Skip to main content

Broadband Segmentation in the U.S. Market

Leichtman Research Group (LRG) finds that 69 percent of all U.S. households now subscribe to an online service at home, and high-speed Internet services now account for about 60 percent of all online subscribers.

Overall, cable remains the most common source for residential broadband � driven by its strength among 'higher income' households, but DSL now has a greater market share than cable among 'middle-income' households. This is no doubt the result of DSL being positioned by service providers as the low-price market leader.

Thirty-seven percent of all households with annual household incomes over $75,000 subscribe to cable broadband and 27 percent subscribe to DSL. Among all households earning $30,000-$75,000 per year, 21 percent subscribe to DSL and 18 percent to cable.

These findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,600 randomly selected households from throughout the United States and are part of a new LRG study, Broadband Access and Services in the Home 2006. This is LRG�s fourth annual study of this topic.

Other key findings include:

- The mean annual household income of cable broadband subscribers is 12 percent higher than their DSL counterparts.
- The mean income of broadband subscribers is 35 percent greater than dial-up subscribers.
- 40 percent of current dial-up subscribers are interested in getting broadband.
- 80 percent of all U.S. households have at least one computer, but just 58 percent of those with annual household incomes under $30,000 have a computer at home.

�The percent of US households that subscribe to an online service is higher than ever, and broadbands� share of the online market continues to grow,� said Bruce Leichtman. �LRG forecasts that by the end of the year 2010, there will be over 105 million residential online subscribers in the U.S. � with over 80 percent subscribing to broadband.�

Popular posts from this blog

Bold Broadband Policy: Yes We Can, America

Try to imagine this scenario, that General Motors and Ford were given exclusive franchises to build America's interstate highway system, and also all the highways that connect local communities. Now imagine that, based upon a financial crisis, these troubled companies decided to convert all "their" local arteries into toll-roads -- they then use incremental toll fees to severely limit all travel to and from small businesses. Why? This handicapping process reduced the need to invest in building better new roads, or repairing the dilapidated ones. But, wouldn't that short-sighted decision have a detrimental impact on the overall national economy? It's a moot point -- pure fantasy -- you say. The U.S. political leadership would never knowingly risk the nation's social and economic future on the financial viability of a restrictive duopoly. Or, would they? The 21st century Global Networked Economy travels across essential broadband infrastructure. The forced intro...