Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Has Twice As Many US Subscribers As Comcast (allflicks.net)

Posted by BeauHD on from the staggering-statistics dept.

An anonymous reader writes: You want to hear a staggering statistic? Netflix has more than twice as many U.S. subscribers as Comcast. Netflix USA writes, "According to [Comcast's] Q4 report, Comcast ended 2015 with 22,347,000 video subscribers. Netflix's own shareholder report listed their U.S. membership base at 44,740,000 strong. That's 100.2% more than Comcast -- a staggering statistic." It's impressive to see how quick the Netflix subscriber base has grown just in the past five years from around 20 million subscribers to nearly 45 million subscribers. What's also interesting to reflect on is the two different business models. Netflix USA writes, "Netflix makes its money off of a lot of subscribers paying about $10 a month each, while Comcast charges far fewer customers far more."

112 comments

  1. I keep dreaming of the day by toonces33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that we can cut these bastards off. But between news and sports, the things that we do watch just aren't available on any of these streaming sites.

    1. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We did it. News is easy enough to get on the internet and get more viewpoints. News stations are scaling back and trying to reorganize anyway, and news is just going to get worse over the years as they shoot for rating vs, actual quality content. Just like your local newspaper, if you still have one that isn't dying out. One of our local stations just early retired all of their senior staff. Bye-bye quality, hello Beiber.

      But sports in our house was not an issue.

      I pay for internet, netflix and hulu and still save well over $100/month than any Comcast plan can get close to touching.

    2. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Kenja · · Score: 1

      SlingTV or Playstation Vue seem to have ample sports & news options... Been using the former for awhile now, and while it's not without issues, for the price it seems to be a good option.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I can't speak for everybody but local news and sports is on over the air where I am.

      If I want to follow stuff like MLB or NHL I subscribe to their websites that show pretty much all games live in HD (with exceptions to blackouts, in which case I turn on sports radio)

      I'm not a cable cutter yet but I feel like I'm getting close. If AMC just streamed new episodes of their stuff I'd be gone from Cable.

    4. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nightlynews.com

    5. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And more and more really dont give a rats about live news and sports. I havent watched the news in 5 years as all I see there is a delayed rehash of what I read online hours before.

      And sports..... other than Isle of man and F1 there is no real sports to watch. and most of america does not have F1 and zero coverage of Isle of man so I watch all that online as well.

      I hear some people like to watch millionaires chase a ball and fake injuries. In the spring it's a small white ball, in the fall it's a dumb oblong brown ball. If you cant DIE from your sport, it's not a sport.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to hear a staggering statistic? Netflix has more than twice as many U.S. subscribers as Comcast.

      Oh yeah? Well, Apple sold 74 million iPhones in the first 3 months of this year. That's more customers than Netflix and Comcast combined.

      So what?

    7. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      But between news and sports, the things that we do watch just aren't available on any of these streaming sites.

      You may want to check out Sling TV. Their basic package has ESPN, ESPN2, CNN, and quite a few other channels built into it for $20/month, and they offer a la carte extras such as a sports package with additional channels (e.g. ESPNU, SEC, etc.) for $5/mo., which looks to be right up your alley.

      As for news, what are you getting that's any different than what you can get online or OTA for cheaper/free? For pretty much anything at a national scale, their content is available via their apps, their site, or streaming services like Sling for significantly less than a cable bill and can generally be viewed while away from home. For stuff like the local CBS/NBC/ABC affiliate, why not pay once for something like a Mohu Leaf and just get the signal for free OTA? It'd likely pay for itself in less than a month and can either be hidden out of sight or painted so that it's not an eyesore. It's not all rabbit ears and lightning rods these days with antennas.

      All of that said, your needs don't match mine in the least (I get all of my news online and don't care about sports), so there may be perfectly valid reasons why these suggestions don't work for you. If so, I'd love to hear them so that I can make better recommendations in the future, since the last thing I want to do is mislead someone into making a bad choice.

    8. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Since neither Netflix or Comcast are in the smart phone business, so the fuck what? Why not compare the liters of oil the Saudis pumped out of the ground in the same period, if actual similarity of product is of no concern?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_association_footballers_who_died_while_playing

      Ice Hockey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Masterton

      Amateur triathletes die every year, generally in the swim phase where the exercise intensity that trips a previously-undiagnosed heart condition.

      Surprisingly, it doesn't appear that any American football players have died while playing the game. However, there have been several pro, collegiate, and high-school level American football players that have died during practice.

    10. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Run along, adults are talking.

    11. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by tom229 · · Score: 2

      It will never happen within the current way things are done. Telecoms still own the backbone on which the internet operates, which Netflix relies on. I have friends that work for telecoms. The management calls people that drop cable "cord cutters" and they have a simple plan: raise internet rates as required to offset the revenue loss from them. They aren't even secret about it. So until you see much overdue telecom reform in the US/Canada (I'm not going to pretend to know the state of things in Europe), you'll never see major telecoms lose any meaningful power or control.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    12. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I don't need sports, and it's a serious racket all about exclusivity and marketing and merchandising, you're better off just reading the scores online. And I can get news on the web (BBC is one of the better ones and not inundated with ads). There's also streaming Sky TV for news, Roku at least has it available by default. I suspect BBC is planning a streaming service (since they pulled Dr Who off of everyone else's service) and I would suspect it would have news. Newspapers are still useful too. I have no interest in seeing the typical American news as it's gone so far downhill that you get dumber just watching them (CNN, Fox, NBC, etc).

    13. Re: I keep dreaming of the day by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      And star wars was seen by more people than all those combined.

      How do they count anyways? Basically this would indicate that a third of all households in usa have netflix. And when 70% or so have broadband that would mean that half that can have a subscription have it??

      Also are vpn users counted as usa subs?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you want paid content...then your price goes beyond what you would pay for, say, DirecTV with an DVR...been there done that.

    15. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 bucks here, 10 bucks there...when you're finished your paying more than Cable and with cable you can DVR stuff. Seriously, you guys are being duped and don't even know it.

    16. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since neither Netflix or Comcast are in the smart phone business, so the fuck what?

      They didn't invent the mobile phone. Or touch screens, or buttons that do things, or rounded corners.

      Idiot.

    17. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football as in the real stuff that is played everywhere else or the girly bullshit that is called the same thing in the USA played by big fat tubs of lard?

    18. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this a bit like saying: I wish I could get the NFL from someone other than the NFL? At a certain point, the content producer has a kind of monopoly because no one else can make or sell it. I mean, I could put on a football game (of whichever sort) in my backyard but it wouldn't be the same.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    19. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Football as in the real stuff that is played everywhere else or the girly bullshit that is called the same thing in the USA played by big fat tubs of lard?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgPBeu4hLKw

      Which one is girly bullshit????

    20. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      What, you don't want some local celebrity to read buzzfeed to you?

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    21. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      you guys are being duped and don't even know it.

      That might be true for the sports-lover, but "you guys" would seem to include me, and I'm paying $8/mo. for Netflix (about to be $10/mo. following the price hike), and that's it. That's a far cry from what I was paying for cable before, and the other stuff I lost when cutting the cord has not been missed.

      Accuse me of being nickle-and-dimed all you want, but the numbers don't back it up.

    22. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > I havent watched the news in 5 years

      Same. Haven't watch Faux News or other bullshit propaganda since 2000. Online news = far faster and less bullshit hurry-up-and-wait "reporting."

      > other than Isle of man and F1 there is no real sports to watch.

      I still want to know why the fuck isn't there a sports channel dedicated to motorcycles? Because watching sissy Nascar sucks.

      > In the spring it's a small white ball, in the fall it's a dumb oblong brown ball. If you cant DIE from your sport, it's not a sport.

      You HAD to go there, didn't you?

      Look, just because you and I think Golf is boring as fuck doesn't mean it isn't a sport. Pro Golf takes skill that most people simply don't have. This artificial division of X is or isn't a sport is just that -- artificial. Proof look at all the people that watched Google's DeepMind vs Go !

      The problem is that the stuff we _do_ want to watch gets pre-empted or grouped with all the other crap we _don't_ want to watch.

    23. Re:I keep dreaming of the day by default+luser · · Score: 1

      I think they realized how dangerous that would be. That or else they were just posturing for the sake of getting a higher rate from Amazon. It's now an Amazon Prime exclusive.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  2. Well duh... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it's the other sharp edge of that two-edge sword called local monopolistic power. Sure, Comcast has exclusive markets, but that means they cannot go into other markets that are already taken up by some other cable ISP. Netflix has no such restrictions.

    Doesn't matter though - Comcast is a, like most cable ISPs, a bag of dicks, so even at 1/4 the size, they'll do their level best to extort money from Netflix and anyone else that streams video for a living...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Well duh... by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Sure, Comcast has exclusive markets, but that means they cannot go into other markets that are already taken up by some other cable ISP. Netflix has no such restrictions.

      Furthermore there's a massive gulf between Netflix and Comcast on prices. It would be like feigning shock that McDonalds has more customers than Applebee's. Price matters and people will buy more of the cheap thing. At the same time price doesn't say anything about quality, just that one is cheaper.

      There's also the whole physical plant aspect to the business, which greatly influences costs. Comcast has to provide the last-mile connectivity, and while Netflix's transport costs are not nil, they non the less don't spend nearly as much on their equivalent of a physical plant. (This also means you can't sign up for cable and start watching it inside of 2 minutes)

    2. Re:Well duh... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      This biggest influence on cost........Netflix has to worry about competition. They must keep providing desirable content for a good price as Amazon and others try to gain share.

    3. Re: Well duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but in a lot of cities with Comcast monopolies, they still don't provide service to their entire monopoly area. Here in Seattle, I've lived in six different places the past twenty years, and Comcast (before it was called that) was only available at one place. I live in a pretty expensive condo, and 576 Kbps DSL is the fastest connection we can get in the building. Comcast could certainly expand if they wanted more customers.

    4. Re:Well duh... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The thing about Netflix is that consumers like they because they charge a low price, and with 44M subscribers which probably translates into 66M friendly voters, they have a lot of political clout if someone like Comcast tries to extort money from them through monopolistic practices.

  3. not US subscribers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you will find that a large number of those us subscribers are actually people in other countries.

    1. Re:not US subscribers by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Subtract 1 US Subscriber. Switched to HBO now.

      Go tired of movies selections with descriptions of "Not to be confused with the Block buster..."

      Grade B movies mostly with a smattering of current movies. Their "New Arrivals" have the same movies in that category for months on end.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:not US subscribers by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? Their shareholder report lists 74.76 million members at the end of the quarter, 43.40 million of which are US paid members (and 44.74 million total US members). They list 30.02 million international memberships. Do you think that many people would go through a US proxy to access Netflix?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:not US subscribers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I feel the same way. I've been a subscriber to netflix for a long time, back 4 years ago they had lots of indie and forgien movies on top of a decent selcetion of tv shows....now it feels like they have become like stars and encore....with a few their orginal series. Still...for 9 bucks it not that bad.

      I might go with HBO now soon, I just tried hulu and didn't really care for the selection (I don't really watch much syndicated tv). Amazon also has a decent selection from what I here.

      Even if I subscribed to all three netflix, hulu, and HBO, I would still be less than basic cable costs. Im so glad I cut out the cable company 4 or so years ago, haven't looked back since.

  4. Get on with the times by qbast · · Score: 0

    Cable is obsolete. There is no point in having completely separate network for watching video and another one for all other information. It would be nice if telephony got there as well, but so far VoIP quality sucks compared to cell phone.

    1. Re:Get on with the times by CAOgdin · · Score: 1

      Except that cable (in your walls) has VASTLY greater bandwidth capacity than Ethernet! MoCA proves that, handily.

      Perhaps you might reverse your argument; it would make better sense.

    2. Re:Get on with the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have a co-ax wire (broadband) and you remove the hundreds of unicast TV channels from the line, you now have more spectrum available for two-way digital networking. It makes a lot of technical sense for cable TV to die at this point, and for the entire infrastructure to be repurposed as an internet provider.

    3. Re:Get on with the times by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

      Except your cellphone is voip too.

      And the interconnects between carriers, exchanges, cell towers, and to other countries, IS ALSO ALL VOIP.

      In more and more cases, carriers send voice using voip over the public internet now.

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    4. Re:Get on with the times by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      There's "cable" as in "the cable TV industry", there's "cable" as in "the programming on your cable TV connection that doesn't travel over DOCSIS", and there's "cable" as in "the communications infrastructure of the cable TV industry".

      Given "There is no point in having completely separate network for watching video and another one for all other information.", I suspect the person to whom you're replying meant "cable" as in "the programming on your cable TV connection that doesn't travel over DOCSIS", i.e. "why doesn't the cable TV industry provide only IP to the home and run their programming over that"?

      It sounds, from "cable (in your walls)", as if you're talking about "cable" as in "the communications infrastructure of the cable TV industry", and, in particular, the customer premises part of that infrastructure. In that case, what MoCA proves is that, with MoCA 2.5, you can get "up to 2.5 Gbps actual data rates". Is that really "VASTLY greater bandwidth capacity" than gigabit Ethernet?

    5. Re:Get on with the times by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Except your cellphone is voip too.

      Only if either 1) it's LTE and VoLTE or 2) you're using a VoIP application rather than the "built-in" cellular phone service; the "built-in" cellular phone service is digital, but circuit-switched and not running over IP.

    6. Re:Get on with the times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cable is obsolete. There is no point in having completely separate network for watching video and another one for all other information.

      I've heard rumors that you can get the Internet over a cable connection. And maybe phone too!!

    7. Re: Get on with the times by rkcth · · Score: 1

      Maybe your provider sucks? I have used broadvoice for 12 years or so, and my home phone has the best quality voice compared to any cell phone. I rarely use it, but quality is not an issue.

  5. Comcast is doing well by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Netflix is three times the service for a fifth the price. Just shows what an incumbent provider, who is willing to bend break or flatout ignore deceny and the law can do.

  6. Apples to Oranges by cogeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comcast is limited by physical constraints to the markets they're located in. Netflix is available to anyone with an Internet connection. I hate Comcast as much as the next poor soul that's bound to them simply based on their zip code, but this is like saying "penguins in the wild eat more fish than polar bears at the zoo"

    1. Re:Apples to Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast is limited by physical constraints to the markets they're located in.

      How so? Why can't they stream to anyone over the internet just like Netflix does? They even have their own app for streaming: "XFINITY TV subscribers can watch thousands of XFINITY On Demand TV shows and movies anytime, anywhere, with XFINITY TV Go." But as far as I know, you can only use it if you subscribe to their cable service.

    2. Re:Apples to Oranges by fermion · · Score: 1

      Also, Netflix is increasingly in a position to be a monopolistic provider and I see a day not so far away when they no longer meet customer needs. Already they have not updated the iOS app to include picture in picture. Hulu and Amazon who are simply trying harder do have this feature. Comcast, or any service, is not inherently bad. It is just that they get to a point where generating profits is more important than serving customers.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Apples to Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hulu shot themselves in the foot. The singular reason for Netflix's success with streaming is that there are no fucking adverts. That's it. Think on that for 10 full seconds - if you can.

      Amazon also shot themselves in the foot. Why? More fucking adverts! Their streaming content is deliberately mixed in with one-off rentals and digital purchases. They are not interested in competing with Netflix, they want you to buy digital content from their store. Likewise with Apple, but at least they're honest about it.

    4. Re:Apples to Oranges by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Hulu offers commercial free for just a couple bucks more than Netflix. Good if you like current shows.

      http://www.hulu.com/nocommerci...

      For Amazon, it's really fucking easy to turn off the mixed melange of content:

      1. Go to Amazon homepage.
      2. Click Departments->Amazon Video->Included with Prime

      NOW YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT FIGHTING THROUGH ANYTHING ELSE! Add shows to your watch list from here.

      You can even select by movie or tv genre, and all the results are prime!

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  7. That's pretty surprising by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering that I have to have Comcast's cable internet service before I can use my Netflix account. There aren't a lot of great options for me in this area, my experience with Netflix over DSL has not been good.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:That's pretty surprising by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Well, cable internet is a different thing than cable TV, even though they like to bundle them together for "cheap" whenever they can.

    2. Re:That's pretty surprising by CAOgdin · · Score: 1

      Um, er...that's YOUR choice. You can use any computer to subscribe to Netflix, and let it drive your TV.

    3. Re:That's pretty surprising by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You know I was thinking about the same thing but internet only and a netflix subscription is a heck of a lot cheaper than what I used to have. I used to have a provider a long time ago they wouldn't allow you to get their internet without a cable tv subscription, I don't know how long that lasted before I signed up but I was able to drop the tv after a little less than a year. Back then you used to still be able to get local channels on an antenna, if you had one of the big aerials you could get 7 channels where I was today not so much.

    4. Re:That's pretty surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just shutting off the fucking TV or are you that much of an entertainment junkie that you can't pick up a fucking book? What a bitch you must be.

    5. Re:That's pretty surprising by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It was a real pain in the neck to get them to only sell me internet. And even then they tried to sell me a bundled package that appeared cheaper at first, until you read the fine print and realize the price is only good for the first 3 months.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:That's pretty surprising by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I'm a kindle junkie actually.

      Your comment is equivalent to someone calling you out for not exercising enough because obviously the only thing you have going on in your life is posting on slashdot.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    7. Re:That's pretty surprising by aralin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about some regulation that would make companies itemize the bills correctly. Why is the prize of cable internet with Comcast $15 with TV subscription, but $65 without it? I want one service to have one cost. If there is cost of running the cable, then itemize it at $50 on the bill. I want to be able to see what am I paying for and make my choices alla carte. The same with TV programs. I am sick and tired of all these packages.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    8. Re:That's pretty surprising by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Did you go to your Netflix account and adjust the vid quality. I ran Netflix just fine over a rather slow wireless isp for a while. Had to lower the screen resolution but it worked fine. Once I moved to a better broadband provider I increased the resolution.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    9. Re:That's pretty surprising by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Yeah cable internet is more profitable. You don't have to pay for the content. Netflix made like $100M last year while Comcast made 3B. The Comcasts of the world would be happy to get out of the cable business and just overcharge for Internet.

    10. Re:That's pretty surprising by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      lower video quality is the same as "my experience with Netflix over DSL has not been good."

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re:That's pretty surprising by dwillden · · Score: 1

      False. At the lowest quality it sucks on a large HD screen but even one step up, it looks okay on my 42 inch HD screen. For larger screens that level too may get a little blocky with digital artifacts on the image at times, but it's far better than the show constantly having to pause to buffer.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    12. Re:That's pretty surprising by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I'm the one who said it, and I'm the one who gets to define it. I don't considered it a good experience. You're an idiot or you are trolling if you think you can debate my subjective opinion. And let's both agree that I would not considered pausing/stuttering video to be acceptable, since I'm not an idiot.

      I'm on a 55" TV and I work in the video industry, so yes I can see significant artifacts at lower bitrates, especially with the older codecs. Not that it is relevant to this thread of conversation, as "good experience" is my own subjective opinion.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  8. Content provider vs. service provider by jmcbain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are you comparing these two companies? Netflix is a content provider. Comcast is a (cable and Internet) service provider. That's like comparing Amazon with the UPS.

    1. Re:Content provider vs. service provider by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      A much more interesting statistic would be what percent of the Netflix $9/mo. spent by Comcast subscribers is redirected to Comcast. On top of the mucb more massive direct Comcast bill.

      Comcast demanding a cut is fraud as far as I am concerned, as they do not tell me they will be claiming a part of my Netflix fee as well.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re: Content provider vs. service provider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, bad analogy. Comcast is both an ISP and a content provider (because they exercise monopoly control over content). I can have packages delivered by UPS, Fedex, USPS, etc. But for most cable TV subscribers, the only game in town is Comcast. If I want to watch the Red Sox, or AMC where I live, I either watch them through Comcast, or not at all. It's as if Amazon only delivered via Fedex, and I could only buy something from Amazon if Fedex agreed to come to my house. Comcast controls the content, because they hold monopolies on home delivery.

    3. Re:Content provider vs. service provider by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why are you comparing these two companies?

      So we have a thread to talk about how much we like Netflix and hate Comcast. Were you expecting some kind of insightful content or intelligent discussion here? It's not 2003 anymore.

    4. Re:Content provider vs. service provider by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      No man

      Comcast makes money too by serving it's own crappy VOD service. Netflix opens competition with DSL subscribers and they have to pay for connections that bring money to a competitor.

      Of course they are going to lobby hard and fight tooth and nail to keep their money any way possible. With Ted Cruz he made it his campaign promise to help the cable industry www.tedcruz.org if you look at his platform? Making competition illegal means something to them as it cost a lot to buy this.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    5. Re:Content provider vs. service provider by breeze95 · · Score: 2

      Why are you comparing these two companies? Netflix is a content provider. Comcast is a (cable and Internet) service provider. That's like comparing Amazon with the UPS.

      Not entirely true. Comcast is a content provider via NBC Universal.

    6. Re:Content provider vs. service provider by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 2

      Actually no. They are a content AND service provider. You forget that Comcast owns NBC Universal as well.

      Personally, I would drop Comcast tomorrow if an alternative broadband provider was available in my area. The instant that happens, I'll be a former customer of their internet service. I don't recall the last time I watched any of their TV or movie content. It's been years. Perhaps someday they'll release something worth watching. Hope springs eternal.

    7. Re:Content provider vs. service provider by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Why are you comparing these two companies?

      Perhaps because Netflix is a direct replacement for cable TV for millions of people?

    8. Re:Content provider vs. service provider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast also own NBC, has it's own video streaming service, local cable sports channels and networks with a lock on NBA in many of the cities that have teams and much more. So, Comcast is huge content provider as well.

  9. Comcast vs. Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a big difference.

    People that buy Netflix are generally happy with Netflix service. People that buy Comcast are looking for either cable or internet and the provider doesn't matter so much. They will leave Comcast in a split second if it means saving $5 a month.

    This is in stark contrast to Apple desktop/laptop purchasers vs. commodity/MS Windows desktop/laptop purchasers. People who buy Apple hardware are happy to pay a little extra for Apple hardware.

    1. Re:Comcast vs. Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People use Comcast because they have no other choice for an Internet connection. As much as you may hate Comcast, if you live in an area served by them, and you want Netflix (or anything else on the Internet) you rarely have any choice other than Comcast.

  10. Re:How? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? Is there some tiny bubble west of the lake that has magically bad service? Because I've lived all around Lake Washington and my internet has been stellar no matter what ISP I use.

  11. Re:How? by CAOgdin · · Score: 1

    I'll grant you that. I had 6 Mb/s here in rural California, and in the evenings (while my computers are backing up, using the internal wired network) traffic collisions frequently interrupted what I was watching on Netflix. However, I upgraded to 12 Mb/s ($10/mo more) and--No More Collisions...and a happy spouse, too!

  12. In other news.. by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1, Funny

    You want to hear a staggering statistic? Magic Jack has more subscribers than Indiantown Telephone Company. It's hard to believe that Magic Jack, introduced in 2007, was selling nearly 10,000 units PER DAY whereas Indiantown Telephone Company, established in 1930, still hasn't managed to break the 10,000 subscriber mark, period!

    1. Re:In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I always thought Magic Jack was some sort of scam, but surprisingly, it isn't (depending on your definition of "scam"). I can't vouch for the quality of their service but I do know that they managed to get themselves set up as a CLEC, so that they collect a fee every time a non-Magic Jack number calls a Magic Jack number.

  13. The reach disparity by suupaabaka · · Score: 1

    It's comparing Netflix USA and Comcast.

    Around the world, Netflix has over 75 million subscribers, and it's only growing.

    As a non-American who often hears of Comcast related issues, I hope Netflix paves the way for better competition and service in the US.

    1. Re:The reach disparity by kuzb · · Score: 1

      As a non-American who often hears of Comcast related issues, I hope Netflix paves OVER them.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  14. Re:How? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    I live in Seattle in the city and I get 1Gbps service as does everyone else I know in Seattle. Maybe you should meet more people.

  15. So does Sirius XM. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Honestly Comcast really doesnt have many subscribers as they piss off enough customers that even ones that have no other choice choose nothing over having comcast.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  16. As I said in another post here today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NetFlix, along w/ HBO & LONG before it, prove paid services WORK https://entertainment.slashdot...

    * Hell with "ad supported" CRAP that only infects us, slows us down, tracks & SELLS us!

    (Money talks - & as this article alludes to in its summary? It's ALL about pricepoints, & thresholds of acceptance - charge a LITTLE & got LOTS of users, worldwide...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Good for you NetFlix - great job - I really LOVE DareDevil, The Flash, & most of all, ARROW (he's "my kind of guy")... apk

  17. This isn't surprising by kuzb · · Score: 2

    Give people what they want, on demand, at a reasonable price, without tying it to some other service people don't want and watch your userbase grow. Netflix has done a first class job on this score and comcast hasn't.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:This isn't surprising by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Comcast is getting starved for content. They simply have allowed too many bean counters, too much power. Even with numerous premium channels the content that people really want to see is screwed up. For example, Game of Thrones has so few episodes that people will lose interest. Getting away from the year-round program model has butchered TV programming as has advertising run wild destroyed the over the air channels. The idea of having 49 episodes a year is foreign to Comcast and it is killing them. The series like "Deadwood" or Boardwalk Empire were well written and well acted yet they were terminated. Just as theaters could not get the message we now have Comcast failing to get the message. Lots of great content at very low prices wins the day. It is a put up or shut up situation.

  18. Even more impressive by tsotha · · Score: 1

    It's impressive to see how quick the Netflix subscriber base has grown just in the past five years from around 20 million subscribers to nearly 45 million subscribers.

    What's even more impressive is they managed to get that many subs while steadily losing content from the major producers.

  19. Comcast as an ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They still have you by the balls in many areas. There are often few viable options to the local monopoly. If they lose enough TV contacts, they will just jack up the price of data to compensate.

    You cant win.

  20. Re:How? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So you live in North Bend and work in Bellevue, and tell everyone you "live in Seattle"? Because that's the only plausible scenario unless you are simply lying.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  21. Most POTUS primary debates have been on cable by tepples · · Score: 1

    You may want to check out Sling TV. Their basic package has ESPN, ESPN2, CNN, and quite a few other channels built into it for $20/month

    In some areas, $20/month covers an upgrade from Internet-only service to a bundle of Internet and expanded basic TV service (including ESPN, ESPN2, CNN, and the like). Comcast, for example, calls its expanded basic TV service "Digital Starter".

    For pretty much anything at a national scale, their content is available via their apps, their site

    Yeah, once you "Please enter the username and password issued to you by a participating cable or satellite TV provider," which is the norm for "TV Everywhere" services nowadays. C-SPAN.org has already announced that it is going this way for its Washington Journal morning call-in show and everything else live except for the House and Senate floor coverage.

    As for news, what are you getting that's any different than what you can get online or OTA for cheaper/free?

    One presidential primary debate in 2016 has been on PBS. All the rest have been exclusive to cable.

  22. TFA leaves out foreign subscribers by tepples · · Score: 1

    I think you will find that a large number of those us subscribers are actually people in other countries.

    Not this time. From the featured article: "for fairness’ sake we’ve left Netflix’s international subscriber figures out of this fight"

  23. True for VOD, not so much for channels by tepples · · Score: 1

    There is no point in having completely separate network for watching video and another one for all other information.

    True, in the case of video on demand. But "channel"-oriented video, with many people in the same neighborhood watching the same programming at the same time, needs a separate network until the major ISPs figure out how to implement multicast rather than just firewalling it off.

  24. Re:How? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? Is there some tiny bubble west of the lake that has magically bad service?

    Seattle proper has zoning laws such that a supermajority of property owners must approve any new utility installation. A vacant property counts as a no vote, and an absentee landlord counts as a no vote. This leaves residents of affected areas with dial-up, which is too slow for video on demand; satellite, which has a monthly usage allowance too low for nightly video on demand; and fixed cellular, which has a monthly usage allowance comparable to that of satellite. Laws in suburbs may differ.

  25. No AMC on satellite where you live? by tepples · · Score: 1

    If I want to watch the Red Sox, or AMC where I live, I either watch them through Comcast, or not at all.

    What did Comcast do to prevent DirecTV and Dish Network from carrying those channels?

    1. Re:No AMC on satellite where you live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sling tv carries espn too.

  26. Revenue difference by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    Even though Netflix has twice as many subscribers, doesn't the average Comcast customer pay near $100/month? Compared to $10-$15 for Netflix.

    I have Comcast now and actually have never really had an issue with them aside from how much they charge. And that when you drop a package from their Double or Triple play deals, you end up paying almost as much for one less...

    1. Re:Revenue difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Comcast US$ 74.51 billion (2015)
      Netflix US$ 6.77 billion (2015)

    2. Re:Revenue difference by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I have Comcast now and actually have never really had an issue with them aside from how much they charge.

      The price they charge is why I have been sticking with AT&Ts business DSL service, despite the fact that I've had about three dozen outages this year, they don't support IPv6 properly, and they continue to interfere with my third-party VoIP service. For comparable service (16 mbps), Comcast would charge almost twice as much, plus a $15/month modem rental fee because they won't give me static IPs on a modem that I own myself (at least in my area). Oh, they also want a $300 installation fee on top of that.

      ISP options in many, if not most parts of the U.S. truly and thoroughly suck.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  27. squidgy numbers by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    A significant chunk of those Netflix subscribers are probably international and not US. I am US subscriber living in Aus, early last year Australia alone had over 300k subscribers going through the US (probably a lot lower now that they have released here, but many like myself did not move to Australian subscription), I suspect a lot of other countries have similar situations.

    1. Re:squidgy numbers by suupaabaka · · Score: 1

      Nah, there are 75 million worldwide.

  28. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CenturyLink has gigabit on one street near Northgate, but much of the city is still suck with ISDN or POTS lines.

  29. Different Market Segment by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    that we can cut these bastards off. But between news and sports, the things that we do watch just aren't available on any of these streaming sites.

    Not just news and sports, but they are targeting a different market segment, and are already being forced to be competitive. Much pricier, but you can select from a MUCH more impressive video library if you have cable than you can through Netflix or Amazon Prime.

  30. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Director's Rules. It's why my apartment building doesn't have cable TV. The old people living in houses across the street always vote against allowing Comcast to dig up the streets and their yards so that the block I live on can get cable.

  31. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever look at the monopoly maps for Wave and Comcast? The vast majority of the city only has one option, and very often the local monopoly doesn't offer service. I'm one block from the edge of Comcast and two from Wave. I'm trying to sell my house and move to Kirkland so I can get good access and be able to work from home.

  32. Re: How? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I'm one block from the edge of Comcast and two from Wave.

    And you know of nobody who lives more than one block from you? Remember the claim isn't that there are gaps, but that "I live in Seattle and don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to stream."

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  33. $ Money $ by speedplane · · Score: 1

    Netflix users pay what, about $10 a month? Comcast users pay about $60 - 200/month? What comparison is this.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  34. Internet connection... by antdude · · Score: 1

    So like dial-up? ;)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  35. US customers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are they US customers or people wanting access to US Netflix? I wouldn't be surprised if the latter was quite a large group.

  36. Content... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    Is Netflix still not inserting third party ad content? If so, that would be the reason to use it over Comcast, no matter how much either of them costs...

  37. From a business perspective by kilodelta · · Score: 2

    I deal with Comcast for our internet service. Dealing with them is like dealing with the old Ma Bell. The problem just couldn't be on their end. So the latest, from a Comcast business account you couldn't reach Comcast aka Xfinity residential email servers. Showed them the traceroutes from our border device and it just dropping the connection. They wouldn't believe me until I took our network down to test at their border device. Of course I knew the IP's so I just modified it and sent it back to them.

    It was a fucking ACL on the gateway. One that we did not ask for. Took two weeks and about a dozen emails and calls to get it fixed. Comcast sucks.

  38. The real money maker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep! I keep paying for Direct TV to show adverts for old age dementia and pain killers , money investment scams, and Viagra commercials. The advert re-runs are just as bad as the actual movies that are constantly re-run to make sure I don't forget them to fast in my old age. Hence the need for the dementia stuff, while I suffer painfully thru the same crap over-n-over while I pay for Direct Tv's money making scam and the Viagra to get me excited about the new movie re-run that just came out today --- or was that yesterdays movie, or the day before one......

  39. Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just to old fast nickel vs. the slow buck. That's why Gillette gave away the razors.

  40. Comcast subscribers want the service, by jmcbain · · Score: 1

    not NBC Universal. The point of OP's article is the comparison of subscribers between Netflix and Comcast. People who subscribe to Comcast want the service, whether it's cable to Internet. The fact that Comcast owns NBC is not very relevant here. No one says "I want to subscribe to Comcast to get NBC."

  41. A lot easier for Netflix by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    It's not like Netflix has to supply you with a physical connection to provide you with their services. It's just another website (with lots of capacity). Comcast has to install and maintain the cables and infrastructure to all of the buildings. Signing someone up to cable probably involves sending someone out for a visit while Netflix just collects some information to create an account with the billing information. Plus Comcast has a limited territory while Netflix is free to sign up anyone in the US so of course Netflix should have higher numbers.

    I'm not defending Comcast but just pointing out that how they deliver content is completely different because Netflix has outsourced the delivery method completely while getting a package through a cable company includes it.