The answer is, absolutely.

Even ignoring the ludicrous FCC definition of broadband (200 Kbps in at least one direction), most of what passes for broadband today is still characterized by a peak downstream bit rate of 1-5 Mbps. But, in response to YouTubers, Slingboxers, gamers, video chatters, and even GigaOM TV watchers, service providers are aggressively deploying infrastructure that: (a) delivers peak downstream but rates of 10, 50, 100 megabits per second or more, (b) delivers higher average bit rates (the Achilles heel for most cable broadband offerings), and (c) is more symmetrical.

All of this activity is lost in the superficial analysis that simply looks at the number of broadband subs and the rate of growth in that number. As we continue to push broadband penetration (and I see no reason why it can’t eventually reach 80-90%), we are also going back and replacing everything we’ve already done.

And anyone that thinks we’ll stop at 100 megabits per second hasn’t been taking very good notes over the last decade or so.

another point to add to the conversation: not everyone wants broadband. We go on an assumption that people care. There is a substantial portion of the population that is happy with their luddite life so to speak. your thoughts?

This would be an interesting number to study. It’s certainly true that the states that lag behind in broadband connections are also those with the least income inequality, but also the poorer states. Do they have both fewer computers and less access to broadband? Is it really conceivable that areas with no broadband access are evenly spread out among areas with computers and without? Or, as is likely, are wealthier areas more likely to have both computers and broadband availability, and the real potential market is roughly equal to the number of households with computers?

Clearly an inaccurate assumption, but the question is how inaccurate?

The problem in America is that income is so poorly distributed compared to Japan, Germany, France and other successful democracies that while America has the richest people in the world Europe or Japan have “the richest poor people in the world”.

No, this is incorrect. Income inequality is clearly higher in the US than in Europe and Japan (especially post-tax and government transfer), however, poor people in the US have almost identical real incomes to poor people in Europe, with the exception of Norway (oil income) and Switzerland.

See this study, among others.

The negative in this report is that the growth is slowing pretty fast, which means we are going to see some jostling for market share.

That means better offers – cheaper or higher bandwidth tiers – and that would mean a good thing for the consumer. If Comcast knows that it can lose a customer then it is less like to make moves like rampant traffic shaping.

But your points are well taken.

I think it is misleading for UBS to use a YoY growth figure in Net Ads… If Net Ads > 0, then there is YoY growth in the market.

As you say, that really means that growth is slowing, but to express than as a -18% YoY growth (of Net Ads) figure is simply spinning numbers.

It also ignores the fact that in a scarce market, exponential growth will eventually slow as the base gers bigger and you get the other side of the inflection point on the S curve. This may be in spite of the fact that you are only half the way to full adoption.

If you want to project a negative view you say “We expect 2007 DSL/fiber net adds to total 4.6M in 2007 compared to 5.6M in 2006, a decline of 18%. We expect cable net adds to decline 9% annually 3.9M.”

Alternatively if you want to project a positive view you say “We expect 4.6M new DSL/fiber connections and 3.9M more cable connections in 2007 as the market continues to grow.”

There are 4.6m more DSL/fiber connections this year than last but it’s too easy for some muppet to come along and intepret UBS’ analysis as an 18% decline in DSL/fiber connections…

Or is that the point? Write it in doublespeak and you look double-clever?