Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#101

Post by rconti »

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…

Somewhat unrelated, just reduced my internet speed from gigabit to 250Mbps; upload down from 35Mbps to 10Mbps and it's $96.95 'before taxes' .. hopefully, at least, I won't have that $8 broadcast fee, but I'm pretty mixed about this whole thing. I only got gigabit because I could, but I might miss that upload, just a little bit. And it's only $40 per month that I'm saving. Maybe $45 tops. Still, interested to see how it pans out. And finally I get to return the damn cable box they won't let me return as long as I have TV service. And -1 subscriber count, almost worth it for me just for that alone. They tried to throw a 2 year $99 gigabit offer at me, but I keep hoping SOME day I'll get FTTH.. I know, don't hold your breath.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#102

Post by seanp2k2 »

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…

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 today, and won’t be in the foreseeable future. Maybe if I had a dedicated antenna transceiver on the roof (also not allowed at most apartments) and they massively upgraded tower capacity had a 10-100x increase in bandwidth caps, but....I’m not holding my breath. If Verizon can keep getting >$100/mo ARPU providing 5GB of data with Comcast getting the same for providing 1TB and both have monopoly / duopoly conditions, they have no incentives to compete or upgrade their infrastructure.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#103

Post by seanp2k2 »

rayiner wrote: post #78
dragonwriter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that cable providers can raise prices to compensate for lost TV revenue is predicated on the assumption that there are no alternatives. Which is increasingly correct, since the same entities that sre cable operators not only largely own the fixed consumer internet connections, they also largely own the mobile broadband providers and satellite broadband providers, and, even if they didn't own the pipes, the…

No, it’s increasingly less correct. Right now, Verizon and AT&T don’t compete with each other, or with Comcast in most places. With 5G, you’ll have 3-4 entities offering broadband in almost every market.

I’ll believe it when I see it. I very much doubt that the incumbents will let that happen, be it through legal chicanery or otherwise.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#104

Post by yellowboxtenant »

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.

IT companies are valued now on what they're going to earn in 20 years.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#105

Post by seanp2k2 »

rhizome wrote: post #37
scarface74 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole idea of "cord cutting" hurting cable is insane. If you don't subscribe to cable and you subscribe to internet based streaming services, you're still getting content delivered to your home via either a cable "cord" or the phone company. Netflix at most gets $12/month per subscriber. Comcast will get $80 - $110/month for internet service. Comcaast also has either no competitors in their market or at most one.…

One difference with cord-cutting vs. Comcast (et al) is that I have no idea how to watch sports on broadcast unless I come across it randomly channel surfing. That is, for me, it's not about money so much as control over distractions in my home. People have been clamoring for a la carte cable for years if not decades, and since the cable services either decline or are unable to provide this, technology finds a way. T…

My solution to this is to realize that this is exactly why modern broadcast sports even exist; as a means to make money. All of the rivalries, drama, and theatre around it exists to reinforce the idea that you must watch to see who wins the Big Shiny this season. This ruins the fun of watching skilled humans competing in a game for me; they might as well have Slurpee straws as sticks, Oscar Meyer hotdogs as skates, bat around a Coke bottle into a Doritos net while skying over a giant Chipotle burrito with 14 different LED screens showing various logos. We’re not far off from this right now; big sports is an assault of advertising on the senses, and people PAY to go, clamor for “access” to watch it on TV, put up with hostile “blackout” policies, and buy tons of memorabilia. If we could get that many people to care about something that actually mattered, the world would be a better place. I really hope that my generation ends up killing this brand of professional sports.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#106

Post by scarface74 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #77
scarface74 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all of the networks offer most of their content free on the web a week after it airs without signing in, in the case of CW, within a day. If you add the corresponding channels to Plex, you can watch them without commercials. Plex channels scrape the content from the official web channels in real time so while the networks may not like it, to the websites it looks just like you are viewing it on the web so it woul…

Are you confident this is still the case? I was watching CW shows on their website this week, and had to sign in with my cable provider to stream the full episodes. I've seen this as fairly hit or miss.

Absolutely sure.

For instance. This is the latest episode of The Flash. No login required. It's usually available the next morning

http://www.cwtv.com/shows/the-flash/

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#107

Post by seanp2k2 »

rhizome wrote: post #91
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A la carte cable was a "grass is greener on the other side" thing. People asked why they pay $60 a month for 100 channels if they only watch a handful. Now you can buy Netflix, Hulu, HBO, CBS All Access, Disney whatever, etc. each for $10 a month. You still end up paying $60 a month, but now you get six channels instead of 100.

You still end up paying $60 a month, but now you get six channels instead of 100. And 94% of Comcast channels are trash. I have no problems with people who subscribe to Comcast based on the number of channels they carry, though. Personally, I don't need hardly any of them.

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.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#108

Post by ninkendo »

otakucode wrote: post #84

It would make total sense for Netflix to be worth more than Comcast. They provide a worthwhile service while Comcast does not. Netflix provides content, even producing some itself. Comcast does nothing but media distribution. A clever 12 year old can do global media distribution on their free time for free. And do it better than Comcast and other large corporations can. They built their empires when distribution was…

... comcast also is an ISP.

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#109

Post by toephu2 »

stcredzero wrote: post #95

In 2018, why the heck is it that I can't click on something to indicate, "I want to watch this," then I get a notification when it airs, and have a list of shows/events now available to watch? If media companies want their advertisements to be worthwhile, why don't they get their act together and do this? The answer is that they will try to implement this only for their own company, and this will fail. Such a thing c…

It is the year 2018, and indeed most DVRs do already provide this functionality...

Re: Netflix is now worth more than Comcast

#110

Post by sangnoir »

GuiA wrote: post #35
gruturo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay my provider (in Germany) 29 EUR/Month, and that's for a premium offering (it's actually a business contract, not a consumer one). Sooner or later, despite the ridiculous monopolies, the lobbying power, the borderline illegal obstacles to newcomers, regardless of how deeply entrenched they are, these ridiculous $100/month providers will eventually be disrupted. So I see Comcast's revenue source under a considera…

People are always comparing ISP offerings in Europe/Japan to the US and saying it doesn’t make sense, but the scale of deploying service are just not the same. US: 9.8 million km^2, 33 ppl/square km Germany: 350 000 km^2, 231 ppl/square km

Look at a US population density map some time. Cable services are provided where people are, not evenly distributed across the country.
Post reply on HN