“I didn’t come here to make friends.” 

Any television reality show worth its weight in pork rinds will feature at least one contestant uttering those idiotic  words.  And while the expression has morphed into the consummate television catchphrase, it does ring true to me every year about this time, as we put together our always contentious global broadband forecast and rankings.    The inbox fills up and the phone rings off the hook as regulators, operators and politicians wonder how in the world their country could somehow miss the top 10.  Much like the overbearing parent calling the school principal at report card time,  “There must be some mistake, junior is very advanced,” seems to be the message.

A Different Way to Look at Broadband

Over the past fifteen years, as broadband has evolved from a novelty to an accepted indicator of a country’s relative development, discussions of how best to measure and quantify broadband have grown increasingly heated.

Just last week, we launched our Broadband Composite Index (BCI). Rather than focusing solely on one measurement, this model incorporates five “metrics that matter,” applies appropriate weights, and calculates a composite score per country.

The BCI consists of 5 components:

• Broadband Penetration
• Speed
• Affordability
• Value
• Urbanicity

Broadband Top 40…well, 57

We ran the model on a group of 57 countries to come up with our first BCI rankings. 

Korea on top.  Again

It is, perhaps, no surprise that South Korea leads in the overall BCI rankings, with a composite score of 9.14. Korea’s advanced broadband is widely recognized, and the nation claims the world’s highest household penetration. Koreans enjoy the fastest download speeds, and pay among the lowest per Mbps of any country. The Korean market is characterized by high PC penetration and strong government participation in broadband. Indeed, the Korean government’s treatment of broadband as a national priority has arguably catapulted the market into the top slot for the past several years.

More surprising to the casual observer of global broadband is the relative position of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. CEE nations have, on whole, been able to benefit from the so-called technology “leapfrog effect,” effectively skipping a generation of broadband development (namely DSL), and advancing directly to fiber. This is the case for Lithuania and Romania, both of which occupy slots in our BCI “top 10.” The result of rapid “fiberization” has been high penetration and speeds, although affordability (as measured in our model) remains an obstacle.

A respectable 23rd place?

Certain to spark debate and contention is the placement of the United States (23rd place) in our index, behind certain Eastern and Southern European nations. Despite great strides in penetration—more than doubling household penetration between 2004 and 2009—America still has work to do in terms of increasing download speeds and value per Mbps. We remain optimistic that the current Administration’s focus on a national broadband policy will increase the United States’ ranking in years to come.

The phone lines are open.

Almost by definition, the industry analyst profession puts one in the business of (modestly) saying “I told you so” on a fairly regular basis—one would hope more than 50% of the time. So, it was gratifying to see yet another broadband service provider abandon plans for so-called “Usage Based Billing” (UBB ).

AT&T has reportedly ditched its “usage based billing” trial underway in Beaumont, TX and Reno, NV. A company spokesperson says they are “reviewing data from the trial, and this feedback will guide us as we evaluate our next steps." Hmm…wonder what the feedback will be?

That customers just can’t get enough of it?

As my industry colleague from Fierce Telecom, Sean Buckley, correctly pointed out in a recent article, AT&T can expect “an earful” of feedback from customers who don’t want to be penalized for going over on their home DSL use.

Gettin’ Hosed in Texas?

Does Beaumont, TX have a target on its back?

The city of just under 50,000 households can’t seem to catch a break these days. As if sitting in the path of major Gulf hurricanes wasn’t bad enough, the city for some reason has been selected by several service providers as a prime testing ground for misguided broadband pricing experiments.

Readers might remember that Time Warner Cable  chose Beaumont as the test bed for its 2008 usage-based billing experiment. Amid intense public outcry and in an attempt to avert a public relations tsunami, the company ultimately abandoned those plans. AT&T (perhaps emboldened by TWC’s success?) decided to follow suit.

I seem to recall having a word or two to say about TWC, way back in 2008. In fact, I remember that I caught some flak for calling Time Warner’s move an “operational misstep.”

Here’s an excerpt from the January 2008 report (cue harp glissando)

“As such, we expect TWC's trial to go over like a lead balloon,

resulting in a major public relations headache.”

--Usage-Based Broadband Billing: Where's the Love

Strategy Analytics, January 2008

Sounds about right.

Well, There You Go Again…

As my five year old nephew likes to say when he wants the floor, Hear my voice!

So here goes, hoping all can hear it…

Usage-based billing was, is, and will always be a dog of an idea.

It goes against the way consumers are accustomed to and prefer to pay for broadband. It angers, irks, and alienates customers. It’s a crappy idea. In a commodity business like broadband, it’s self-destructive.

The spirit of it is analogous to what’s going on in the airline industry where, apparently, we’re about to pay a fee to avoid paying a fee.

Brings Me to Tiers

There’s a solution to this problem.

By offering tiered or `package' offerings, whereby occasional users sign up for bandwidth and heavier users sign up for more, broadband service providers can arrive at the same goal-getting a handle on traffic without alienating or angering the customer base. Furthermore, a tiered offering allows the BSP to tailor the Quality of Experience (QoE)-whether it be in delivery or customer service

Continued broadband penetration depends on the BSP's ability to win customer "wallet share." Customers have grown accustomed to paying for their broadband service in a certain way, and appreciate and expect a predictable monthly bill. Dramatically altering the model, with no discernible added value, may prove to be a big mistake.

Told you so.

Some say that OTT is the “most over-hyped and over-anticipated phenomenon in tech history,” others would have you believe the end is nigh for traditional pay television as we know it.

The truth?  As usual, it’s somewhere in between.

A report we’ve just published, “Over-The-Top vs. TV Everywhere: How Disruptive is OTT to the Pay TV Business?” concludes that while the reaction to OTT has been perhaps overhyped, online distribution does pose a potential threat to the traditional pay television model.

The numbers to-date, however, don’t necessarily portend an imminent  collapse of pay television as we know it. . In fact, US pay TV service providers added nearly 2 million additional subscribers in the first quarter of 2010, despite an increasing threat services such as Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube.

That’s not to OTT should be ignored, however.  Survey research we published in early 2010 showed that US consumers perceive a relatively low “value for money” for pay television services.  

OTT services can potentially capitalize on pay TV’s biggest shortcomings, namely a lack of flexibility in selecting channel packages, and a low perceived value for money.

Google last week unveiled GoogleTV, heralded by Intel CEO Paul Otellini as "the biggest improvement to television since color."  And hey, what fun is a huge announcement without unrestrained hype, hyperbole, and flashy demos?  Right?

Whooops!

Never Work with Children, Animals, or Bluetooth

Demos often seem predestined to fail.  Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a trade show demo can attest to that.  Well, this isn’t working as planned, but you get the idea moments are hardly rare.

So it was not a big surprise to see the Google TV demo hampered and delayed by technical glitches.  For a  technology meant to harness the power of Internet, and bring the experience to the television seamlessly, this was not particularly confidence-inspiring. 

But we still get the idea…

Introducing WebTV 2.0?

Some of us are old enough to remember painful previous attempts at bringing the experience of the Web to the television screen.  Was WebTV simply misunderstood?  Or was it ahead of its time?

Perhaps both.  

What WebTV fundamentally missed was the singular and individual nature of Internet experience  One could argue that it did little more than render the tv screen a monitor viewable by the whole family.  The result was an experience similar to having someone read over your shoulder.  Creepy and annoying.

To be sure, the technology has been there for years—it’s the business case that has been lacking.

Why it just might work this time

GoogleTV has a fighting chance this time, for several reasons…

Cord cutting is fast becoming a reality

Today things are markedly different.  With a growing abundance of online video, “Cord cutting,” the notion of Cable and Satellite customers moving to unmanaged free or almost free Internet-based platforms, is fast becoming a reality. Strategy Analytics sees the number of so-called "cord cutters" exceeding 10% of US television households by the end of the year. Video will continue to dominate, accounting for over half of all of all consumer Internet traffic in the next five years.

Source: Strategy Analytics

Although the GoogleTV talking points bill the platform as “complementary” to cable, satellite and Telco TV, make no mistake—GoogleTV is a competitor to traditional “managed” pay tv.

It satisfies a demonstrated need

While it has been possible to emulate a pay tv environment with a game console, a tv and a PC, the level of sophistication required to knit these together into a seamless and enjoyable viewing experience went far beyond the aptitude or interest of the average consumer. GoogleTV may just bridge that gap.

Observational research of Connected Media Users in the US and Europe, performed under the auspices of Strategy Analytics’ Digital Home Observatory, uncovered some common missing elements consumers identified in today’s Over the Top (OTT) ecosystem

In addition to the desire for an integrated experience across devices, respondents brought up the wish for a more personalized viewing experience, and the ability to discover new relevant content based upon their existing likes and interests, and more relevant advertising and payment options.

These are all places where GoogleTV can deliver.

The Power of the Value Chain

As strange as it may seem to see Sony chief Howard Stringer sharing the stage with Google and talking about “openness,” a critical success factor for GoogleTV is the power of its value chain, and the A-list partners it has teamed up with. Along with Sony, the presence of Intel and Logitech, as well as BestBuy and Dish bring some credibility to the table.

TBD?

Pricing

Rumors are floating around about likely price points, but nothing firm as of yet. This could be critical, as a $399 Logitech “companion box” sounds like it may collect dust on the BestBuy shelves.

Content

Somewhat surprisingly absent from last week’s announcement was any real mention of the content side. Sure, there was lip service paid to “You Tube Lean Back,” but nothing of any great consequence. YouTube, which turns five this year, is starting to offer full-length movies, though it still lacks enough professional content to make it a viable alternative, and UGC (User Generated Content) is, by nature, ephemeral. How many times can you watch “David After Dentist?”

And what about Sony’s extensive library of television series and movies?

Net Neutrality

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the goings on with the FCC are doing very little to inject any sort of confidence or certainty into the minds of investors. And even though Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way” strategy appears to be the current path, the fight has not even started with the MSOs and Telcos.

Expect this to be tied up in court for the next few years.

And that,, we get.

I write this 36,000 feet above Arizona, en route home from LA, where I spent the week at the NCTA show.  Always an interesting event, the mood was slightly more reserved this year as MSOs mulled the potential ramifications of Net Neutrality, and the so-called “Title II” discussions dominating the chatter in the halls.

Downtown LA’s Nokia Theater, venue of the Season 7 and 8 finals of American Idol, played host for a highly anticipated—though somewhat poorly attended—keynote from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowsi.  The interview format, moderated by NCTA president Kyle McSlarrow, was heavy on platitudes, and light on real news.

“Let’s roll up our sleeves, and get down to business!” seemed to be overarching theme.

In a very brief press conference later in the day, the Chairman did respond to some slightly tougher questions—and gave a pretty non-responsive answer to one posed by yours truly



A “Healthy and Fair” Third Way?

April’s court decision “has created a problem, and has damaged the legal foundation,"  according to Chairman Genachowski.  The FCC’s was faced with several options, according to a statement issued by the FCC:

• Do Nothing

The Commission could continue relying on Title I “ancillary” authority, and try to anchor actions like
reforming universal service and preserving an open Internet by indirectly drawing on provisions in Title II
of the Communications Act (e.g., sections 201, 202, and 254) that give the Commission direct authority
over entities providing “telecommunications services.”

• Deploy the “Nuclear Option”

The Commission could fully “reclassify” Internet communications as a “telecommunications
service,” restoring the FCC’s direct authority over broadband communications networks but also
imposing on providers of broadband access services dozens of new regulatory requirements.

• Third Way

With each of these deemed “too extreme,” the Commission instead has decided on a so-called “Third Way,”  a “Healthy and fair option” which would:

• Recognize the transmission component of broadband access service—and only this component—
  as a telecommunications service;
• Apply only a handful of provisions of Title II (Sections 201, 202, 208, 222, 254, and 255) that,
  prior to the Comcast decision, were widely believed to be within the Commission’s purview for
  broadband;
• Simultaneously renounce—that is, forbear from—application of the many sections of the
  Communications Act that are unnecessary and inappropriate for broadband access service; and
• Put in place up-front forbearance and meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory
  overreach.

Unfortunately, the FCC's chosen path, reclassifying ISPs as common carriers and "forbearing" the majority of Title II regulations, hasn’t done much to instill confidence.  Critics say it opens the door to potential pricing regulation going forward, though the Chairman insists that is “off the table.”

The key enforced provision, Section 202, prohibits carriers from making any "unjust or unreasonable discrimination" in the way it charges.  Section 208, another provision on the table for enforcement, allows carriers, enterprises, and individuals to file complaints directly with the FCC for violations.

Buckle Up and Hang On

Along with many others, I have long operated under the assumption that, in principle, net neutrality was decided with the election of Barack Obama in November 2008. The latest court rulings have insinuated more fear, uncertainty and doubt into the mix.  And markets don't adapt well to fear, uncertainty and doubt.  I would suggest everyone buckle in tight, because this ride isn't over.  

See You in Court!

The process will be slow, there will be numerous legislative challenges and speed bumps--Representative Cliff Stearns from Florida recently introduced a bill that would require the FCC to deliver a detailed cost-benefit analysis to Congress before moving forward.  When I asked the Chairman yesterday about this, he only said that FCC "will work with Congress as a resource."

Not to mention the court cases…we should anticipate numerous legal challenges in the forthcoming months, and it wouldn't surprise me to see this ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. The real brunt of this will be felt by OTT ecosystem players.  Over the Top, by its very nature, is predicated on an open Internet.

Twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four additional months of limbo is the last thing these guys need. 

We have just published a report that addresses the lackluster performance of IPTV of late.  Seems only five years ago that analysts were predicting IPTV would become the next big thing, and a threat to “traditional” pay tv platforms.  Much of this has failed to materialize, and we—along with others—have downward revised our global IPTV estimates.

In short, IPTV has failed to live up to its promise.

Steep Road Ahead for IPTV

IPTV has a few hurdles ahead of it, one of which I refer to as the “interactivity gap” in the report.  There has been much talk of “interactivity,” but little actual progress.  Sports scores, stock tickers, and traffic widgets are all well and good, but are unlikely to compel many consumers to sign up.

People like to talk about the great things IPTV can do, but few can point to actual implementations of interactivity or examples of services that customers actually want and are willing to pay a premium for.

No More Hotspotting Demos.  Deal?

Some things just won’t go away

Along with cargo pants and Dancing with the Stars, the so-called “Jennifer Aniston’s sweater” trade show demo keeps coming back season after season.  The somewhat cynically-dubbed example refers to a mocked up demo that was all the rage back in, well, about 2003.  In it, a fully-engaged and immersed tv viewer, ravenous for more information on the article of clothing a tv celeb is wearing can, at the push of a button, be transported to an information page and a t-commerce opportunity.  Cha-ching!  Right?

Not really.

As recently as 2 weeks ago, I was forced to endure another hotspotting demo at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB show in Las Vegas.  The celebs were updated (somewhat), but the hackneyed concept is the same.  And so is consumer and service provider interest.  And by “the same,” I mean “nonexistent."  It has become a punchline in the industry.

IPTV providers need to find interactivity that consumers actually want.

Address Addressable Advertising

Another often-mentioned hallmark of IPTV is the concept of addressable advertising, a laudable idea that has yet to emerge on any scale.  All hope is not lost, however.

The recent announcement that San Jose-based BlackArrow, an advanced advertising vendor, generated an additional $20 million in funding should be seen as positive for the future of IPTV. While NDS Group led in this round of financing, others backers include ecosystem heavy-hitters including Cisco, Comcast and Intel. In total, the firm has raised just shy of $60 million. In an associated announcement, the two companies said they would be going to market together with the “first truly end to end” solution in the industry.

Will barrels of cash and high-profile backing be enough?

"The FCC is not having a one-night stand with Net neutrality,” said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps back in 2008, “ but an affair of the heart and commitment for life.”

Today’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may amount to a trial separation for the lovely couple.

The court delivered a painful kick in the shins to the FCC today, ruling that the agency overstepped its boundaries in 2008 by imposing an enforcement action against Comcast, alleging the cable company’s broadband network management practices to be in violation of the FCC's policy principles. Today’s ruling vacates the enforcement, which had called on Comcast to be more transparent in its network management practices.

While today’s decision may raise more questions than it delivers answers, it may be useful to consider some of the short and medium term implications.

The court’s decision is more about the FCC’s authority than on “Net Neutrality” per se

My number one prediction? The mainstream media will get it wrong.

They will suggest that this is a ruling against Net Neutrality. To be clear, today’s ruling is about the role and the regulatory authority of the FCC—not necessarily a ruling against Net Neutrality or the concept of an Open Internet. The FCC in a statement said the agency remains "committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans."

This decision will be challenged, but that could take years. In the meantime, look for the service providers to begin “testing the waters.”

I’m no lawyer, but as a more than casual industry observer, I can predict with some certainty that this is not a definitive ruling. It will more than likely end up in the Supreme Court—but don’t make any plans yet.

Broadband is now classified by the FCC as a “lightly regulated information service,” and as such it skirts many the regulations imposed on traditional Telecom services with regards to open networks. Some suggest that the FCC, as a rulemaking body, can simply reclassify broadband, and impose tougher regulation.

Whatever the final disposition is, time is on the side of the service providers. The glacial speed of change in DC means that in the upcoming months (and even years), Comcast and other service providers—granted a temporary reprieve—will likely begin testing the waters, and recommence traffic prioritization and other various and sundry network management antics.

What about OTT?

An affirmative decision on Net neutrality has always been a cornerstone of the future of unmanaged over-the-top (OTT) video. Today’s ruling throws a monkey wrench in those works. Until the next challenge, Comcast (and any service provider for that matter), reserves the right to prioritize and manage traffic streams as they see fit. “Sure we’ll get your YouTube video—just not all at once.”

And oh yeah, what about the future of the US National Broadband Policy?

Here’s hoping the FCC finds its true love.

Just in time for the IPTV World Forum, which gets underway tomorrow in London, we have announced our latest view on IPTV subscriber numbers for 2014.  Our modeling shows global IPTV subscriptions reaching 68 million by 2014, with the bulk of the growth coming from Asia Pacific and Western Europe.

IPTV’s stratospheric growth has slowed somewhat in the past six months,  and while I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a “speedbump,” I think it is an important deceleration that others in the industry have picked up on as well.   IPTV still has some pretty impressive hurdles it needs to overcome, not the least of which is how it is defined.

IPTV? Internet TV? 

Ask three average consumers what IPTV is, and you’ll likely get three different answers—the industry terminology is imprecise, confusing, and somewhat sloppy.  But I guess we could say that about a lot of things.

Strictly speaking, and  according to the ITU, IPTV refers to “multimedia services such as television/video/audio/text/graphics/data delivered over IP based networks managed to provide the required level of quality of service and experience, security, interactivity and reliability."  The key word in that definition is “managed.”

Internet TV is a totally different beast, and refers to unmanaged content offered over the public Internet—think Hulu and BBC iPlayer. 

To make things even more confusing, there are “hybrid” solutions, such as Verizon’s FiOS TV, which while not delivered over IP networks, still fall under the broader category of “Telco TV.”   We include both IPTV and Telco TV in our estimate.

And I want this because…?

Doesn’t that sound great? 

Truth be told, that’s about as far as some companies go in explaining their value proposition.  Without clearly defining it, it’s a bit of a stretch to expect customers to line up and buy it.  We’ve pointed out this shortcoming  in the past, and, to be fair,  IPTV providers are making some progress in terms of (more) clearly articulating what the benefits are of the service. But there’s still a lot of work to do.

While some may find a Facebook widget on the tv screen to be a premium upgrade and reason enough to switch—I envision myself immediately disabling it. 

In short, the IPTV differentiation strategy needs to go beyond Facebook and weather widgets.

Ultimately, it’s a question of perceived value for money

I’m fond of pointing out that perception trumps reality.  Give customers the illusion of choice or control, and they’ll stick with you.  Same goes for value.  When consumers feel ripped off, as I did last week when my cable bill increased by $20 with no net added value, they leave.   Strategy Analytics’ consumer research, which I have referred to several times on this blog, has consistently confirmed this price elasticity.

In both the US and Europe, we’ve found a low “perceived value for money” among digital television consumers, and a high propensity to churn when offered a price break of only 20%.  Consumers are willing to make the switch if the price is right.

The promise of IPTV has been well reported, though its execution has been somewhat lackluster. The jaw-dropping array of interactive options and the game-changing addressable advertising applications seem to be stuck in a state of permanent vaporware.  IPTV must begin to deliver on this promise—and go beyond merely matching the cable offering. 

To succeed, it needs to over-deliver.

“Life used to be easy,” says Duco Sickinghe, CEO of Belgian Cable operator Telenet

Once upon a time, the company had only to worry about keeping its television customers happy. Today it faces a new competitive reality; one where the triple play bundle of voice, video and data has become table stakes, and effective differentiation is paramount.

Indeed, the entry of Telco companies into the television arena has been disruptive to the industry, putting satellite and cable companies on the defensive, while at the same time opening new points of entry into the subscriber’s household.

In short, all bets are off.

Increasingly complex  product offerings have catapulted many consumers into a state of perpetual confusion. While Cable as an industry has burnished its image in many Western European markets, in others it does not have the same history or credibility. And research suggests that it would be unwise for any operator to take its customer’s loyalty for granted.

A survey fielded by Strategy Analytics in Q2’09 shows that stated satisfaction among Western European Digital Television customers is quite high, with 63% reporting to be either “somewhat” or “very satisfied” with their current service. However, when presented a competing offer, 20% cheaper, a full 45% said they would make the switch.

Cable’s competitive positioning varies by country, though historically it has been portrayed as a “value offer,” competing largely on price. While there is much talk of evolving cable into a premium offering, Strategy Analytics’ research confirms that consumers are still relatively price-sensitive.

The same survey showed that, irrespective of platform, Western European digital television consumers have a low perceived “value for money” from their provider, with only 21% saying it “exceeded” or “greatly exceeded” expectations.

Even lower-rated was customer and technical support—with only 12% finding their provider to exceed expectations.

The challenge facing operators, then, is to simultaneously and consistently demonstrate value for money and service excellence.

Nobody said it was going to be easy.

In an attempt to escape the New England winter, I spent a few vacation days on a Caribbean cruise last week. It was a welcome three day respite from connectivity of all kinds. While I managed to keep the iPhone turned off for the duration of the voyage, on more than one occasion I did overhear the whines and whinges of tweens  begging their parents for permission to access the extortionately-priced onboard WiFi.  And to think, when I was a kid I used to pester my parents for $3.00 in quarters for the video arcade—today it’s forty bucks for a half-hour of Facebook.

The future of broadband demand is secure.

93 Million Disconnected Americans

An FCC report released February 23 announced the findings of its National Broadband Plan Consumer Survey, “Broadband Adoption and Use in America.” The findings reaffirm what Strategy Analytics has been saying for years about the state of Broadband in the United States. Namely, that in the "metrics that matter," including speed, availability, penetration and price, the US falls woefully behind.

The FCC study finds that 67% of US households “contain a broadband user who accesses the service at home,” in line with the Strategy Analytics estimate of 63.4% household broadband penetration in 2009. According to the study, 93 million Americans (representing roughly 43 million households) are so-called ‘non-adopters.’

The reasons cited for “non adoption” of broadband include affordability, digital literacy, and relevance. These barriers to adoption will be—and must be—overcome in the near future.

Affordability Remains an Issue in US

Thirty-six percent of the “non adopter” respondents in the FCC study cited affordability as a key barrier to broadband adoption. Indeed, Americans do pay more on per Mbps than most of our peers. When it comes to faster speeds (i.e., above 50Mbps offerings), the “rip off factor” is even more evident.

We estimate that, on average, Americans pay almost $16 per Megabit received to the home. In Korea, the amount is $2.00. Central to the relatively high cost of broadband in the US is the lack of meaningful competition. With essentially zero intra-platform competition, service providers have little incentive to innovate offerings beyond par.

Digital Comfort Factor and Relevance

Another notable finding from the study was the importance of digital literacy and ‘relevance’ as barriers to adoption. Twenty-two percent of non-adopters indicated a lack of comfort with the technology, while 19% saw little if any personal relevance. Of the one-third of American households falling under the “non-adopter” category, the largest sub-group doesn’t use the Internet at all. This particular category was older, lower-income, and less educated than occasional non-home users and/or dialup users.

Growth Opportunities Remain

Despite the 93 million unconnected Americans estimated in the report, Strategy Analytics continues to be bullish on the future of broadband in the US. We expect household penetration to breach the 80% mark by 2013.  Why?

It’s Generational

It’s not surprising that older Americans are more intimidated by (and see less need for) broadband. This group, however, is being replaced by a generation who will have known no world without broadband. They won’t be able to imagine a world without ubiquitous connectivity.

People Come Around

As was the case with non-adopters of microwave ovens, VCRs, cable tv and cell phones, people eventually do come around. Interestingly, 78% of the “Digitally Distant” (non-Internet using) respondents had cable or satellite tv at home, and over half had a cell phone.

It’s Inevitable

Broadband is so tightly woven into the fabric of our culture and society that it is almost impossible to imagine a future devoid of the technology. We truly do live our daily lives online, and the pipe dreams of five years ago are fast becoming reality. Telepresence, a technology until recently dismissed as a niche enterprise application, will be launched to consumer households this year. Telemedicine and distance learning are inching their way into the mainstream of American life.