very aggressively in both fixed and mobile networks, if the goal is 100 Mbps on the fixed network and 50 Mbps or more on the wireless networks.

That's one reason why fixed network investment has been "starved" so the wireless network can be fed, or why the number of employees in the wireline segment have been shrinking, while the number of employees working on the wireless network has been growing.

The issue is not so much whether there will be investment in either network. The issue is how much investment, and where those making the investment believe they can earn the higher returns.

The point is simply that, so far, there is no real evidence that the return from 100-Mbps networks is twice that of 50-Mbps networks, in terms of economic growth or social welfare.

Just about anybody likely would argue that a 100-Mbps network is better than a 50-Mbps network. The rub is that it is harder to determine whether 50-Mbps wireless networks might be even better, or whether 50-Mbps fixed or wireless networks would provide more economic growth and welfare than 100-Mbps fixed networks.

How Much Speed is Enough?

Lots of people think 100-Mbps or 1-Gbps access services are the wave of the future. One facetiously wonders whether they might always be. Mostly everybody likely agrees that bandwidth requirements are growing, and that "more" bandwidth is a good thing. The problem is that it is hard to answer the question of "how much is enough?"

StarHub, for example, already offers a commercial 100-Mbps service, and sells the "MaxOnline Ultimate" service for $62.40 a month, in Singapore.

Only five percent of customers have bought it, says Neil Montefiore, StarHub CEO. "I'm unconvinced about consumer demand for 100 Mbps."

U.S. access providers who already sell 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps connections seem to have had the same results. When it is available, relatively few customers choose to buy services running at such speeds.

"No one is quite sure what people will do with 100-Mbps symmetrical," he said. "Do people really need that speed?" The other issue is whether raw bandwidth of very-high capacity is sufficient, rather than merely necessary, to ensure creation of compelling and useful applications and services. In other words, higher bandwidth is needed as a prerequisite for valuable new apps. But it isn't so clear that where 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps access is available, that much of anything noteworthy has developed, beyond what could be done at 10 Mbps or 20 Mbps, for example.

The other question is how much demand there is for very-high-speed services, even when prices are reasonable.  If customers can buy 100 Mbps for about $63 (U.S. currency), but they can buy 50 Mbps for $50, is the issue the extra bandwidth or the value-price assessment which leads people to conclude that high bandwidth, but not super-high, is a better deal, and sufficient to accomodate their needs.

Consumers can buy 16-Mbps service for about $37 a month, as well, or cheaper 3 Mbps or 6 Mbps services.


German cable network operator Kabel BW claims that around 40,000 customers are using broadband with speeds of 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps. About three million homes are able to buy service at those rates. So buyers represent about one percent of customers.

Also, the price for the 50-Mbps access service is about $41 a month. What is not clear is what percentage of those buyers actually are businesses, rather than consumers.

It is a laudable thing to call for 100 Mbps service, available to most U.S. users, by 2020. What is missing at this point is evidence of robust-enough demand for speeds of 50 Mbps, at $100 a month.

Kabel BW has found only about one percent take rates, at prices of $41 a month. Obviously, no investor in his or her right mind would loan money to a service provider to offer 50 Mbps service at the same prices as users presently pay.


A new survey by Leichtman Research Group finds that 71 percent of U.S. broadband Internet subscribers are very satisfied with their current Internet service at home (rating satisfaction 8-10 on a 10-point scale), while just three percent are not satisfied (rating satisfaction 1-3).

To be fair, with broadband, appetite changes over time. But the issue is how to match actual demand, at market prices, to the amount of bandwidth that should be delivered.

While 77 percent of broadband subscribers do not know the download speed of their Internet service at home, they are generally pleased with the speed of their Internet connection. Overall, 66 percent of broadband subscribers rate the speed of their connection 8 to 10 and six percent rate it 1 to 3.

The findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,600 randomly selected households from throughout the United States. The survey also found that more than 70 percent of respondents said they subscribed to a broadband service.

Some 26 percent of broadband subscribers are very interested in receiving faster Internet access at home than they currently receive (rating interest 8-10 on a 10-point scale), while 44 percent are not very interested (rating interest 1-3).

Of all Internet subscribers, three percent of respondents say that broadband is not available in their area. In rural areas eight percent of online households say that broadband is not available in their area.

Overall, 1.4 percent of all households are interested in getting broadband, but say that it is not available in their area. Less than one percent of all households are interested in getting broadband, but cite cost as a reason for not currently subscribing to broadband.

Nobody can tell "how much bandwidth is enough." For the moment, though, the evidence here seems to suggest that there is not huge pent-up demand for dramatically-faster speeds. So far, the evidence from markets such as Singapore and other U.S. areas where either 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps is available for purchase, does not support the thesis that dramatically-higher speed is a huge need, at the moment, at least at prices far lower than they presently are.

Everyone expects demand for bandwidth to keep expanding. What seems less clear is the pace of that growth.

About 1/2 of 1 Percent of Time Warner Cable Customers Buy 50 Mbps Service

It's likely fair to keep in mind, as ISPs, regulators and policy advocates ponder future service offerings at speeds of 100 Mbps, or even higher, that few U.S. consumers appear to want to buy service at speeds of 50 Mbps or higher.

Time Warner Cable  added 212,000 high-speed Internet subs in the first quarter, with about 1,000 buying the ultra-high-speed Docsis 3.0 services. That represents about one half of one percent of new customers, roughly in line with the few figures that have emerged from other ISPs able to sell 50 Mbps to 100 Mbps access services in Europe or North America.

The number of wideband subscription adds in the first quarter are consistent with recent trends at TWC, the only major US MSO so far that's even been willing to share those numbers. In January, TWC said it added only about 2,000 wideband subs in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Comcast, which has 80 percent of its plant wired up for wideband and intends to finish the job later this year, hasn't disclosed any D3 subscriber figures.

AT&T noted during its first quarter conference call that 59 percent of its customers buy access at speeds of at least 3 Mbps. What that might suggest is that most consumers still do not buy ultra-fast connections, preferring medium-speed connections instead.

Few Takers for 50 Mbps Access

Time Warner Cable has about nine million high-speed access customers. It has about 20,000 customers for its fastest DOCSIS 3.0 service, which depending on configuration can support speeds up to about 43 Mbps per 6 MHz channel in the downstream direction, or more, if more bandwidth is made available.

All that means is that few customers are willing to pay $100 a month or more to get really-fast broadband access running at speeds of about 50 Mbps maximum.