Rural-Urban Broadband Customers Not so Different

Are rural broadband customers all that different from suburban or urban customers? Not so much, a new analysis by Parks Associations suggests.

The percentages of rural broadband households who are very satisfied and very dissatisfied with their broadband services are within the margin of error for all U.S. broadband households, Parks Asociates notes. In other words, they are no more inclined to be pleased or upset with their service and service provider.

Rural broadband consumers desire value-added services on par with all U.S. broadband households, with premium technical support services and online backup as the top-two desired value-added services.

And the overwhelming percentage of U.S. broadband consumers are highly satisfied with their access services, despite a small percentage that say they are highly dissatisfied.

Overall, the rural status of a household has little impact on level of satisfaction with its broadband service. The type of access service does seem to have some bearing on high and low satisfaction.

Households with fiber broadband services report high satisfaction ratings in larger numbers, and households receiving satellite and wireless broadband services exhibit lower satisfaction ratings. But there is an important caveat. Customers who buy bundles of service are happier than customers who do not buy bundles. So the key variable seems to be the ability to buy a bundle, more than the type fo access.

The business implications would seem to be clear enough. Bundles create higher satisfaction and higher satisfaction reduces churn.  A highly satisfied broadband subscriber is 46 percent less likely to churn from a current provider, whereas a highly dissatisfied customer is 384 percent more likely to leave a current broadband provider.

A subscriber to a triple play of access services (broadband, television, and home telephone)
 is 15 percent more likely to be a highly satisfied broadband customer.

More than 70 percent of cable broadband households subscribe to a bundle, about 25 percent of which buy a triple play. But most, about 66 percent, buy a dual-play bundle of video and broadband access.

DSL providers have 58 percent bundle penetration, with 25 percent of customers opting for a dual-play package of  broadband and video while 17 percent buy a triple-play bundle.

Fiber broadband providers have 78 percent bundle penetration, with 64 percent buying a dual-play broadband and video bundle and 49 percent buying a triple-play package.

Rural broadband customers are 10 percent to 20 percent less likely than broadband subscribers on a national level to subscribe to the most-common broadband bundles. One would therefore expect lower satisfaction in rural areas, since satisfaction and bundles seem to be directly related.

Is Google Crazy, or Simply Unusual?

Cable and satellite providers of video entertainment have different financial interests from content providers, even though both are essential parts of the multi-channel video entertainment ecosystem.

Likewise, handets manufacturers, mobile application providers and access providers have distinct financial interests, though all are part of the single mobile ecosystem.

That being the case, conflicts between ecosystem partners are an ever-present reality. The issue is how much cooperation and conflict is possible, and whether enough benefit occurs, despite some conflict.

Google's release of the Nexus One, and its apparent plans to release a Nexus Two and other devices are prime examples. Some observers, including Google's competitors, will note that it is risky for a partner to compete with its other partners in a single ecosystem.

Microsoft of course questions the wisdom of Google's mobile strategy, insisting Google will have trouble attracting and keeping handset partners for its Android operating system now that the company is selling its very own branded devices.

That certainly is the conventional wisdom. But even a valid conventional wisdom can have exceptions. What "most" partners cannot envision, attempt or succeed at is not to say that "all" partners are so limited. Nor are relationships immutable; they can change over time.

Google might be one of the salient exceptions, as is Apple. Several years ago, most telecom executives were more afraid of Google than of cable operators. These days, executives are looking for ways to leverage and work with Google.

Apple has significantly reinvented business frameworks in the music and phone businesses, for example.

The other issue is that Google's relationship with some ecosystem partners can be qutie distinct. At least initially, HTC and Motorola have add a different relationship than other manufacturers, and T-Mobile as a service provider likewise was early to support Android.

Google's other partnerships are a bit more complicated and one has to think Verizon and Motorola are less than thrilled, even though both are key Android partners.

Still, the point is that ecosystem relationships periodically get tested. Content providers and cable and satellite operators are used to the possibility of significant conflict over carriage agreements. Also, at the margin, some distributors also are content owners, while some content owners have been distributors.

Some distributors are part of the equipment supplier segment, as well as distributors. Some equipment suppliers are becoming application providers.

Yes, Google risks some ire by distributing its own branded handset. But ecosystem "messiness" is growing throughout the communications and entertainment ecosystems. And some players can attempt strategies that would be considered suicidal if attempted by less powerful contestants.

There are rules, and exceptions to those rules. Apple and Google might prove to be right or wrong. What is indisputable is that they are different; they can attempt things most other players cannot think about.

Is Broadband "Satisfaction" Directly Related to "Bundle" Savings?

The conventional wisdom is that high-speed broadband access is becoming a commodity bought by consumers primarily on the basis of speed and price.

A recent survey by Parks Associates also showed that there is not all that much difference between consumer satisfaction with any of the broadband network types.

With cable modem service and digital subscriber line as the baseline, consumers said they were a bit more happy with fiber to the home, and a bit less happy with either satellite broadband or fixed wireless broadband.

So the differences are a matter of performance, or speed or price, right? Well, maybe, and maybe not.

The Parks Associates survey also found that consumers were more satisfied with any broadband service purchased as part of a bundle, less happy when broadband was purchased a la carte. Since the primary end user benefit from buying any bundle is the cost savings, one might conclude that consumer satisfaction has less to do with the technical parameters (speed and reliability) and mostly to do with "saving money."

Since satellite broadband and fixed wireless services rarely are purchased as part of a multi-service bundle, that fact alone would explain lower satisfaction with either satellite or fixed wireless services.

Satellite Broadband: What Will Reviewers Do?

There is little doubt but that satellite broadband providers will try to secure broadband stimulus funds to subsidize the cost of customer premises equipment, a move that Hughes Network Systems SVP Mike Cook believes could increase its subscriber base by an order of magnitude.

WildBlue presumably also would see customer lift if such subsidies were possible.

There also is some speculation that funds could be sought for new satellite construction to offer customers much-higher access speeds.

Anything is possible, of course. But if I were reviewing grant applications, I'd be looking for projects that get broadband services to people as fast as possible, to as many people as possible, creating new jobs now, are sustainable after grant funds are gone and can get services to the most-isolated locations, across the United States, now.

Anything is possible. But looking at funding for new satellites that might not be launched for years, and consuming lots of program cash, compared to spending lots less and serving lots of rural customers now, would rank a lot higher.

Politically, I'd also (for better or worse) be looking in advance for evidence to justify why I made my decision. Enabling new broadband services to rural residents in all 50 states, within months, is safer than defending a relatively signficant capital investment that won't result in new services for some years.

Also, as a reviewer, I would be looking to get the biggest bang for the buck, spreading the money as widely as possible. On that score, subsidizing CPE would seem a more defensible choice that building satellites.

Internet Video Complementary to Cable, Satellite and Telco Video, Study Indicates

Fears that the recession will encourage more and more people to drop cable or satellite TV service and rely on free online video services appear to be exaggerated, Pike & Fischer researchers say. Some might say grossly exaggerated. In a recent survey, less than half of one percent of respondents indicated they would cancel a multi-channel video subscription.

That said, about 15 percent of respondents said they intend to downgrade to a lower-priced video subscription this year, through such means as giving up premium channels. Both the findings are consistent with consumer behavior in past economic recessions.

Typically, consumers hang on to their subscriptions and do not disconnect. They do however tend to downgrade premium services or postpone upgrades.

About eight percent of respondents said they plan to upgrade their service to receive expanded numbers of channels or advanced services such as high-definition TV.

Although there are no signs yet that the Web is on its way to replacing traditional TV, a substantial number of respondents said they are turning to the Web to watch video, Pike & Fischer says. About 32 percent of respondents to the survey said they regularly watch video from Web sites such as Hulu, YouTube and iTunes.

"The results indicate that consumers appear to be willing to continue paying for cable or satellite TV, despite the fact that they can get a vast amount of shows for free or very low cost on services like Hulu and Veoh," says Scott Sleek, Pike & Fischer director. "But they don't appear to be willing to spend any extra money for premium channels or on-demand movies. And they're increasingly willing to go to the Internet to watch their favorite shows."