Comcast Still King Of The Broadband Hill 118k new broadband, 230k VoIP, and 394k digital video users Tipped by caco 
Comcast has released their second quarter earnings, which indicate the company saw earnings slip 8.6% due to costs related to their proposed union with NBC Universal. The company posted a net income of $884 million on the quarter, but dealt with $22 million in operating expenses and $37 million in financing costs incurred from the NBC Universal deal (hiring a massive army of lobbyists, lawyers and politicians is rather expensive). Comcast still thinks they should have the NBC deal closed by the end of the year. Like AT&T and Verizon, the company saw lower broadband subscriber additions than they had wanted, adding 118,000 users on the quarter. Comcast attributed the lower than expected broadband subscriber additions to "softness in the U.S. economy" and "tougher competition from fiber-optic providers" (aka Verizon FiOS). Comcast's rather explosive growth on the VoIP front continues, with the company adding 230,000 VoIP customers on the quarter, down from the 233,000 added this time last year. Comcast lost 265,000 basic video subscribers on the quarter, but added 394,000 digital video subscribers on the quarter, significantly up from last year's 250,000 digital video subscriber additions. The company ended the quarter with 47.7 million total voice, Internet and television customers (23.2 million video, 16.4 million broadband, and 8.1 million voice). Comcast is now the country's largest broadband ISP, largest TV provider, and the country's third largest residential phone company. Of course the company will also be getting significantly larger with their merger with NBC Universal.
|
 iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | "Significantly larger with the merger" is a bit of a stretch NBCU diesn't sell phone, internet or cable TV last I checked.
Any bets on how long it will be before Comcast tries to scoop up Time Warner Cable? | |
|  |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: "Significantly larger with the merger" is a bit of a stretch said by iansltx:NBCU diesn't sell phone, internet or cable TV last I checked. Any bets on how long it will be before Comcast tries to scoop up Time Warner Cable? I don't see that happening.
What I do see, if this merger is approved, is the resulting company becoming a lumbering beast of a flop.
These mega mergers never work out when the merged companies have so many differences.
AOL Time/Warner? I can remember all the "synergy" talk. How the merging of the Internet and content was a match made in heaven, and all that.
The only people that make out in these mergers are the top level executives of both companies, the investment bankers, and the lawyers. Everyone else gets screwed in the long run.
Comcast should stick to that it does best, and NBC should stick to what it does best. Comcast would be better served scooping up Time Warner than this hair brained scheme.
My prediction: EPIC FAIL
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: "Significantly larger with the merger" is a bit of a stretch said by N3OGH:The only people that make out in these mergers are the top level executives of both companies, the investment bankers, and the lawyers. Everyone else gets screwed in the long run. You're right, "significantly larger" won't last. As a Comcast subscriber there is absolutely nothing good in this merger for me and I'm expecting the worst. | |
| | | | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: "Significantly larger with the merger" is a bit of a stretch You should have access to NBC products( NBC, Universal Studios, NBC Universal Television Group, NBC News, USA Network, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC.com, MSNBC.com, iVillage, Bravo, qubo, Telemundo Television Studios, The Weather Channel, Hulu, A&E Television Networks)much quicker via ondemand and you might and notice I said might see your video bill not increase as much since they will have access to so much content and that should help Comcast hold off rate increases from other programmers, mainly Disney(ABC,Espn)and Viacom(Nick,MTV).
--
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. | |
|
| | | | The why why AOL/TWC didn't work out is because AOL failed to realize they invest heavily on dail up and failed to realize that broadband can be affordable. | |
|
|
1 edit | How is an already massive company merging with NBC and thus becoming "significantly larger" a stretch, exactly? | |
| | |  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: "Significantly larger with the merger" is a bit of a stretch 47.7 million million | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Just the way the sentence was phrased. Sounded like Comcast would go from 47.7 million RGUs to something above 47.7 million. | |
| | | | | | Re: "Significantly larger with the merger" is a bit of a stretch Ah I see. Not my intention. I'll try to reword that. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: "Significantly larger with the merger" is a bit of a stretch Thanks  I get all nitpicky sometimes. | |
|
| | They are getting to big Reminds me of GM, look how big they ONCE where, and now look at them.
With them making all this money there is no reasons for caps sorry. | |
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: They are getting to big said by hayabusa3303:With them making all this money there is no reasons for caps sorry. In a DOCSIS 3 system with 4 bonded 38mbps channels, there are still limits to how much data can be moved every month.
1,000,000 bits = 125,000 bytes (8bits/byte).
125,000 * 60(sec/min) * 60(min/hr) * 24(hr/day) * 30(days/mon) = 324,000,000,000 bytes = 324GB.
So 4 (channels) x 38 (mbps each channel) x 324 (GB per mbps each month) = 49,248GB.
We know from information published by Comcast in response to the FCC inquiry that the current scaling factor is approximately 275 subscribers per downstream channel group. So 49,248 / 275 = 179.08GB per user if the bandwidth is equally divided across the month.
I'm not saying you have to like the cap, but there are actual reasons why such limits are put in place on statistically multiplexed networks. | |
| | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: They are getting to big So in other words, Comcast isn't providing enough infrastructure to handle the load. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: They are getting to big said by pnh102:So in other words, Comcast isn't providing enough infrastructure to handle the load. I guess that's one way to misinterpret that. | |
| | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: They are getting to big said by espaeth:I guess that's one way to misinterpret that. How? You calculated that Comcast can provide up to 179.08GB of data transfer a month to each customer. That is far less than the 250GB cap they impose on each user.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
1 edit | Re: They are getting to big 250GB is a lot of space, the size of the cap is definitely not holding me back from choosing Comcast. Verizon has kept more of a hands-off approach to data they carry, which I like.
When it was a mystery cap, that was a definite turn-off. | |
| | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | Re: They are getting to big said by axus:250GB is a lot of space, the size of the cap is definitely not holding me back from choosing Comcast. Verizon has kept more of a hands-off approach to data they carry, which I like. When it was a mystery cap, that was a definite turn-off. I take the opposing view. I don't have a problem with Comcast or any ISP targeting specific users who really are draining large amounts of bandwidth and depriving users of a good experience. Under a cap, everyone suffers equally.
As Comcast comes out with faster and faster offerings, they seem to stick to that 250GB cap. While 250GB might be "a lot" now, it won't be in the future. This means that all the faster speeds do is get you to the cap faster. What's the point of paying more money to transfer the same amount of data?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: They are getting to big I agree with you, but as you are aware, we are in the minority. I'm sure you remember all of the clamoring on this site to "define the cap."
On the plus side, my understanding is the Comcast still actually uses the old criteria: it's dependant on the user contributing towards degraded service for others on the same node: now they won't target any user who is under 250GB.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by pnh102:How? You calculated that Comcast can provide up to 179.08GB of data transfer a month to each customer. That is far less than the 250GB cap they impose on each user. That's how much bandwidth you could consume if the capacity were equally divided. It's a metric of what constitutes your "fair share" of the network, and a tipping point for when your usage starts being subsidized by other subscribers.
Most people consume far less than their equal share, which allows others to consume more.
This all works on the same concept as insurance, except for broadband services substitute "heavy bandwidth customers" for "sick people"
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXfGeMNnBsM
I'm going to go take a shower now because I used a Humana Youtube video to make my point. | |
| | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | Re: They are getting to big Comparing Comcast's 250GB cap to insurance is not valid.
Comcast's policy states clearly that there is a 250GB monthly usage cap. That means that I as a humble user should be able to transfer all of that data in a single month if I chose to do so. Your numbers show that Comcast could not provide 250GB of data to every user with its present infrastructure. If I cannot get my 250GB of data transfer in any given month, regardless of the circumstances, then Comcast is not providing the service which it has agreed to provide at the price advertised.
I figure I will look at the cap from my perspective as a customer. Comcast imposed it, I should be allowed to use what I have paid for.
On the other hand, an insurance policy, ideally, is supposed to cap the cost of a catastropic, unanticipated loss by an individual by spreading out the costs of those losses over a large group of people. Insurance is not intended, nor is it supposed to, pay for every little loss that individual customers incur.
Furthermore, transferring 250GB a month is certainly not "unanticipated" for Comcast, as I am sure they did not make that number up out of thin air. If they are going to advertise that I can use transfer up to 250GB a month, then it is not unreasonable for me to expect that I should be able to do it. If they can't, then they will have to either invest in more infrastructure to handle the load, or lower the cap.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: They are getting to big said by pnh102:Comcast's policy states clearly that there is a 250GB monthly usage cap. That means that I as a humble user should be able to transfer all of that data in a single month if I chose to do so. Your numbers show that Comcast could not provide 250GB of data to every user with its present infrastructure. As someone else pointed out, with upload capacity factored in (27mbps shared by 100 people, so 87.5GB/user) they actually could provide for 250GB of usage at the current oversubscription levels with a mix of upstream and downstream bandwidth. (with 16GB and change to spare)
said by pnh102:If I cannot get my 250GB of data transfer in any given month, regardless of the circumstances, then Comcast is not providing the service which it has agreed to provide at the price advertised. Cisco pegged average broadband usage at around 11GB/mo in the article I linked earlier. Traffic studies from Japan had measured rates of 26GB/mo average in 2008 -- with estimates of 50GB/mo for 2010. Average usage has to get well above 175GB/mo before you're at risk of not being able to consume 250GB/mo at current oversubscription levels, and there is no indication that average usage is climbing that high just yet.
The good news is those numbers are slightly improving all the time, as the slide in this story shows, Comcast is pumping about $750m a quarter in CapEx into cable plant expansion and upgrades.
In any case, my point in calculating out the numbers for capacity was to illustrate that capacity is not infinite and that the caps are not purely arbitrary. There is an underlying basis for their existence that is derived from very real infrastructure limitations. | |
|
| | | | | | said by espaeth:said by pnh102:So in other words, Comcast isn't providing enough infrastructure to handle the load. I guess that's one way to misinterpret that. Nice
Or you could say that Comcast builds plenty of infrastructure for 99.9% of their customer base with increasing speeds each year and has been measured as the fastest US ISP.
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
4 edits | said by pnh102:So in other words, Comcast isn't providing enough infrastructure to handle the load. Exactly. They are overselling, and the customer has to pay for it.
Logical node splits are cheap now. There is no reason nodes need to be saturated. ( and if need be, a physical node split can be accomplished )
Last article stated about $3.50 (one time) per customer affected cost. | |
|
| | | | said by espaeth:said by hayabusa3303:With them making all this money there is no reasons for caps sorry. the current scaling factor is approximately 275 subscribers per downstream channel group. So 49,248 / 275 = 179.08GB per user if the bandwidth is equally divided across the month. I'm not saying you have to like the cap, but there are actual reasons why such limits are put in place on statistically multiplexed networks. That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Since when the devil is bandwidth divided equally between everyone on a node? What a stupid and corporate-apologist argument. Obviously there are people who use much, much less and others who use much more. It's a freaking bell curve, a very predictable one at that, and Comcast and every other cable company knows exactly what peak usage rates are for each node. They can scale up their systems according to bandwidth utilization.
Your argument is pure and utter garbage. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: They are getting to big said by sonicmerlin:Since when the devil is bandwidth divided equally between everyone on a node? It's not, and that wasn't the point.
said by sonicmerlin:Your argument is pure and utter garbage. Your logical, objective replies are always appreciated. | |
| | | | | | Well it is a curve like you suggest. Not all nodes consume equally of course. However, docsis infrastructure cannot be "upgraded" outside of adding more DS/US channels per interface and splitting high traffic nodes between more DS interfaces. Comcast can't magically play outside the rules of docsis. If you do it right, the customer will be able to enjoy their service whenever they want without suffering bottlenecks. | |
|
| | | | Some plants have 8 bonded downstream channels at 38.8 Mbps.
4 * 38.8 * 1024 * 1024 = 162,738,995.2 bits/sec, not sure how are you getting 1,000,000 in your calculation.
Also remember that the cap is downstream + upstream data. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: They are getting to big said by VladDracula :
Some plants have 8 bonded downstream channels at 38.8 Mbps. Yet there are not widely available consumer modems capable of tuning 8 channels. With 4 channel bonded DOCSIS 3.0 deployments being the norm, I would surmise that 2 channel variants would still vastly exceed 8 channel deployments at this stage of the game.
said by VladDracula :
4 * 38.8 * 1024 * 1024 = 162,738,995.2 bits/sec, not sure how are you getting 1,000,000 in your calculation. 1 megabit is 1,000,000 bits. It's 10^x measurements like with hard drives, not 2^x scaling like system memory.
said by VladDracula :
Also remember that the cap is downstream + upstream data. You're absolutely right. Tack on another 87G (324GB x 27mbps upstream / 100 users) to bring the combined equal share total up to 266.56GB. | |
| | | | | | | Re: They are getting to big You are still assuming that the users are consuming 1,000,000 bps or 125,000 B/s per plant while the CMTS is capable of much more. | |
| | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: They are getting to big said by VladDracula :
You are still assuming that the users are consuming 1,000,000 bps or 125,000 B/s per plant while the CMTS is capable of much more. Those numbers were part of the total equation used to determine the total max transfer capacity (measured in GB) over the month.
Look at the equation again.
1) GB per month per megabit
2) total monthly GB/mbit multiplied by segment mbps capacity (152mbps in the case of 4 channel bonding, 38 x4)
3) total GB/mo for the segment divided by 275 users | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: They are getting to big My bad, you're right. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | said by espaeth:said by hayabusa3303:With them making all this money there is no reasons for caps sorry. In a DOCSIS 3 system with 4 bonded 38mbps channels, there are still limits to how much data can be moved every month. 1,000,000 bits = 125,000 bytes (8bits/byte). 125,000 * 60(sec/min) * 60(min/hr) * 24(hr/day) * 30(days/mon) = 324,000,000,000 bytes = 324GB. So 4 (channels) x 38 (mbps each channel) x 324 (GB per mbps each month) = 49,248GB. We know from information published by Comcast in response to the FCC inquiry that the current scaling factor is approximately 275 subscribers per downstream channel group. So 49,248 / 275 = 179.08GB per user if the bandwidth is equally divided across the month. I'm not saying you have to like the cap, but there are actual reasons why such limits are put in place on statistically multiplexed networks. Misrepresentation as always. A physical node can be split logically to scale with customer use for about $3.50 per customer.
Thus making these silly node capacity arguments downright dumb.
"This year, about 65 percent of Comcast's node splits are of the cheapest "logical" variety, which cost about $3.35 per home passed and enable a tripling of capacity. About 25 percent are "modular" splits ($8 per home passed), and only 10 percent are "physical" node splits, which, at about $26 per home passed, are the most expensive of the lot." | |
| | | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | No reason for caps?
I disagree, SIR!
Caps are good for things like keeping the sun out of your eyes, and your head dry 
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Comcast has the fastest stuff in DC Until FIOS comes in, Comcast has the better broadband. The upgrades are really helping them out. I would have definitely switched by now, if they didn't have a history of packet shaping. Their cable TV service is too much money for me, when I'd be happier with what Netflix + Hulu + OTA offers. | |
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| When people wake up, Comcast's numbers may flip. You watch, Comcast is getting so big now because of all their ridiculous 1-2 year promotions and triple play. Wait for a few years to pass when people actually get their REAL bill. Comcast's pricing is atrocious ($11 per HD box, on top of $65 a month, WTF?!). And yes, I'm at 235GB with 4 days left. Have to tell everyone to not do any heavy internet lifting the last few days of July. I alone used 120gb downloading games from steam this month. | |
| | | | Re: When people wake up, Comcast's numbers may flip. People have been saying that for years and it hasn't happened. Every company runs continual ridiculous promotions. You mention the cable box prices...When a 1 year promo with DISH network runs out guess how much your DVR's cost per month? same as comcast. There is no magical place where TV costs are year by year much different no matter where you look. | |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
·Comcast
 ·Comcast Digital ..
| The NBC Merger Is All About Controlling Online Video Content Comcast knows that Online TV and Instant Streaming are the future of entertainment. To me, the reason they want to merge with NBC (the largest TV network in America) is to keep their content off of the Internet to try and salvage their decreasing cable tv customers. And the whole deal with their 250 GB cap is not because of "Data Hogs", it's because more and more people are watching TV and movies off of the internet from services such as Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV, and the upcoming Google TV.
--
Latest Speedtest
21.32 Mbps Download
4.28 Mbps Upload
Faster than 96% of connections globally and 94% locally. | |
| | shades
join:2001-06-26
Williamstown, NJ
2 edits | Re: The NBC Merger Is All About Controlling Online Video Content said by NSHPreds09:Comcast knows that Online TV and Instant Streaming are the future of entertainment. To me, the reason they want to merge with NBC (the largest TV network in America) is to keep their content off of the Internet to try and salvage their decreasing cable tv customers. And the whole deal with their 250 GB cap is not because of "Data Hogs", it's because more and more people are watching TV and movies off of the internet from services such as Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV, and the upcoming Google TV. are you serious?? ever heard of fancast, comcast has more content available online than any other cable company. plus they have higher caps than any other cable company. also you do not need to have tv service to watch most programs on fancast | |
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| Re: The NBC Merger Is All About Controlling Online Video Content Do you not see what I am saying? If all a person does is use the internet for streaming Live TV and streaming movies from Hulu and Netflix, you ARE ALMOST GUARANTEED to go over the 250 GB cap. I agree that the 250 GB cap is generous, but it will not be that generous in another year or two as online content becomes more mainstream. | |
| | | | |
ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Mechanicsburg, PA | higher bills... uh-oh, i see another comcast rate hike coming... | |
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| comcast's competition has no TEETH »www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA
Not exactly falling all overthemselves to make docsis 3 have more upload are they? Prices aren't falling either, or offering more bandwidth for less, are they?
Get some REAL competition out there in Comcast monopoly land... or else you have yourselves to blame. BTW, at&t isn't competition anymore. Charging around $200 for 24 megabit triple play is too high a price to get what can be gotten for around $95 in NYC-- and our 25/25 is SYMMETRICAL, and I blew by 250gb in the first week (not really sure, but I though I'd throw that in there just to piss someone off). | |
|
| |
|
|
