Tag Archives: Comcast

Competing Against the Bundle

For many years, competing against the bundle referred to anybody who tried to compete against a cable company that offered the triple-play of broadband, cable TV, and telephone. I conducted market surveys for years, and it was not unusual to find 60% to 70% of cable company subscribers who were buying the bundle.

The triple-play bundle was a powerful marketing tool when a majority of homes were interested in buying all three products, since subscribers could buy all three products in a bundle that cost less than buying them individually. The power of the bundle came from the high cost of breaking the bundle, which made it a challenge for customers to consider alternative broadband providers. However, over time, telephone subscriptions have dropped from 95% to under 20%, and cable TV subscribership has dropped by over half, and is still diving.

While some version of the triple-play bundle still exists, competitors now face two new bundles that are proving to be effective in the market. Both bundles include cellphones as part of the package. FWA sales have been phenomenal. In the third quarter, the three major FWA carriers had almost 14.3 million FWA customers and added over 1 million net new customers, the highest quarterly gain yet.

The three FWA cellular broadband providers have been phenomenally successful in selling home broadband delivered using cellular spectrum. The main selling point is the lower price of FWA broadband, which is priced lower than cable company and fiber broadband. The base price for AT&T is $65; for T-Mobile, it’s $55 – 65, and for Verizon, it’s $60 to $70.

But the base FWA price is not the story, at least for T-Mobile and Verizon. Both companies reduce the broadband price by $15 for bundling with a cellphone plan. Both also offer discounts for customers who use autopay billing. The bundle reduces the price for broadband for both T-Mobile and Verizon FWA to $35 to $45 per month, which explains why the product is selling so well.

The other cellular bundle comes from the biggest cable companies, with Comcast and Charter leading the way. Both cable companies have been aggressively selling cellphone service to existing broadband customers. The primary motivation for the cellphone bundle is to reduce churn by keeping broadband customers from leaving for a competitor.

Charter sells several cellular options. The base cellular package is $20 per month, which includes 1 GB of data, with extra data at $5 per GB. The $30 plan comes with 30 GB of data. The $40 plan comes with 50 GB of data. Comcast also sells by the gigabyte. $15 per month buys 1 GB; $30 per month buys 3 GB, and $60 per month buys 10 GB. But a better option for large data users is the unlimited plans. The $40 Unlimited plan comes with 30 GB of data. Unlimited Plus for $50 comes with 100 GB of data.  All of these plans are often advertised as specials for even less. Charter recently made an offer that a home that will buy and keep for cellphone plans can have free broadband for as long as they keep the phones.

The cellular bundles have been selling well. Consider the national net change in customers for the first two quarters this year for the largest cellular companies:There are a lot of quotes from executives of fiber overbuilders saying that they are not concerned about cable company cellular or FWA. But there is no doubt that these bundles are attracting a lot of customers. These are the two bundles to keep an eye on.

 

Are Cable Companies “Permanently Impaired”?

KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Brandon Nispel recently said in an industry report that “There are reasons to believe that cable is permanently impaired.” By that, he believes that cable companies are going to continue to lose broadband customers as they compete with fiber and FWA cellular wireless.

The problem that cable companies are experiencing stems largely from the time when they enjoyed a near-monopoly status in broadband markets across the country, when their only real competition was DSL provided over copper wires. For well over a decade, cable company broadband customers grew by huge numbers each quarter as people abandoned DSL. The reason for the cable company decline today is that the monopoly is now over and cable companies suddenly have to compete with alternatives like fiber and FWA cellular.

Using the term ‘permanently impaired’ makes it sound like cable companies have inferior broadband. From a technology perspective, fiber is clearly superior to cable broadband. Fiber has lower latency and less jitter for a more reliable signal, and fiber can provide very fast or symmetrical upload speeds for customers who care about upload. But a technology comparison would give the nod to cable over FWA wireless. Cable speeds are faster, and wireless networks generally have more variability of signal over time.

But most customers don’t buy broadband based on the performance specifications. Households that don’t need a lot of upload are perfectly happy with cable company download speeds, with tiers available from 300 Mbps to over a gigabit. Surveys show that a lot of cable company customers are happy with the broadband speed and performance.

The cable companies have been investing in increasing upload speeds, which will satisfy a lot of their broadband customers. Whether they goose upload speeds to 200 Mbps with a mid-split upgrade or invest in symmetrical speeds with a DOCSIS 4.0 upgrade, the increased upload speeds will be enough to satisfy the large majority of households.

I don’t think that most of the households leaving cable companies are doing so because of the technical differences in the technologies, other than perhaps heavy gamers and others who care about the difference in latency and jitter. The cable companies are seeing customers leave because of the way they treated customers over the last decade.

A lot of customers soured over the years on cable companies because of cavalier customer service, where customers had long wait times on the phone, and cable technicians routinely showed up late for customer appointments. It’s been a running joke about how dreadful it is to be stuck in a Comcast call queue. Cable companies didn’t create loyal customers when they had a big rate increase every year for more than a decade, and now have base rates approaching $100. Customers grew frustrated when new customers got low prices while long-term customers continued to pay the full list price. I think it’s the millions of customers who have a sour taste in their mouth for the cable companies who are bailing when they finally have a reasonable alternative that is not DSL.

I’m starting to get public feedback that the big fiber companies like AT&T are headed down the same path as the cable companies. I’ve been contacted in recent months by several AT&T fiber customers who are unhappy with their fiber service. One told me about an outage that lasted for nearly a week before AT&T finally fixed the problem – and then offered them a $3 discount off the bill for their inconvenience. Another customer told me about regular short outages on AT&T fiber – and this customer originally left the cable company for AT&T for this reason. AT&T fiber won a lot of customers when they entered markets because they were cheaper than the big cable companies, but the company has now raised rates for broadband by $5 per month two years in a row, at a time when the company is bragging about record profits.

Nispel is right that cable companies will continue to lose customers. That’s a natural consequence of the end of a near-monopoly. But urban markets will eventually reach an equilibrium, and cable will settle in at a lower penetration rate. We already know what that looks like after seeing how Verizon FiOS and cable companies reached an equilibrium in the Northeast.

The story is not that cable companies are losing customers and are doomed. The real story is that the ISPs displacing them are repeating the same mistakes made by the cable companies, and the public isn’t going to like them any more than the cable companies. A colleague recently observed that competition in urban areas is largely illusory and we’re largely seeing competition between equally inept ISPs. I’m starting to think he’s right.

 

Big ISPs and Speeds

I was recently reminded in a conversation with a client how cable company executives used to tell the public that they didn’t need faster broadband speeds, and what the cable companies offered was fine. Looking through my archives, I found the following statements from 2013, where cable companies were responding to the first Google Fiber offerings of symmetrical gigabit broadband.

In 2013, Time Warner Cable CFO Irene Esteves announced that the company didn’t see the need to deliver Google Fiber speeds to consumers. Comcast Executive Vice President David L. Cohen was quoted as saying that gigabit speeds were pointless due to limitations on the data speeds that could be delivered from websites and the lack of capability of home WiFi routers. Michael Powell, the CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, characterized gigabit speeds as an “irrelevant exercise in bragging rights”.

The criticisms had some merit at the time. There was no web traffic that operated at speeds even close to a gigabit. Off-the-shelf WiFi routers couldn’t handle anything close to gigabit speeds. But the public didn’t care because performance on fiber was perceived as being significantly better than what was delivered by cable companies, and customers flocked to Google Fiber in the markets where it was introduced. Interestingly, Time Warner obviously thought the Google Fiber threat was real, because the company quickly built fiber-to-the-premise to compete against Google in North Carolina.

There were some customers who benefited from gigabit speeds. I recall talking to a doctor who subscribed to gigabit speeds when it became available from a municipal ISP. This hospital also had gigabit broadband, and the doctor was able to download large MRI files at home in a reasonable amount of time once he had gigabit fiber. I also talked to a photographer who used a different municipal ISP who told me that gigabit speeds made it possible for the first time to upload photography and video libraries to clients without having to wait for hours for the uploads to complete.

The next time that cable companies told the public they didn’t need faster speeds was during the pandemic, when it became clear that cable company upload speeds of 10 Mbps were not able to handle multiple people working and schooling at home at the same time. Every big cable company defended its networks. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge said at the time that Charter’s network was adequate and justified that by pointing out that the majority of customer data usage was downstream. But Charter and other cable companies tweaked their networks during the pandemic to improve upload speeds to 15-20 Mbps. Still today, there are numerous cable networks that have not yet implemented any upgrades to bring significant improvement to upload speeds.

Many ISPs subtly tell their customers they don’t need fast broadband through their pricing. I find small ISPs around the country that still charge extremely high prices for anything faster than their basic broadband product.

This frankly mystifies me. I’ve always guessed that this kind of pricing is for two reasons. First, I think some small ISPs fear that customers who buy faster speeds will somehow cost the ISP a lot more money. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. I recall an Ookla article last year that said that, in some markets, the biggest data users were the customers buying the least expensive broadband package. I’ve had numerous ISPs tell me that their gigabit customers don’t use more broadband than their 100 Mbps customers.

The only other reason for high prices for faster speeds is that they are trying to create the idea that fast speeds are a super-premium product. But I think these ISPs are losing out on a lot of revenue. ISPs who space prices between speed tiers of $15 to $20 see that a lot of customers who are willing to upgrade to faster speeds when it doesn’t cost a lot more per month. Most customers are leery about paying $50 or more per month for a faster speed.

AT&T Raises Rates

AT&T announced it will raise broadband rates as of December 1 by $5 per month. This is the second year in a row that the company has raised rates by that amount. The fact that the company is raising rates in today’s environment is an interesting choice. I suspect the rate increase says several things about AT&T. The increase tells me that the company is meeting its fiber penetration goals and doesn’t think a rate increase will hurt its market share. It also speaks to a belief that customers perceive fiber as the superior technology that people are willing to pay for.

This will take AT&T fiber broadband prices to $69 for 300 Mbps, $80 for 500 Mbps, $95 for 1 Gbps, and $160 for 2 Gbps. Before the two rate increases, AT&T was priced noticeably lower than its cable competitors, but that is no longer the case.

The rate increase will apply to existing customers, although AT&T is not raising the rate for it’s low-income plan. In a move that always mystifies long-time customers, AT&T is still offering aggressively low rates for new customers while asking for more revenue from long-time customers. While writing this blog, I saw the AT&T website is offering introductory rates of 300 Mbps for $42 and 1 Gbps for $50. AT&T is also offering a low rate for its FWA cellular broadband of $47 per month.

AT&T is giving customers the typical story that the rate increases are needed to ensure that customers will receive a high level of service. But the company is not mentioning to its customers that it had a net income of $4.9 billion and free cash flow generated of $4.4 billion in the second quarter of this year.

This has to be good news for the big cable companies that compete against AT&T fiber. If the cable companies decide not to raise rates now, they can advertise against AT&T for doing so. However, this could also give cable companies the cover to raise rates again, and I’m sure this announcement is being discussed in cable Board rooms.

What I find most interesting about the rate increases is that the big cable companies have spent a lot of advertising dollars talking about lower rates. Cable companies are in a panic about losing customers to both fiber and FWA and have mostly fought back with lower introductory rates and special promotions.

Charter had a rate increase this year and raised broadband rates by $2 per month, starting with the July 2025 billing cycle. That’s the lowest rate increase from the company in years and follows a $3 rate increase in the summer of 2024. Charter has been pushing a two- or three-year price lock where rates are guaranteed without customers having to sign a contract.

Comcast has not been so cautious with rate increases and announced an across-the-board 5% rate increase for broadband at the end of 2024. It will be interesting to see what they will do this year. But Comcast has also been pushing low-rate deals, including a promotion in April that gave new customers a 5-year price lock.

These annual rate increases always prompt small ISPs to ask if they should raise rates. The majority of small ISPs do not raise rates every year. I know a number of cooperatives that typically only raise rates every three to five years. It’s ironic that, on the whole, these rate increases will mean that urban broadband rates will become significantly more expensive than rural rates, mostly due to urban rates getting increased every year. There are exceptions, and some rural companies have high rates, but most do not.

A Converged Carrier Market?

T-Mobile made financial news recently when a KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst downgraded the long-term outlook for T-Mobile stock and said the company is “underweight”. Press coverage quoted the analyst saying, “We think [T-Mobile] is fiber deficient in a converged/bundled world”.

We’ve been headed towards the industry that is dominated by a handful of converged telecom providers, and the comments from this analyst show that day is probably here. The analyst’s comments come from comparing T-Mobile with the other giant converged companies that offer broadband and wireless, specifically AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter/Cox.

It’s curious why the analyst dinged T-Mobile because the company is profitable and successful. In the latest financial report for the second quarter of 2025, the company reported $17.4 billion in customer revenues, up 6% year-over-year. Net income was $3.2 billion, the highest-ever for the company and up 10% year-over-year. Net cash from operations was $7 billion, up 27% year-over-year. Adjusted free cash flow was $4.6 billion, up 4% year-over-year.

T-Mobile was criticized because the analyst believes that the most successful big companies will be those that lock up customers with a bundle of broadband and wireless. That seems to mean that the companies with the most gigabit passings will be the ultimate winners in the market. T-Mobile is expected to have about 15 million fiber passings by 2030. That pales behind the 50 million passings expected by Verizon by 2020 or the 60 million planned by AT&T by 2023. Charter passes 57 million homes today and will be adding 7 million homes when it closes on the merger with Cox. Comcast says it will have 62.5 million passings by 2023. T-Mobile will clearly have the smallest fiber footprint.

How are the other big four converged companies doing with bundling? Comcast had 8.5 million cellular customers at the end of 2Q 2025 compared to 31.4 million broadband households. Charter had 10.9 million cellular customers compared to 29.9 million broadband households. AT&T reported for 2Q 2025 that 40% of its fiber customers are buying cellular. I can’t find where Verizon highlights the percentage of homes that buy cellular and broadband.

So this year, the stock market doesn’t seem to be valuing the converged carriers evenly. As I wrote this blog, T-Mobile stock was up 19% for the year. Comcast stock is down 11% for the year and Charter is down 22%. Verizon stock is up 6% and AT&T is up 20%. There is a story behind all of the stock price changes, and it mostly involves changes in customers and earnings, not in the percentage of convergence.

One thing is clear. These five companies dominate the telecommunications space. The five companies have most of the cellular customers in the country, and T-Mobile will be adding customers from the USCellular purchase. The five companies had over 98 million broadband customers at the end of the second quarter of 2025, and Charter will be adding 6-7 million more customers if the merger with Cox is approved. The five companies account for almost all of the national net growth of broadband customers.

The KeyBank analyst was looking at the long-term trajectory of T-Mobile compared to the other giant companies. The analysis statement seems to assume that FWA growth will eventually top out and decline in competition with the other big carriers. But for now, in the second quarter, T-Mobile had the biggest growth in both cellular and broadband customers. It’s obvious that T-Mobile has something today that customers value. My crystal ball is not clear enough to be able to predict that T-Mobile is going to stop growing any time soon, and it seems too early to predict that T-Mobile won’t be in the same category as the other four converged companies.

A Peek at the New BEAD

The State of Tennessee released a side-by-side comparison of the new Benefit of the Bargain round of BEAD applications compared to its initial round of BEAD applications conducted before the revised BEAD rules.

The side-by-side comparison (file:///C:/A/Articles/Tennessee-BEAD-Comparison.pdf) is interesting and shows some big differences between the two grant rounds:

  • Tennessee received 541 applications in the new Benefit of the Bargain round compared to 298 applications in the original round of BEAD.
  • The low-orbit satellite companies Starlink and Kuiper bid throughout the state. Starlink didn’t submit any applications in the first round but bid almost everywhere in the new BEAD round. Kuiper bid for most of the state in both BEAD rounds. Satellite is clearly going to win a significant amount of grant funding since there were 68 of 173 serving areas that got proposals from one or both satellite providers and no other technology. The satellite companies surprisingly don’t seem to be fazed by bidding in Appalachia.
  • There were surprisingly few proposals for fixed wireless technology, with proposals only made in 12 of the 173 study areas included in the new round of BEAD. Part of the reason for this might be the mountainous and hilly nature of much of Tennessee, but there are plenty of areas in the central and western parts of the state where wireless will work well.
  • Comcast switched technology from the first to the second round. In the first round, the company proposed to build fiber, and in the new round it mostly changed to traditional hybrid fiber/coaxial networks – apparently to be able to bid at a lower cost. This makes me wonder if it’s really cheaper to build copper coaxial cables than fiber or if Comcast is just willing to take less funding.
  • There has always been a big question of whether big ISPs would show up for BEAD. There are three big companies in the new round of BEAD – AT&T, Comcast, and Windstream. The industry has always wondered if AT&T would join BEAD.
  • There are a number of smaller ISPs asking for funding to build fiber that includes cooperatives and municipalities.
  • There are four service areas that had no proposals. The state will have to talk an ISP into serving these areas before they can close out their BEAD grants.

It’s impossible to make any definitive cost comparisons between applicants because the new BEAD rules allow ISPs to request to serve areas smaller than the serving areas suggested by the state. There are also roughly 7,000 fewer passings on the newest BEAD map than were included in the initial BEAD grants. But in general, the comparison shows:

  • Most companies proposing to build fiber bid less the second time, but some of this could be due to fewer eligible passings and not just to a sharpening of the pencil.
  • Fiber ISPs across the country are wondering how much lower other technologies will bid in BEAD. There is only a single company asking to build wireless in the state, and their proposed grant awards are roughly one-third the cost of those asking for fiber in the same study areas. But without knowing more details, that ratio might not mean anything for other states.
  • However, satellite bids are incredibly low, most at 10% or less than proposals to build fiber. There is a map showing the eligible passings by study area, and I eyeball the satellite bids to be in the range of $400- $600 per passing. Kuiper is generally significantly lower than Starlink. These low bids are going to worry ISPs everywhere.

 

Increasing Broadband Price Competition

Competition has been creeping into broadband pricing for the last several years as cable companies have been using low introductory rates to try to win new customers and offering similarly low price to try to keep them. Anybody who competes against the big cable companies will tell you that cable companies have been competing for years by offering two-year promotional prices to keep customers.

However, competition might have gone into a new gear recently when Comcast began offering low rates with a five-year price guarantee. The 5-year guaranteed rates were introduced soon after Verizon offered a 3-year price guarantee for FWA wireless home broadband.

In a Comcast blog dated April 15, Comcast announced a 5-year guaranteed rate plan for new customers for 400 Mbps broadband for $55 per month. The product comes with the company’s WiFi Gateway and no contract is required. The plan also includes a free Comcast cell phone plan with a 30 GB data cap for one year. This is a substantial discount. The list price for 400 Mbps is $86, and the normal charge for the WiFi Gateway is $15. The cell phone normally costs $30 per month. The 5-year rate is available through June 23, but Comcast has already told some news outlets that the special rate offer will probably be extended.

On the announcement date, several news outlets like PC Magazine listed the 5-year deal packages as 400 Mbps ($55), 600 Mbps ($70), 1.1 Gbps ($85), and 2.1 Gbps ($105). The outlets also reported that these rates only come with an auto debit to a bank account. Comcast will charge $8 more to bill to a credit card and $10 more for a paper bill.

The low prices were likely also prompted by the recent announcement that Comcast lost 199,000 broadband customers in the first quarter. In this same quarter, the FWA products from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon gained 913,000 customers.

Comcast’s competition isn’t sitting still. Verizon recently announced a 3-year lock for FWA broadband prices at $35 per month for customers who accept autopay and who also buy a Verizon cell plan. Verizon includes up to a $250 Amazon gift card. Not to be outdone, T-Mobile now offers a $35 price for FWA broadband with a 5-year guarantee for customers who have a T-Mobile cellular plan. The Verizon and T-Mobile plans seem to be more focused on reducing cellular churn than gaining new broadband customers.

Comcast is clearly trying to stop the loss of customers. I have to wonder about the overall impact of such widely advertised special rates. How will these low play with the millions of customers who are paying a lot more, including the many paying $15 per month for a WiFi gateway?

Will this lead to Comcast finally lowering its list prices? The company has raised rates annually for over a decade. Can the company maintain high rates in noncompetitive markets while widely advertising severely discounted prices elsewhere?

I’ve been saying for years that broadband will cost $100 per month. When considering the WiFi gateway, Comcast’s list prices were already there. Comcast isn’t even the most expensive cable company, and a handful of cable companies like Cox, Breezeline, and Mediacom have even higher list prices.

This announcement by Comcast, and the constant advertisements from the FWA providers, could prove to be a watershed moment for prices in the industry. Just imagine the glee that USTelecom will have next year if they can announce that prices for broadband are actually decreasing.

Broadband Trajectories

For most the dozen years I’ve been writing this blog, the biggest cable companies accounted for almost all of the growth in broadband customers. Quarter after quarter, and year after year, the big cable companies were the source of almost all new net broadband customers.

This started to shift a few years ago when FWA cellular home broadband from T-Mobile, Verizon, and more recently, AT&T entered the scene. For the last couple of years, almost all of the net broadband growth in the country came from the FWA technology and these three carriers.

It’s clear that we’re now entering a new stage the industry where cable broadband losses are accelerating, where FWA growth hasn’t slowed, and where the big telcos are growing again because of their expansion of fiber.

Consider the following statistics that show the net change in broadband customers over the last year, and for the latest quarter, for the largest cable companies, largest telcos, and FWA carriers. There are a few big companies missing from this comparison like Cox, Mediacom, and Windstream, since those companies are privately held and don’t publicly report customer counts.

These numbers show that telcos other than Lumen are growing again. The numbers for telcos don’t tell the whole story because net customer changes in the table include both DSL losses and fiber gains. For example, during the last year, AT&T added over 1 million customers to fiber.

These trajectories don’t bode well for the big cable companies. There were a lot of predictions made last year that FWA growth would slow down, and that doesn’t seem to be the case yet in 2025. The telcos are all picking up steam in terms of adding fiber customers. It’s going to be interesting over the coming years to see how the biggest cable companies fare in battling everybody else. Charter has decided to fight the trend through the merger with Cox. We’ll have to wait and see what the rest have in mind.

Comcast’s Woes

On the recent Comcast quarterly earnings call, the company’s President, Mike Cavanagh, admitted the company is having problems and said that Comcast isn’t ‘winning in the marketplace”. There are probably not a lot of people who will read this blog and shed a tear for Comcast. For much of the last decade, Comcast, along with Charter, thrived by taking customers away from telephone companies.

Comcast lost 199,000 net broadband customers in the first quarter. The losses may not seem significant for a company with 31.6 million customers, but if this quarterly loss is sustained the company will drop 2.5% of broadband customers for the year.

It’s obvious that both fiber overbuilders and FWA wireless are taking customers from Comcast. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon added 913,000 new FWA customers in the first quarter of 2025 and haven’t slowed down on customer acquisition as some have predicted. It’s a little harder to quantify the additions to fiber in the quarter since dozens of companies are building fiber to compete with the big cable companies in various markets. But everything I hear says that in every new market where fiber appears, the fiber ISP is snagging a quick 30% to 40% market share.

Cavanaugh says there is a disconnect between the strength of the Comcast networks and the inability to win or keep customers. The company has concluded that the two primary causes for their problems are price transparency and predictability.

It’s clear that Comcast has been counting on having better broadband speeds as a lure to attract and retain customers. The company has been working to increase upload speeds in the current DOCSIS 3.1 networks, and the company announced in September 2024 that it was ready to go full bore on upgrading to DOCSIS 4.0, which will bring multi-gigabit upload and download speeds.

But that doesn’t seem to be impressing customers in the way the company hoped. I’m not sure what Comcast means by price transparency, but it’s clear to customers that Comcast has been the most expensive of the large ISPs. The company’s published list prices for 300 Mbps or faster broadband all pushed or exceeded $100 per month after counting the $15 monthly fee for a WiFi modem. Comcast list prices are far higher than FWA, priced at $55-$65 and also significantly above what most fiber ISPs charge.

It’s not hard to understand price predictability. Customers paying full prices for Comcast broadband have surely been dismayed to see the company continually lowering promotional prices as the company has tried to be more competitive. It seems like Comcast prices have been different every time I checked them in the last year.

It looks like Comcast is going to bite the price bullet. On the earnings call the company announced new pricing of 400 Mbps for $55 per month that includes the WiFi modem and is guaranteed for five years. The new price won’t require a customer contract. Comcast is also throwing in one line of cellular for free for a year.

This is going to be a drastic change for the company. In the third quarter of 2024, the company’s ARPU was $73.78 per customer per month, and these new prices will knock that lower. It’s going to be a grand experiment to see if guaranteed low prices can turn the corner for the company. I have to imagine millions of existing customers are going to ask for that price, and it’s going to be hard to say no to them.

Lower prices will not change the fact that urban broadband is growing increasingly competitive. Comcast thrived for years by charging high prices in noncompetitive markets to offset lower prices in competitive ones. But noncompetitive markets are becoming a thing of the past.

Comcast did have one piece of good news in the first quarter. The company added 345,000 new cellular customers. That puts them on par with the other big carriers. T-Mobile added 495,000; AT&T added 324,000; Charter added 514,000; and Verizon added 94,000.

AI Hype Begins

It didn’t take long after the widespread introduction of AI into the business environment for a carrier to claim it is using AI better than the competition. Masha Abarinova wrote an article in Fierce Networks that quotes Comcast as saying it is using AI more effectively than its fiber competitors.

The article covers a discussion with Elad Nafshi, the chief network officer for Comcast, who brags on the ways Comcast is already using AI more effectively than fiber-based ISPs. She quotes Nashi as claiming that Comcast has embedded AI that is “literally feet away from a customer” with real-time pattern detection capabilities that give Comcast the ability to pinpoint interference in the network.

I can already anticipate the fiber ISP retort to this claim, with fiber ISPs saying they don’t need a last-foot AI capability because fiber doesn’t have any interference since it has the same quality of service from end-to-end in the network.

I’ve been waiting for this first shot across the bow and suspect that Comcast’s claim will set off a chain of industry players claiming their flavor of AI is better than the competition. These claims are mostly hype and are aimed at Wall Street analysts and not at the general public. The biggest companies in the industry never miss a chance to claim they have an advantage. It’s easy at this early stage of AI to make this kind of claim since nobody can tell how much of such a claim is hype versus reality. Throw around enough buzzwords, and nobody can challenge such a claim.

A more interesting observation in the article quotes Nafshi as saying that general AI use among customers has not resulted in increased network traffic. He noted that while customers are using ChatGPT and OpenAI, the interactions between customers and the clouds are mostly passing text, which is not data intensive.

This differs a lot from what other industry players have been claiming about the future of AI. The article cites AT&T’s prediction that its network traffic will double by 2028 due to AI. Zayo cited an expected huge growth in network traffic as the justification to buy the fiber networks from Crown Castle.

I’ve been scratching my head for several months trying to figure out how AI might create the predicted explosive growth. I’ve yet to see anybody describe the specific AI traffic or functions that could double the traffic for a company like AT&T.

Network traffic is growing for other reasons. Ericsson recently predicted a 16% annual growth in cellular traffic. Numerous predictions for home and business broadband have predicted growth rates of 10-12% annually. Something drastic and new would be needed to double overall traffic on AT&T by 2028.