Netflix is now worth more than Comcast • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#121

Post by paulddraper » Thu, May 24, 2018, 10:02 PM UTC

VikingCoder wrote: post #9

thisisit wrote: post #3

Comcast has 15 billion in net income last quarter whereas Netflix had 185 million. And PE ratio of comccast is 19 whereas Netflix is 188. In the future where the cord cutting trend continues and Netflix gains tons of subscribers the valuation might make sense. But for now, I feel this looks like very overvalued.

Eating manure has 15 billion in net income last quarter, whereas this new "filet mignon" had 185 million. Just because people are currently eating shit a lot doesn't mean the outlook for them is any good.

According to those numbers, lots more people want shit, or they are willing to pay more for it.

Not sure what you're getting at.

P.S. A little thing called "sports" is compatible with shit, but not filet mignon. And after years filet mignon has make negligible progress in this area.

Also, filet mignon is shipped inside shit tubes, and probably will be for a very long time.

P.P.S. I hate shit analogies.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#122

Post by mmt » Thu, May 24, 2018, 10:44 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #98

toomuchtodo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that with more than two people in a household and everyone switching to streaming services, you'll need to offer at least 400-500GB data caps for fixed wireless 5G. Several of my renters are single, and their streaming usage for an individual is ~450GB/month.

You need 400-500GB to accommodate who ? According to Comcast, median Xfinity data usage in 2H 2017 was 131 GB: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/data-usage-average-... . That's going to be squarely within the range of 5G (analysts are guessing around 200GB caps at first). Also, expect to see video content be zero-rated (it makes technical sense--watching Netflix from one of Netflix's co-located CDNs puts a lot…

> According to Comcast, median Xfinity data usage in 2H 2017 was 131 GB

Given their recent push for data caps (and make money off of overages), I'm sceptical of their numbers. They have a pretty obvious incentive to misrepresent (if not understate outright) the value to make their caps appear generous.

Also, is median (same as 50th percentile, right?) really the right statistic to consider? I'm not sure any one number is sufficiently meaningful, as the shape of the graph can be particularly informative.

More importantly, how has that changed over time, as compared with the penetration of 4K TVs versus 1080p ones (or the availability of 4K content or some similar metric)?

Conversely, I think mobile data is also more likely to be significant as competition in multi-person households, even with the caps you mention, because those have a chance of being per person/handset (absent family/share plans), while Comcast is likely to be one cap per household no matter how many people/screens stream at one time.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#123

Post by butterfi » Thu, May 24, 2018, 10:56 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #47

butterfi wrote: post #23

Traditional TV cut its own throat by expanding commercial air time to the point where customers are actively looking for and consuming alternatives. Rather then address the issue of why traditional TV is being rejected, Comcast is trying to coerce its members into subsidizing TV by making their subscription bundles more competitive then simply getting an internet connection. That won't do much in the long run as peop…

Not to burst your bubble, but I recently ditched Comcast/Xfinity for Internet TV. I tried several providers, and found that Xfinity provided the most permissive interface for skipping commercials on my DVR recorded content. I settled on YouTube TV, however their policy regarding commercials is even worse than Comcast. For example, if I record something to my YT DVR, AND the show is also available "on demand" YT will…

My point is that I believe people would appreciate less ad time. Tools for skipping ad time are a band-aid rather then a solution.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#124

Post by jaredklewis » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:12 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #79

karpodiem wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast has hiked standalone broadband to $75 - http://stopthecap.com/2017/12/21/75-month-broadband-pricing-... Interestingly, you can get a cheaper promotional rate if you bundle local TV channels (cheaper than $75/month for both internet + tv) so Comcast can inflate its video subscriber (to boost their stock price) amount and they hope you forget you're on a promotional rate your bill jumps $30-40 after you drop of…

> Comcast will continue to jack up standalone broadband prices to hedge against fleeing video subscribers. Why? Because they can, and have very little competition in most markets. That's coming from the perspective of an HN reader, for whom wireless isn't "competition." (I get it, I've got two fiber lines to my house; 3 gigabits total. My daughter uses it to stream Magic Schoolbus.) But for the typical user, 5G wirel…

Wireless can't compete because if everyone is on wireless, it will be dead slow, unless you make the cell size incredibly small. Small cell sizes require far more radio towers (often a non-option anyway due to zoning restrictions). And even if you do get microcells setup on traffic lights every half mile, you will then need the last mile infrastructure that comcast has for backhaul, unless you want to build your own land network. So I don't see the competitive advantage over another company just coming in with landline.

The other idea for small cells is femtocells, but in that situation you are running traffic over home internet connections so it is definitely not a way to cut out comcast.

Even at 5G speeds and 100 GB data caps, home internet being run over wireless would completely overload most of our current wireless infrastructure. The cell sizes are just too large for that kind of capacity.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#125

Post by scarface74 » Thu, May 24, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #111

seanp2k2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also the difference of OTT services showing less ads, letting you watch what you want when you want, and having much more variety than a single channel. It’s not a valid comparison.

This isn't really true at all. When I had Comcast, I used their streaming website, which provided on demand access to any channel on their lineup you were subscribed to. Ad content was about on par with other online services. My new ISP relies more heavily on individual channel streaming sites rather than hosting their own central portal for it, but again, the on demand experience is more or less the same I was famil…

Hulu and CBS All Access have an ad free tier. I had CBS All Access when I had Sling but DirecTVNow has all of the networks live in my market (NBC,ABC,CBS, Fox, CW) I could deal with the ads and awful on demand features of DTVNow for the one or two shows I watch on CBS. For everything else I have Hulu and the Cwl

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#126

Post by scarface74 » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:12 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #93

wufufufu wrote: post #10

What's more shocking to me is that Netflix is worth more than Disney. Just look at the list of Disney subsidiaries[1], then look at how bad the average Netflix original movie is and then tell me if the market caps makes any sense at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney

What's more shocking to me is that Netflix is worth more than Disney. What is the chance that Disney can execute implementing its own Netflix? What is Disney's batting average on projects like that?

Disney owns BamTech the streaming company behind MLB at BAT and HBO Go. BamTech is widely believed to have the best streaming technology except for Netflix.

No one has ever accused Disney of not being able to leverage its brands. They also have a good track record when it comes to acquiring other companies like Pixar, LucasFilm, and Marvel.

If the deal with Fox goes through, they will have even more content to leverage.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#127

Post by ocdtrekkie » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:14 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #125

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really true at all. When I had Comcast, I used their streaming website, which provided on demand access to any channel on their lineup you were subscribed to. Ad content was about on par with other online services. My new ISP relies more heavily on individual channel streaming sites rather than hosting their own central portal for it, but again, the on demand experience is more or less the same I was famil…

Hulu and CBS All Access have an ad free tier. I had CBS All Access when I had Sling but DirecTVNow has all of the networks live in my market (NBC,ABC,CBS, Fox, CW) I could deal with the ads and awful on demand features of DTVNow for the one or two shows I watch on CBS. For everything else I have Hulu and the Cwl

I still contend that in many ways, traditional cable subscriptions offer more for your dollar than a pile or cord cutter products. At the very least, the competition is closer than one might be led to believe.

Funny enough: My friends who never see television ads, I sometimes feel like they miss out on a lot of meme-worthy things. Sometimes I'll reference a commercial (like Grammarly, which is pasted all over YouTube), and people don't know what I'm talking about. It's weird. As annoying as ads are, they've become a significant part of our culture and it's odd when people don't see them.

Imagine if you happened to not know what the Geico gecko was or have heard the commercial from which the pronunciation "diabeetus" came from.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#128

Post by scarface74 » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:17 AM UTC

rconti wrote: post #42

sykh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Comcast doesn't mention is that when you get a TV bundle to save on internet costs the fees they tack on for TV increase the monthly bill by around 40% of the advertised rate. Bundling TV is actually more expensive when you look at the total bill but people buy according to the advertised rate vs. the actual bill.

There's no way that's true unless you live in a really messed up market, taxation-wise. Here in the SF bay area I have gigabit internet through comcast and allow them to shove their "basic" cable TV service in my general direction (it's not even hooked up) because it 'saves' me $5 or $10 or whatever per month on my internet charges. (All I know is the total bill is $144 which is less than the advertised rate of $169…

There is also the $10 "HD Technology Fee". If you have multiple TVs it's $10 for each additional set top box per month. I know our 6 TVs is a little extreme but that by itself would be an extra $50 a month.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#129

Post by rayiner » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:29 AM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #124

rayiner wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comcast will continue to jack up standalone broadband prices to hedge against fleeing video subscribers. Why? Because they can, and have very little competition in most markets. That's coming from the perspective of an HN reader, for whom wireless isn't "competition." (I get it, I've got two fiber lines to my house; 3 gigabits total. My daughter uses it to stream Magic Schoolbus.) But for the typical user, 5G wirel…

Wireless can't compete because if everyone is on wireless, it will be dead slow, unless you make the cell size incredibly small. Small cell sizes require far more radio towers (often a non-option anyway due to zoning restrictions). And even if you do get microcells setup on traffic lights every half mile, you will then need the last mile infrastructure that comcast has for backhaul, unless you want to build your own…

Small cells will be a critical part of 5G deployment. The FCC is projecting they’ll need to approve ten times as many cell sites for 5G as have been approved to date for all previous technologies. They’re working to reduce the regulatory barriers to doing that: https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/22/fcc-votes-to-streamline-5...

Small cells are still way cheaper than building land line. I had Comcast run fiber to my house recently, and it was very interesting to see the process play out. Aside feom waiting months for a permit, running fiber along the main street was quick. Running it down my weird little side street took just as long as running it half a mile down the main road. And running it through my yard took just as much time as that. Getting rid of the last 1,000 feet is a huge benefit.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#130

Post by carterehsmith » Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:45 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #119

seanp2k2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Comcast went down yesterday for about 18 hours (I have zero other options at my apartment for high speed Internet) and I tried tethering on Verizon LTE to play some games. Latency was between 60ms and ~900ms with some random disconnects. This is in TF2, which runs on the Source engine. Anything above about 400ms is pretty unplayable. Bandwidth caps are yet another issue. 4G is NOT a suitable alternative for me tod…

There is aggregated data on this, based on millions of data points: https://opensignal.com/reports/2018/01/usa/state-of-the-mobi... . Average latency for all four carriers is under 70 ms. As to bandwidth caps: for $100 including fees, you get unlimited on Verizon, which has a 22 GB soft cap per line (in practice, you can use way beyond that). Your point about duopoly is completely divorced from facts. The cell carrie…

>> What else do you use that is 10 times better than it was a decade ago? Google Search? Gmail? Facebook? iOS?

Heh, ironically, the "wired" internet is surely 10X or more faster than a decade ago. Anecdotally, I have a 1 Gbps connection now; year or two ago I had a 250 Mbps connection, and 2-3 years prior to that it was 50Mbps. Ten years ago it was, what, 5Mbps or 2Mbps.