Thread regarding Comcast layoffs

Why all these layoffs?

There's been a lot of anger and frustration directed at leadership lately, and given everything that's changing, that's completely understandable. But I wanted to step back from the noise for a moment and look at where we actually stand, soberly and with the numbers in front of us.

Let's start with the basics: we're a company that makes a lot of money. In 2025, we generated $124 billion in revenue, $36 billion in EBITDA, and $20 billion in net income. Our balance sheet carries about $90 billion in net debt — a large number in isolation, but very manageable set against our revenue and profitability.

So why is our stock falling, and why does it feel like every quarter brings another round of cost cuts?

The answer isn't in where we are today. It's in where the business is headed. I'll set NBCUniversal aside for this and focus on our Connectivity business, since that's the bulk of our revenue. Let's go through it line by line.

Broadband brought in $26 billion last year — 20% of our total revenue. It's declining, and faster than most of us expected. We lost 650,000 of our 29 million subscribers, and to slow that decline, we've had to lower prices across the board: average price per customer fell 3.8% last quarter alone. To put that in perspective, a 3.8% price drop on $26 billion is roughly $1 billion in lost revenue — and lost profit — from pricing alone. Add the subscriber losses, and that's another half a billion. The uncomfortable truth is that the driver here isn't primarily service quality, even though that plays a role — it's competition. We used to compete against DSL as our main rival. Today we're being overbuilt almost everywhere, by fiber, by fixed wireless, and soon by satellite too. If that trend continues, and there's every reason to think it will, we're looking at millions more subscribers lost in the years ahead.

Cable TV is still a cash cow, also generating around $26 billion in revenue in 2025. But our subscriber base has fallen from 25 million to 10 million over the past decade-plus. This is structural, not cyclical, decline. The only reason revenue has held up this well is a combination of steady price increases and our success at retaining higher-value customers. But make no mistake: the decline here is terminal. This business will eventually disappear — what we're managing is the pace of that decline, not whether it happens. Our advertising revenue, another $4 billion, moves down right alongside it.

Landline voice is something many of us already think of as "dead," but it's still about $3 billion in revenue, and it's shrinking roughly 20% a year.

Comcast Business brings in $10 billion. The problem here is that our SMB segment faces the exact same competitive pressure as residential, and we're losing customers at an accelerating pace as fiber and fixed wireless take share. Enterprise can still grow, but at meaningfully lower margins — it's a far more labor-intensive business, and enterprise customers expect deeper discounts.

Wireless brings in about $5 billion — $1.3 billion in equipment, $3.6 billion in service. Once you account for phone subsidies to win new customers, churn, operating costs, and the fees we pay our MVNO partner, this is a thin-margin business. It can absolutely keep growing, but how much profit it can actually generate is a real question — and the growth ceiling is capped by our broadband base. As broadband shrinks, so does the ceiling for wireless.

Putting it all together, here's how I'd forecast each piece going forward:

Broadband: $26B, declining ~5% a year
TV: $26B, declining ~10% a year
Advertising: $4B, declining ~10% a year
Landline Voice: $3B, declining ~20% a year
Comcast Business: $10B, flat at best
Wireless: $5B, growing ~15% a year

(There's also roughly $5 billion in international connectivity — that's Sky, and it moves over to NBCUniversal as part of the separation.)

Here's the part that makes this especially painful: our margin structure. When we lose a broadband subscriber, our costs barely move — nearly all of our cost base is fixed. The contribution margin on the last customer we add, or lose, is over 90%. That means when a customer leaves, profit falls almost as much as revenue does.

So here's where that leaves us: a business that's declining quickly, with margins shrinking just as fast. Cutting overhead and discretionary spend is the lever we have in the near term to protect the business — but let's be clear-eyed about it: that lever doesn't fix the underlying problem. It just buys us time.


by
| 2 views | | 12 replies (last 2 days ago) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1m35hee51

12 replies (most recent on top)

@at Morale is in the toilet and just about everyone I talk to DOES have feelers out looking for other opportunities. The problem is, there’s not many places to go - the job market right now is the worst it’s been in ages. Folks are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cp+1m35hee51

For anyone still thinking this is just another reorg, let's be clear about where you're standing.

If you're staying on the Connectivity side and not going with NBCU, you are on the declining side of the business. Broadband is losing subscribers and cutting prices to hold on. Video has been shrinking for over a decade and isn't coming back. Voice is disappearing. Business services face the same fiber and fixed wireless pressure. Wireless is growing, but it's thin margin and capped by a broadband base that's shrinking.

Leadership calls this a transformation. Look at what's actually been announced, the largest cost transformation in company history. That's not a growth plan. That's cutting. Nobody has shown us how Connectivity grows again. They've shown us how it gets smaller, cheaper, and easier to sell or merge.

The parks, the studios, Peacock, the brands with a future? Those are going with NBCU. What stays is the part that needs cutting to look good on paper.

So stop waiting for the turnaround announcement. Make your decisions based on what's in front of you, not what you hope leadership will say next quarter.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b2+1m35hee51

I’m a former Comcaster and someone sent me a link to this site. Interesting read and I’m shocked how the sentiment and morale has changed so much in only a couple years that I’ve been out. I agree with both the financial analysis and understand the “angry” sentiment I’m reading from many employees.

You have every reason to be angry. Leadership made decisions that helped bring Comcast to this point, and accountability matters. But anger won’t change those decisions or fix the business.

My advice is to take control of what you can change: your career. Start looking for a role at a growing company, whether that means leaving with severance or finding your own way out. Don’t put your future on hold waiting for leadership to change course.

I say that from experience. After years in senior roles at Comcast (VP/SVP), I left for a smaller role at a growing business. Today I’m much better off, my career is moving forward, and I enjoy going to work again. Leaving may mean taking a step back at first, but it will give you room to grow.

Ok, let me finish with some bluntness: If you don’t leave or at least give it a serious attempt to find something new - you make just as bad decision for you own career as the Comcast leadership has done for the company. Move on.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @at+1m35hee51

@am he-l yes! Sing it!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @an+1m35hee51

@OP Good post, and the numbers are real. But read it again and notice what's missing.. anyone who made a decision.

Every line in that forecast was visible 10 years ago. Cord cutting didn't sneak up on us. Fiber overbuild didn't sneak up on us. Fixed wireless was on every analyst slide for YEARS. The people running this company saw the same charts we did, and they chose price INCREASES, buybacks, and reorg after reorg over actually fixing the product.

Even this post admits service quality "plays a role." That's the part leadership controls, and it's the part nobody wants to own.

Then look at the last line. Cutting overhead "just buys us time." Time for what???? Nobody has said. When a company is splitting itself up, moving assets around, and cutting to protect margins with no growth plan on the table, that doesn't look like a turnaround. It looks like getting the house clean for a buyer.

And if we're serious about overhead, start with the layer that made these bets. The same leaders keep getting recycled into new boxes with new titles while the people doing the actual work get the forms. A 90% contribution margin means every customer we lose costs almost pure profit. Frontline cuts make that worse, not better, because the people who keep customers from leaving are the ones walking out the door.

Nobody is angry because they don't understand the math. We're angry because the math was obvious, leadership held on too long, doubled down on the wrong things, and is still making sure the consequences land on everyone except themselves.

We don't need another reorg or another memo explaining the math we all have done. What we need is one word that ACCOUNTABILITY.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @am+1m35hee51

Looks like we found the mole....

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ak+1m35hee51

@aa
As a follow up to my first message, I agree with you regarding leadership. I didn’t excuse the leaders in my first message, I just put that to the side to focus on the “mess” we are in - as someone commented.

The reason we are in the mess is exactly because of poor leadership. When Netflix and other streaming launched, Comcast kept focusing on the cable-bundle and developed X1 thinking that would solve the problem. That was a leadership decision.

When Voice moved from landline to wireless we sold our spectrum and gave up on wireless. Then years later we try to come back as an MVNO. That was a leadership decision.

When broadband moved to fiber and simpler FWA, we doubled down on Docsis. That was a leadership decision.

When the technology market focused on products for the entire world, we kept developing products just for our network. Think about it: if you develop a Network Security service that works only on our network you can sell it to max 30 million customers, if you develop a software that provides network security in any network - it can be sold to the entire world. To develop products only for the Comcast network was a leadership decision.

So, without any doubt the leadership got us here. Today, the board/executive leadership trust the same guys to get us out of the mess. That’s another mistake.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1m35hee51

The arrogance and willful ignorance of many of our leaders related to the deleterious effects of awful customer service is astonishing. Yes competing against DSL was easy. It’s also the environment where the leadership team learned to milk and abuse our customers with impunity. DSL was such an inferior service that many su-ked it up and stayed with our sh&tty customer service.

Fast forward a few years and now we have to compete against technologies that are as good or better than ours. A large base of happy customers would have provided a much larger moat around Comcast’s revenue stream in the face of stiffer competition.

Unfortunately, we treated our customers so poorly that they were lining up to leave as soon as a viable alternative became available. And how did we respond to this competitive pressure? We raised rates and cut customer service, accelerating this death spiral.

I will never understand why the leadership team continues to dismiss years of customer mistreatment and abuse as a large driver of churn. We’re in an industry where the best way to differentiate is on customer experience, competing technologies and platforms are at relative parity to ours, and we continue to cut costs and drive away the very customers we need to sustain the business and slow the bleeding.

It’s utter malpractice.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aa+1m35hee51

And why are we in this mess? I hate to break it to our ego-driven leaders, but when the layoffs arrive, we’re going to blame the people who made the decisions. If massive layoffs are supposedly necessary, you’d think broader costcutting measures might come first. But no, the travel continues, the lavish catered meals keep appearing, and apparently the dinner budget is sacred. Employees’ livelihoods are at stake, yet financial discipline seems to apply exclusively to employees. It’s hard to take the message seriously when the spending tells a completely different story. Then again, questionable priorities do seem to be a recurring theme around here and why we’re in this mess.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1m35hee51

@OP thanks - this isn’t news to anyone here. The problem is it didn’t have to be this way had leadership chosen to invest while we still had a chance to course correct. Instead, people lose their livelihoods while those same leaders stay in place. So while I appreciate the basic lesson in our company finances, it does little to appease me. I’ve seen close friends impacted multiple times while the same “leaders” stay. Even FDX and Network Expansion have flopped due to lack of strategy and willingness to invest. The reason for the decline is a mix of “this quarters profits” thinking from our finance-heavy leadership and a lack of vision from this at the top.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a5+1m35hee51

I agree and make no mistake, Wall Street knows all of this. I'm an investor and your summary is right-on how we look at this stock. We have an internal price target on the stock below $20 at this point. The company will be around for a long time, but it will be a long slope down. Cost reductions and layoffs continuously.
Maybe Comcast can come up with something new that can generate new revenue? But I haven't heard anything what that would be. Nothing what the company have presented recently will move the needle. "Storm ready wifi", "Xfinity Shield", and "low latency docsis" are just noise.
More realistic is a merger with peers. Maybe a mega consolidation of all "cable" (Comcast, Charter+Cox, Altice, CableOne) into one bucket. That would at least allow for deeper cost reductions and synergies.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a4+1m35hee51

I think most folks are clear eyed and sober about the problem statement that you outlined very well. The anger and frustration is at the leadership that helped us get here. Make no mistake that there many warning signs along the way along with missed opportunities to expand into growing markets/businesses. Combine that with horrible customer service, creating a base of customers desperate to leave once a viable alternative becomes available. There definitely is increased competition but this company has given its customers very few reasons to want to stick around.

Very few people trust the current leadership team to manage the company out of the structural decline. You can cut cut costs to improve margins and cash flow; buying time, but does anyone really think this leadership team is going to be able to pull a rabbit out of its hat to find growth markets again? The leadership team is filled with sycophants and cheer leaders, not the clear minded critical thinkers that we need to pivot away from this mess.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a3+1m35hee51

Post a reply

: