Verizon's Take On Broadband Caps: A Sign Of Competitive Market?
from the hmm...-not-quite dept
Of the broadband providers out there, Verizon has certainly been better than others in terms of actually trying to create a much better product, rather than focusing on ways to just squeeze more for less out of their customers. I've always thought that Verizon made the right move six or seven years ago, when it decided to invest heavily in providing fiber to the home, while other providers said it was too costly. While it was costly, at some point (say: now) it would give Verizon a real leg up on the competition in offering a much better service. While I have plenty of disagreements about some of Verizon's other positions, the company has at least focused on providing value.So, I was hopeful that when Verizon weighed in on the whole "broadband cap" debate, it would take a much stronger position than simply claiming that broadband caps are a sign of "highly competitive markets with companies trying to come up with more value, innovation and differentiated offerings to help them attract customers." While the discussion does make it clear that Verizon is focused on investing in adding more value, it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the caps are somehow a sign of a competitive market. If anything it's the opposite. The public reaction to the caps shows that the problem is the lack of competition, allowing these providers to move forward with such plans, knowing customers in many cases can't switch to a competitor. Also, it's difficult to see how providing less service for more money is "coming up with more value [and] innovation."
So, Verizon is right to point out (as it does), that it's more focused on providing higher quality service, rather than caps, but it's not being entirely honest in saying that this is a sign of competition. It's not.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband caps, competition
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Par for the course
-Well, Mr. Voter, that's because there is a competitive market for voters in the political system. We have all these people competing for votes, and trying to offer citizens more.
-Uh, but you don't. You just act like tools.
-Yes, but I'm the lesser of the tools. Thanks for your vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Par for the course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Up is down!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Up is down!
"Black is East, Up is white."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...trying to come up with more value, innovation and differentiated offerings to help them attract customers"
Honestly though...
Public outrage should not be the only (last) line of defense we have!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
It's too expensive, needs more speed and channels but the rest of the pack just can't compete with FIOS.
No, I don't work for them, they actually earn my good attitued through excellent customer service and products.
Carl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fiber > Cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
loves verizon.... landlines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
caps schmaps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here I Go Again
However, I absolutely DO think that in a highly competitive market for broadband (so, not the USA), caps and tiers WOULD be a sign of "...companies trying to come up with more value, innovation and differentiated offerings to help them attract customers."
For example:
1 Company A offers unlimited Broadband for $30/mo.
2 Company B enters the market, and wants to compete. They offer a limited 2GB plan for $15/mo and an unlimited plan for $35/mo.
3 By offering less for less, company B is able to differentiate their product from Company A but still contain costs. They offer more value to light-use subscribers, and by innovating a new price plan, will attract customers.
4 Company A is very likely to respond with a entry-level tier. This is an absolutely obvious response to price competition from B.
So you see, caps and tiers CAN BE a sign of one of two things:
A) an uncompetitive market, such as the USA, where carriers are trying to extract more money
or
B) a competitive market, where carriers seek to differentiate, compete, and offer customers the service bundles that fit their needs.
Can anyone here agree with me that the caps and tiers are not evil? They are just tools of business, which can be used for evil or good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enough to make me switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]