Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television The Internet United States Businesses News Entertainment Technology

Netflix Has Twice As Many US Subscribers As Comcast (allflicks.net) 112

Posted by BeauHD 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix Has Twice As Many US Subscribers As Comcast More

Netflix Has Twice As Many US Subscribers As Comcast

Comments Filter:

  • I keep dreaming of the day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by toonces33 ( 841696 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @04:25PM (#51935311)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kenja ( 541830 )
      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )

        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 o

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pnutjam ( 523990 )
          What, you don't want some local celebrity to read buzzfeed to you?

        • > 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

    • 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 [sling.com]. 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 stre

      • 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 morn

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tom229 ( 1640685 )
      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), yo

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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.

  • Well duh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @04:26PM (#51935329) Journal

    ...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...

    • 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 aspe

      • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAOgdin ( 984672 )

      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.

      • 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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • Apples to Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cogeek ( 2425448 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @04:29PM (#51935363)
    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"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      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.

    • So like dial-up? ;)

  • That's pretty surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @04:30PM (#51935389) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sowelu ( 713889 )

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

      • 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.

      • Re:That's pretty surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

        by aralin ( 107264 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @01:47AM (#51938045)

        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.

      • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAOgdin ( 984672 )

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

    • 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

    • 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.

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

        • 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 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 "goo

  • Content provider vs. service provider (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmcbain ( 1233044 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @04:37PM (#51935439)
    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.

    • 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.

    • Re:Content provider vs. service provider (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @05:12PM (#51935703) Homepage

      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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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."

    • Why are you comparing these two companies?

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

  • 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!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kuzb ( 724081 )

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

  • 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.

  • This isn't surprising (Score:3)

    by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @05:36PM (#51935851)

    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.

    • 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 th

  • 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.

  • 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...

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

  • From a business perspective (Score:3)

    by kilodelta ( 843627 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @04:20AM (#51938511) Homepage
    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.

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close