Perhaps it was due to Craig's downgrade valuation to $2.29
Printable View
What was Craig's basis for a $2.29 valuation. Even PT had an 18cent dividend (I ignored the even worse case scenario.)
As TV's and computers start coming together most of the content might eventually come down the fibre and the network will be a near monopoly except in the big centres.
Almost certainly a good business (imo) but I guess the question of regulation and cost of construction are two very big factors that might make it expensive at these prices.
Disclaimer; hold(way more than I should) I guess time will tell. Should have listened to Phadreus though and waited for a turn in the price.
Well, this is not advice, but the chart displays a well defined downtrend, with lower highs and lower lows.
i personally wouldn't enter until this trending changes direction
Sitting on a 12.8% loss at the moment with an ave buy price of 2.71. This stock is getting a beating, entry point is difficult. I thought my buys at 260 ish and 275 ish were good, but timing the market - you know what they say. All you can do is buy more if the price drops and you invesment reason hasnt changed - long term CNU is a buy in my books. I have taken a risk regarding comcom, but i think it will be more in favour of CNU shareholders than the $8 mark.
Have you heard the announcement from the Feds?
I know people sort of dislike the discussion of macroeconomics because they feel the thread has to be micro-focused on CNU itself, but this is once again an event to show why such micro-focus may not be good enough to understand what is going on.
Not that an event like this determines the future of a company forever, but if you come here often you probably are not the type of people that can just leave the share you buy alone. Under that frame of reference, I stand by what I said earlier about the coming back of strong dollar which would affect all shares in the world. Brokers and speculators would be a lot more careful in their speculative-based investment activities. When there are too much money circulating around, people are less cautious about their decisions. Therefore this is exactly what a healthy economy needs right now, a return to rationality and correction.
If that is the trend coming, then I will think twice about putting money to CNU regardless if someone is saying how cheap they are. Cheap is relative to circumstances; in a tightening cycle of the monetary policies you cannot use the same judgement as when you are living in an expanding cycle.
P.S. Some people suggest the market is irrational; the market does not think at all so it is an irrational thought to think about the market in that way. The market only reflects actions, and even we cannot determine the thinking behind those actions we could check if they align with our own belief. For me, I check OGC as proxy of gold and FPH as proxy of USD; and right now they are pretty consistent with my belief since the beginning of this year.
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see this with with a sub $2 handle before too long. Fundamentals mean jack with a downtrend like this and so much regulatory uncertainty, especially against the backdrop of international uncertainty, tapering of QE and rising bond yields.
EDIT - completly agree with your post above Futurist.
cnu very high correlation to the dow utilities index
dow utilities down 10% last month approx
cnu down 11% approx
Thank you! Certainly I don't get that often here.
I did say I admire some people here who follow the micro day-to-day occurrence of a company and then interpret how those changes could affect the company's share price. Personally I can never link them together to convince myself as a rational prediction so I pick something a lot simpler but works for me. I only care about monetary policies of some countries and R&D in companies I am interested in. The former determines how much money is available and the latter determines how much money a company could capture. I don't think this simple model works for everyone, but not a bad idea to include them in whatever model you are using right now.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10891997
Struggling at the front line.
Doesn't look good. I was pondering the other day how many domestic users really want or need and are prepared to pay for high speed internet access ? If I can download a high definition movie of approx 1 GB of data in about 45 minutes, why do I need, (read why should I pay significantly more for) faster service than that ????
Perhaps Kiwi's generally are prepared to accept current speeds rather than pay more for higher speeds ?
As I've mentioned I think legitimately streaming sports is going to help push this, especially if providers get behind it - like it appears TEL might.
I know its the nature of the media to over-report the bad and under-report the good, but there's been far more 'slow/horror/ignoring us' stories than there have been - 'the rollouts going well' stories.
It doesn't cost more. I looked at Telecoms plans and it is about the same as what I pay now. I may end up paying more if I need a larger data cap.
Look at the services provided in US and see if faster internet will help - iTunes, Hulu, skype, cloud storage/backup, etc
For $10 more i can get an unlimited plan on high speed internet with 3 kids i am going for it.
Speak for yourself. You are using the speed that you are able to obtain as a benchmark for broadband and assume all others have the same access and speed - and that current levels of Internet use will be maintained rather than increased.
Here we have slow-ish Internet and count ourselves lucky we have it at all.
Data comes down the line like a stream of water through a hose. Once the hose tap is fully on you are at maximum capacity for that hose.
Currently you are able to download a 1GB movie in 45 minutes, but as soon as the neighbours start doing it too the speed will drop for all of you and that movie will take longer... and longer... and longer to download.
Today's "luxury capacity" will become tomorrow's "normal capacity"
How do I know this? Many years ago dial-up was good and workedso why would I be silly enough to pay for broadband? But we did. Due to issues with our 30 year old "lines to be upgraded by 2015 system" we recently had a <short!!>spell on close to dial up speeds. Internet totally unusable after 4pm.
Sell Chorus, says Deutsche Bank, as regulatory risk multiplies:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/sell-chorus-says-deutsche-bank-regulatory-risk-multiplies-wb-141848
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/c...ultiplies.html
While it argues a case exists for greater government support in clearing up regulatory settings, allowing greater flexibility on the UFB rollout timetable to give Chorus opportunities to manage its costs better, and to push fibre up-take, Deutsche sees little likelihood of any such action occurring.
"We do not sense relief from the Crown on onerous contracts that could ease capex pressures or provide confidence in UFB take-up," the report says. "The government is progressing matters on the regulatory front but copper pricing could fall short and changes to the framework is subject to political risk over several years."
Accordingly, Deutsche has cut its dividend forecasts for Chorus for the 2015 financial year to 18 cents per share, down from 25.5 cents previously,
The report also laments the apparent lack of a bi-partisan political approach - ala MRP share float problems
$2.00 here we come............
...these contributions mostly show the dopey/boozy attitude of Kiwis -just like the SLOW SLOW HORROR SHOW on NZ roads. Only Kiwis seem to have the time to wait FOREVER in front of their screens for downloads.
...and only KIWIS can be so afraid of COM-COM rulings , which in the end will prove totally useless and super ineffective
Move forward KIWIS wake up from your dopey/boozy dreams of WE ARE THE BEST / as a matter of fact, you will become totally irrelevant with NO CHANGE
Kind Regards and buying more THANK YOU
[QUOTE=SparkyTheClown;413243]Where Deutsche Bank is wrong is over the political risk.
I strongly believe the government will step in to fix the regulatory process because they do not want to go into the 2014 election with their telecommunications and fibre policy a complete failure.
***
When could one expect the government to "step-in and fix things" (if they do), a month, 2, 3 months, ??? after the CC decision on the 15 August?
What is a "normal" time-line for these sort of things? Any precedents?
The blind spot here is that some people believe bandwidth is like money; it will subject to inflation over time and so we will always need more. "It will be transformational..." - well you need to transform your mind before you could appreciate that idea I guess.
Unlike money, there are technologies to counter our need for bandwidth. Sure, there are always growing demands for more in general; but when computing power grows in parallel we also open the doors to even better performance for those counter technologies. For example there are better ways to compress files, or distributed mechanisms to transport bits from point A to point B.
I agree we will increase our need to be always connected; but it is not as simple as to link that with an unquestionable growth of bandwidth consumption, particularly in this case associating with fibre. Even now people don't pay real attention towards something like Project Loon from Google, it represents a whole wave of alternative technologies coming not only from well established by smaller vendors as well to disrupt the status quo.
Futurist - apt name given the topic but I disagree.
In my view, storage capacity and increases in bandwidth means that little time or money will be spent on compression etc. Just look at photos. Digital cameras use to be 1mp, now they are 12m. then camera phones were introduced and we went back to 0.5mp photos, but know they are back up to 12 with normal cameras up to 20mp and DSLR going into 39mb
TV has gone from SD to HD and next will be 4xHD (not sure what that is called).
Even music use to be shrunk to fit on your 256k mp3 player but now it will all be high quality given our phones are now 32Gb!
Technology will increase the size of the file, not decrease it, hence the the need for fibre.
I also think that bandwidth will increase. I (think) I read somewhere that Netflix is now the largest user of bandwidth in USA. This sort of behaviour is just going to increase where computing goes to a cloud based approach, data on servers, and your TV / computer is just a receiver.
I wouldn't be surprised in a couple of year, where TV's you buy / subscribe to "apps" or channels as well as having access to a library of on demand content (Netflix). Just have to look at the EPL where they are going streamed based in NZ.
In a word: uploads. Most people can probably live with 20 or even 10 Mbps download speeds. 50 or 100 Mbps downloads are nice to have, but it's not critical. But 1 Mbps upload speed is crippling. There are so many things that you just can't do because of that limit. VoIP services (especially with video) are limited. Telecommuting is frustrating. It's pretty impractical to use online backup services. Even something as simple as emailing some photos to a friend becomes painfully slow. Consumer cameras are recording HD video and 25 megapixel images. At 1 Mbps that's a minute to upload a single photo. I have 70 GB of photos and video, it would take about 200 hours to upload that over ADSL.
People get used to what they have and they subconsciously discount the time they spend waiting for things. So it'll take a while for people to catch on, but they will. Personal media - photos and video - will be a big driver for this.
Okay folks I hear you that lots of you want higher speed but not everyone is tech savvy by any means and there was quite an interesting article in today's Herald about the very slow fibre uptake. "Slowly into the Future", sorry couldn't readily see it on the online version, maybe didn't have time to look properly, so havn't posted a link. Anyway they reckon the number of users able to connect to ultra fast broadband as at 31 March 2013 was 172,000 and the number who have is 5,130. How do people explain the ultra slow adoption rate ?
I think another big one is a general lack of information. People often don't know that it's available and they don't know what's involved in getting it. There's also such a focus on download speeds that I suspect some people have discounted it on the basis that they don't need faster downloads without realising how much difference the upload speed makes (incidentally I'm on 70/10 VDSL so I'm speaking from experience when I talk about how much better it is).
But word will spread. And most new developments will have fibre so that will help uptake. I know someone who just bought a house in Stonefields in Auckland and he's got fibre - I don't think copper was even an option.
Thank you, this is a great demonstration of blind spot.
Let's use your example then. Without a doubt, higher megapixel-ed file would be larger than lower megapixel-ed file in terms of the number of bytes. For argument sake, I would even assume we are moving towards more pixels instead of less (but you should also check out the concept behind the mobile camera in HTC One).
A larger sized file occupies more storage space, sure. But my argument is that it does not necessarily occupy more bandwidth for transfer. For example, file compression is an old technology that could eliminate, in some cases, over 90% of the file size. You see, particularly in photo, even there are 12 megapixels not all of them have unique data. A lot of those megapixels could actually contain the same data, or data that could be derived from the neighbouring pixel. Obviously, file compression has its bottleneck, which is computing power. But as our computing devices are getting twice as powerful every 18 months (as Moore's Law implies), it allows more complex and effective file compression mechanism to be used with our devices without suffering performance downgrade. In sum, a 40MB sized file storing locally in your computer could be transmitted as a 4MB compressed file. BTW in a lot of cases (like email as someone points out), you would not even know the file has been compressed and decompressed at all.
There are also a lot of work could be done to improve the efficiency of the pipe without changing the pipe itself. Are you familiar with the internet? It is a fire and miss kind of communication network (unlike our phone for example), which means there are ways to improve the reliability and thus eliminate the amount of misses. Yes, TV and movies are commonly 1080i based nowadays and in a year or two they would move towards the 4K standard, perhaps. But even without using the file compression argument because that is more applicable to file transfer, streaming technology has improved so much over the years. At any single point of time, you acquire only a fixed amount of pixels on your screen, not the entire length of the show.
Look, there is always a simple way to perceive everything around us. I am not saying what you believe is wrong, but merely incomplete. When I hear people say "when was the last time you used ZIP" or "cloud computing needs faster broadband connection", that means people know less than they think but probably not willing to accept new knowledge. In that case, say no more and I will let you get on with your business.
Sorry, it is another blind spot right there so I couldn't help it. I promise to be brief.
Yes, it takes forever to upload hundreds of GB of files; and under that premise sure we should all want faster internet to solve that problem, shouldn't we? Well it turns out, many users have their photos or videos uploaded instantly right after they take them, because a majority of them come from mobile devices these days. Some cameras have built-in online capability as well.
Obviously, I am not suggesting that we are not moving towards faster broadband. I am sure we are. But comparing to the cost of upgrading the infrastructure, there are still many ways of improving our end user experience of the speed of internet. Many software developers are working very hard to redevelop our browser and the application running in our mobile. If one works in that field, one would know how much wasted bandwidth is spent on bad code. In other words, our user experience of fibre could still suck if software is not optimised.
Are you saying that we don't need UFB, we just need ultra fast computers with lots of computer power?
When do you think they will be able to make these computers so they are small enough and cheap enough for a family on a average wage?
Your argument against UFB seems to based on these technologies coming through so I assume that you are thinking that this is not too far away.
Futurist - file types with better compression than JPEG have been around a while, but they have not been adopted, in part because storage is cheap.
My guess is than in 2, 5, 10 years time, we will be using more and more data
I am not saying we don't need UFB or not moving towards that; merely not the reasons in the minds of many and hence it may not happen the way predicted by those minds. Have you heard of the Moore's Law? Well it is not really a law but the 2nd part of that specifically says while the computing power doubles, the cost of it halves. Obviously my argument does not rest entirely on that simple idea, but it is better to build on top of an existing idea instead of just speaking from the guts, or in some cases personal feelings.
There are computers as small and as cheap as a Raspberry Pi (okay again I am generalising in here, there are heaps of competition of cheap credit card size computing devices against the Pi but I assume people tend to at least know what a Raspberry Pi but not others). Of course, $50 could still be too expensive, and we do have computers as small as a cell right now but to you they could be still too big. So I guess the answer is, we will never have computers that are small enough or cheap enough, which practically makes the question pointless. If size is not an issue, then network computing could be extremely cheap by combining junk together. But of course you need knowledge, not money, to know how to benefit from the parallel processing. If a nuclear missile could be calibrated and launched by combining playstation consoles together, I am sure we could do something less demanding with very cheap hardware. People could learn about all these things without going to fancy university, in fact it is because they don't go to university they could have a chance to learn these.
Anyway I am not against UFB at all. In fact, when there are 50% of our population on UFB let's say on the 30Mb/s plan, then it actually lessen the load of the existing ADSL 2+ infrastructure. For now I get a 20Mb/s download but the ISP has to prioritise the traffic to sort of police usage; but if people move to UFB then there are higher chance I get more bandwidth :)
Certainly, and absolutely, I am not only talking about JPEG. File compression could be used for everything, it is only a matter of whether you know about it or not. Whether a standard is adopted or not has nothing to do with the pricing of storage ... but let's not continue to create a larger gap here. What about a simple analogy ... imagine whatever you do on your end on whatever devices, all the files you send out could be automatically compressed, and decompressed at the other end? Now imagine all ISPs are doing that already, and further imagine that many applications running in your computer are also doing that automatically. Could you accept that this file compression technology could get better over time when computing power increases? I am not saying it will be so good that it eliminates the need for more bandwidth altogether, but are you so sure that this is not helpful at all?
When I was in school, I learnt how to write my own file compression algorithm. I could get things compressed really well up to 80% with not much code. But for advancing even 1% from that point onwards, it requires more power exponentially which to a point it is not worthwhile at all.
And yes, it sounds perfectly sane by guessing in XXX years time we will be using more data. I am with you. But the question remains, is more data = we need faster broadband = CNU is a gold mine?
I don't know where you get your statistics, but if you look at some recent research it is generally accepted that 90% of the total information in mankind since the beginning are created in the last 2 years. I won't call them knowledge though.
So yes we create a lot of data and we need the internet as the medium for both storage and transfer. No one is debating about the growing importance of the internet or connectivity here. But while I agree on that, it doesn't automatically mean a larger pipe as the only answer. If engineering is the solution here, it will always be a temporary one because like human desire we never get enough. Combining with that, I think software implementation is even more important because that dictates how efficient the available bandwidth is used for every application on every device.
If you look at the change from HTML 4 to HTML 5, you will get the idea too. This is of course just one out of a million examples of what is going on. However, it shows how the mindset has changed among software developers.
At the end of the day, wise, dumb or dumber, people are using software on their hardware on top of the pipe. Getting a fat pipe and top notch hardware do not make things better if the code is not well written.
If CNU is a product of regulatory decision itself, surely it will always subject to that. It is almost like saying the reason why MSFT is not performing well for the last decade is because of the antitrust lawsuit risks. Yes, financial experts actually use that as a reason. But the simple truth is because MSFT has no innovation during the long period when we were stuck with Windows XP and IE6.
Again, the market reflects actions: we see less registers from overseas. But there are many possible reasons, which regulatory risk could be one but a fairly obvious one that is built-in to the nature of the company. For instance, if tomorrow a new policy is made to force 20% of the population to change to fibre with a subsidy, people could be rushing in to buy CNU but that does not mean the regulatory risk is gone, is it? I think we deserve better analysis than that.
This is good, healthy actually, that you have framed what you know and act accordingly. To you I am sure whatever happens to the share price now they do not align with your knowledge about this company, or to some extend other people are not sharing the same kind of knowledge as you have, or they are not acting according to their minds. Yes the whole world is addicted to many things, like before the dot com collapse they were addicted to tech companies; or before the financial crisis they were addicted to financial companies. You are so spot on, particularly the part about "have been for some time" which means this is perhaps another great timing.
The good news for you is, I don't see you will stop buying CNU in the near and medium terms if you walk the talk so to speak. In fact if fund is not an issue I believe you will end up owning a large part of the company. Moreover, the dividend yield just looks better each day when the share price moves from $3.4 to $2.4 in the last 6 months!
Sell Chorus, says Deutsche Bank, as regulatory risk multiplies
All else aside if a large part of this company is held off shore bought with us currency ,then
with nz currency dropping and share price dropping it would be wise to jump out and wait.Share price and currency may bottom out together and they will come piling back in.
That doesn't just magically happen. It's either via Wi-Fi into a fixed line connection or via a mobile network. But 3G at least is hardly better than ADSL: right now I am getting 2.36 Mbps upload on my phone. So a 30 second video off my camera would take 10 minutes to upload. Yes people automatically upload photos and videos taken with their phones, but that is not the sort of activity I am talking about.
Actually I do work in that field and I think you have a unrealistically rosy idea of both how easy it is to make the sorts of software improvements you're talking about and how far they can be taken. Compression technology is not merely limited by computing power. It is fundamentally limited by how much non-redundant information there is in the source and how much you are willing to throw away (in the case of lossy compression algorithms like jpeg, mpeg, and mp3). Your example of easily achieving 80% compression but then finding each subsequent 1% needed exponentially more computing power is accurate but misleading: it implies that enough power would get you 99% compression, but that is not the case.
Well I don't know how long you will still work in the field you claim to be in but judging from your answers I do wish you all the best because you may just need it.
You see, all kinds of networks (i.e. traffic, communication, broadcast etc) are never built to support 100% utilisation because quite frankly that is simply not efficient. You can argue all you want, but the truth is, when photo upload is done in chunks instead of a big batches, that improves the traffic so to speak. Just like the real traffic on a real highway. The pipe is not magical, nor its usage is always the same at the peak level. No matter which field you work in, some common sense should apply across domains, don't you think? So my argument was, if you bother to read in the first place, talking about the difference it made when our user habit changed.
Besides, are you saying that you do work for Opera or FireFox or Chrome or something equivalent, so that you know for sure that nothing more we could do from the software side to improve the situation? How come your opinion then is different from the list of organisations I just mention? Okay let's say you work as a game developer, then at least you should be honest there are both good and bad ways to have games running with an internet connection on either mobile devices or computers. How can you simply say that's never an issue and we just need a larger pipe? I simply cannot believe you actually work in the field of software when you actually do not respect software. Oh yeah, comparatively I do think software is more magical than the hardware.
I never imply having enough power you will always get maximum compression, but currently we do have better power among devices or machines to go for higher ratio of compression comparing to 5 years ago. How is that both accurate and misleading? It is misleading to you when you have bias of what I try to say, and funny enough you still cannot dispute what I say so you need to say the statement itself is accurate but my mind is not. I have talked about compression and I also mention about the mechanism of how it works. While you say not all files can be compressed to higher ratio, I could also say not all files could not do so. My point is not about what kind of files dominate the world, but the simple truth that we still haven't even considered compression as a way to minimize the traffic when all we hear is larger pipe. BTW, compression is just one out of a dozen possible solutions besides from infrastructural change.
P.S. No one should claim to work in the software field if they keep seeing the limit of it and only wish to have fancier hardware and infrastructure. Software developers, the real ones, they refactor and optimise their code so that it maximizes the utility of existing physical objects. Bad code comes from bad attitude, and they are cancers of the industry.
Overall network efficiency is relevant to UFB uptake. I have X GB of media. With ADSL I cannot practically upload this to the "cloud". With fibre or VDSL I can. You can claim this will not be a driver for UFB uptake all you like. I can tell you from personal experience that it is.
Compression technology is of little value unless it is standardised. The work is not going on in the browsers, it's going on in standards working groups. I never said improvements couldn't be made. But if you think improvements to compression algorithms will be equivalent to a 10x increase in upload bandwidth then you are naive or delusional or both.
FireFox is open source. Point me to the Bugzilla entry where they are working on improved compression.
I never said we just need a larger pipe. I do however say we absolutely do need a larger pipe. It doesn't matter how good your compression is or how clever your code is there are absolute minimum bandwidth requirements for transmitting data. It is important to note that improvements to software are largely out of our hands - no compression algorithm is useful unless it is supported at both the source and the destination. What use is a new compression algorithm if YouTube still requires you to upload files in mpeg4 format? Network infrastructure OTOH provides immediate benefit to all users and does not require cooperation from the other end.
It is accurate that increased computing power enables the use of algorithms that have higher compression ratios. It is misleading to imply that the relationship is linear or unbounded. There is an absolute limit to the amount of compression that can be achieved for a given domain of source data. See Shannon's source coding theorem.
[/QUOTE]
I have a masters degree in computing and mathematical sciences. I have worked in the industry for 15 years. You speak like someone who is self taught, has a incomplete understanding of what they are talking about, and does not have a strong understanding of information theory. You have an incredibly unrealistic idea of what software development in the real world is like.
I too am accumulating . The future clearly lies in fibreoptic broadband . Anything else will be frustration or deprivation .
Who wants to sit like a muppet watching sky tv when over broadband we can have live streaming of rugby ,or whatever you want when you want-pay accordingly but no monthly sky rental-perhaps use free to air for news etc but then broadband for self-selected viewing from thousands of torrents or magazines/tv series etc .
Skype will be so much better-less travelling to work-and work colleagues/clients may interface through broadband-i can see myself running 3 computers simultaneously when i get superfast broadband-i cant see mobile ever being able to compete with this
Always happy to read your comments futurist as it makes me think about the subject a bit deeper than I probably would normally want to but you talk a lot about possible solutions which could be years and years away. Are you saying all the government's of this world should stop spending huge amounts money on fibre and wait for software writers to come up with the answers. Sounds like a big gamble to me. Not saying that it is not possible because what would I know but surely the government's of this world have spoken to the experts and this is the best option going forward with what we have today. Can you tell me that with everything you are mentioning we can all watch a hd streamed video or streamed hd live tv within 2-3 years. Businesses/schools are using it today and i'd hate to be the one to tell them we are taking it away while we wait for computer experts to come up with another solution to ufb.
Don't forget, whoever designs this new software will want to be paid handsomely. I personally believe that it will take a while but ufb will be what broadband was to dialup. Good things take time and your software solutions can compliment it.
Instead of replying with a long winded rebuttal can you go straight to a real solution, by real solution I mean something that will most probably be available to the masses within a year or two.
P.s not trying to have a go at you just trying to make sense of this computer/software talk.
So a new all-time closing low of $2.34 on about as low volume as you see with Chorus.
At some point it will bottom out, but whilst it descends then I am not interested in buying.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
The need for this infrastructure is not about the somewhat neanderthal issue of the uploading/downloading of "files" for passive one way consumption. Its creation is just another step in servicing humans' insatiable need to communicate.... regardless of physical obstacle. Distance, space and time is gradually becoming irrelevant. Ultimately one's physical presence will not be required and, in certain circumstances, might be regarded as a quaint, if not barbaric, idea. I don't doubt the difference between a physical presence and a holographic presence will always be detectable.... but only just.
Couldn't agree more SPC. Well said. I'm happy to read all arguments but can do without the 'smarter than thou' snide remarks.
Yes, let's PLEASE keep this to discussion on CNU.
I haven't changed my view that there is value here, especially at these levels. So far nothing has really changed with the stock itself, just Broker, offshore investor and institutional herd mentality, which of course makes the market. And provides the opportunities.
Batter up!
Something else to consider:
The first four of 12 satellites in a new constellation to provide affordable, high-speed Internet to people in nearly 180 "under-connected" countries, will be shot into space on Tuesday, the project's developers said.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-satelli...ected.html#jCp
Given how many issues I have with wifi on a cloudy day, I'm really hesitant about this technology.
I know at face value it looks awesome, but the maintenance of satellites and the cost of dishes at the other end required to receive the information make me wonder. Chances are the receiving dish will be a central hub around which everything connects to it via fiber, its more about enabling access in remote areas.
Okay let me try my best to reply you all.
To RedWizzard:
I never say compression is the only way to go, nor I am in a position to think UFB is not needed. I have repeatedly mentioned that in all my posts. I believe it is a normal thing to ask for - dial up > broadband > UFB then whatever comes after that. It is human nature to frame our problem as engineering issues and so we go and build some new things to replace the old ones. Could we at least agree that we both share this view?
So, the only point I try to make, despite how it turns out, is that in many technological advancement it is often the software that overcomes some bottleneck (or traditional thinking) that brings new meaning to things that have already existed, or things that are about to appear. Compression, or browser efficiency, or quality of codes are examples I use to illustrate that point. You cannot deny that given the same infrastructure/pipe, a better compression or a faster JavaScript engine in the browser or practically better code which does not do like 30 round trips before showing up a webpage, do make a lot of difference in terms of user experience of speed and the actual amount of data involved, can you? Am I logically flawed to suggest that software could overcome some of the engineering issue? Or are you so naive to believe we have done everything possible at the software level so all we left is the hardware? I don't think you are claiming that.
Let's say, and I hope you would agree, that both software and hardware must be part of the solution to move forward. This doesn't violate my position since I always believe we need UFB at some point anyway. Then this explains why my comment exists: too many people think too much about the infrastructure but nothing else. Without your opposition that would be it; but with your opposition people may even think software is unnecessary in this discussion at all. Could you confirm you are saying that?
Lastly, and not meant to upset you, I do have a higher qualification than a Master and I didn't start that like 2 decades ago. And quite honestly that doesn't matter at all if you are self taught and you could actually point out that Opera, FireFox and Chrome are all open source instead of just one of them. Why would anyone discuss a closed source software when nobody knows the code: isn't that just absurd if we are discussing between good and bad code? Clearly you have passion on this topic, but are you 100% sure that your 15 years of experience only brings you good and solid ideas, but not holding you back from newness?
My position is simple: I think UFB is important but it could be viewed as more important than it really is for this current moment. There could be alternatives, some radical ones as well, which may challenge the pure engineering mindset. I believe it is healthy to have balanced view. So CNU is a monopoly in a 4 millions population, it is a product of regulatory decision, and its share price drops more than 30% since the beginning of this year. When everybody says CNU is going to have a bright future because UFB is so important, I merely provide a different perspective, without discredit the idea that UFB is important.
To hilskin:
Thanks. I am not suggesting the government or anyone to halt the UFB, no that is not what I am saying in here. Real solution, one thing comes to my mind is the way streaming has improved via a decentralized distribution mechanism rather than a centralized one. It is technically possible for, let's say Sky users, to watch the most popular show in a faster speed because other people are also watching it or have a cache of it in their boxes. Oh a side note here, you could try the new software from BitTorrent Labs called Sync. That uses the same mechanism as BitTorrent to sync your files among devices within your LAN. This is also we don't talk about much, the bandwidth within a LAN. Research shows that a lot of the slowness that users perceive from their internet connection is actually bottlenecked by their own LAN. Anyway let me repeat, I am not saying we don't need UFB; but while we don't have it yet there are still plenty we could do to improve the situation.
To SparkyTheClown:
Well if you don't change yourself, why would you expect others to? I agree, that comment of yours is just pathetic. What the forum stands for is not up to you to say, simply because it exists before you join and hopefully it will continue to exist after you are gone. Everybody is influenced and influencing the forum of what is it with every single post. That's actually how the internet is built up and also many great things as well. Putting a gate, like what you did, is the old fashion way of saying you know it all too. So again, pathetic right?
So Mr. Futurist PHD where did you get your qualification? If it wasnt a top 10 US university go home.
I might follow spark and block him.
Futurist, I totally agree with most of your points (not necessarily the way you frame them), but I think you're thinking in a 'perfect world' solution. I work in elearning design, we work in the cloud, and upload and download tens and tens of gigs each day. Each raw Photoshop file we use is 100-200megs each, because of version control and risk reduction, you'll save maybe 4-5 copies of the same thing each day as you work, and upload these to the cloud as you go.
We would love to use file compression when we interface with clients, but the reality is that all of your government departments, and most of the large corporates have systems that don't accept files other than *.jpegs due to what else can be hidden in other types, and the onerous nature of security scanning if they tried to protect against all file types. So hence we're stuck using a filetype where the compression isnt very good, and working in document types that aren't very efficient and bloat our bandwidth because most business systems wont accept anything else.
Agree with 'in a perfect world files would be smaller' disagree that this is actually implementable, as companies are numpties whose individual policies often work against the good of the overall group and ultimately ... themselves.
So anyway I see CNU is stiil the same price as at time of writing after about 143K of shares going thru - maybe stablising at these levels
Don't need a qualification to see that:)
I've not got any Chorus but intending to get some.... hopefully soon. The SP at the moment seems pretty attractive, although will probably sit on my hands for bit longer.
The debate on this thread has been pretty useful in considering various aspects of the business, and I would not have been able to do so without this discussion, so thanks to you all.
Futurist
Unfortunately your wording does rub folk up the wrong way....I wonder if you could get your points across without annoying/attacking people so much. I do appreciate the perspective you bring, even if I do not believe it is all achievable.
I wonder if English is not your first language at times ?
STC
Also appreciate your input as well.
Important that we continue to be able to express ourselves here.
Cheers
RTM
It is still falling, glad I am out of CNU already.
Yeh Vince don't be a pussy, expose the ramper(s), It might stop others in the future.
Singing in it...not working in it. Tra.la lala, tralalla la oh bother the birds in the spring.... (or should I say the moles in our midst.)
Well I often drive past Chorus vans in the countryside where Chorus employees are digging up cables - that is as close as I get. I would be interested to know who is posting.
Disc: Drive past Chorus workers digging holes.
Yeh right we know what you Canadians get up to ok..I am a lumberjack and I'm ok
I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay I sleep all night and I work all day
He's a lumberjack and he's okay He sleeps all night and he works all day
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch I go to the lavatory On Wednesdays I go shopping And have buttered scones for tea
He cuts down trees, he eats his lunch He goes to the lavatory On Wednesdays he goes shopping And has buttered scones for tea
I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay (He's a lumberjack and he's okay) I sleep all night and I work all day (He sleeps all night and he works all day)
I cut down trees, I skip and jump I like to press wildflowers I put on women's clothing And hang around in bars [ From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/lumberjac...ty-python.html ]
He cuts down trees, he skips and jumps He likes to press wildflowers He puts on women's clothing And hangs around in bars?
I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay (He's a lumberjack and he's okay) I sleep all night and I work all day (He sleeps all night and he works all day)
I cut down trees, I wear high heels Suspenders and a bra I wish I'd been a girlie Just like my dear papa
He cuts down trees, he wears high heels Suspenders and a bra?
He's a lumberjack and he's okay He sleeps all night and he works all day
He's a lumberjack and he's okay He sleeps all night and he works all day
Read more: MONTY PYTHON - LUMBERJACK SONG LYRICS
Certainly not me but I had a look at posting prior to announcement and futurist appears to be a suspect also, surely not.
Down again and somewhat precipitously!
Of course if the $8.93 UBA price sticks this still well overvalued.
But a UBA around $12.80 would support this SP.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
I have nothing to do with CNU either beside losing some money on their shares and using a landline.
Me neither but i know a guy who used to sit inside their little roadside work tents and play cards all day with his mates re 33years ago as well as help themselves to stores. Employees just loved working for the old chorus/telecom.
For what it's worth, we did discuss the topic a bit deeper than most of us would expect, didn't we?
I want to start my reply from moosie_900's quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Yes, this is the foundation of a modern society when strangers could have conversations to express their opinions instead of killing each other. The only reason that quote is given in this thread is because there is a stir-up by some selected individuals who like to judge the cover of a book so to speak. I remember a few months ago I was in the position of moosie_900 when I witnessed those individuals ganging up on another member in this forum because they didn't like that member. Those individuals never apologize; they feel it is their rights to decide who has the rights to speak in here or who should be blocked.
Let's go one step further. Whether you like the cover or the content of the book I am offering here, it is an under-discussed perspective which is not totally irrelevant to UFB or CNU. Through my posts, obviously we see some individuals coming with opposing views (e.g. RedWizzard and Mista_Trix) which by all means I expect it to happen. But then we also have belgaron joining with a supporting view too. Shouldn't all of us be glad that this discussion is not one-sided but at least two? Just imagine if 100% of the people here agree totally on one side, then what is the point of discussing anything?
On top of this, which is something I didn't expect, my posts actually in a way help to reveal something pretty ugly here. As confirmed by the admin, there are at least two posts coming from or two persons working for CNU joining our conversations without declaring their positions. Obviously, I am not suggesting that they do not have the rights to express opinions here, because unlike those selected individuals who like to gang up on people I mentioned earlier, I am not one of them. However, working in CNU does create a conflict of interest with their opinions, and hence it is only fair if they declare that. So at least now I could understand better among all those attacks on me, some of them could be hidden CNU employees wanting me to shut up because I am not helping them to improve the perceived value of their shares. They either suggest I should be blocked, or I should go home. Well now I know why, and you do too.
RTM suggests that I might have rubbed folks up the wrong way; but wouldn't you agree that if I rub the way you expect then we would not witness any of these? I say I have rubbed the right way, so now we see more than before.
Some people are pretty quick in declaring them not being the hidden CNU employee here. I think for all those who have attacked against my posts, you should at least declare that too. If you don't, then I guess we know who you are, and how unfair your attack is, and truly you owe all of us an apology!
Lastly, I have to thank the admin for stepping in and making this known to all of us. At least for me, I feel a lot more relieved that people are not really that stubborn or non-accepting.
I'm not saying don't say it and don't come in with apposing views, that's totally fine, just be careful about the way the argument is presented.
It's one thing to say a persons argument is invalid (argument centric), its another to say the person doesn't know the industry or is educated enough to comment because of their arguments statements (person centric).
If we all stick to the argument not the person making it I'm a happy camper.
Mista_Trix, on behalf of many members here, could you tell us if you affiliate with CNU? Remember, the admin is watching you so you better answer truthfully.
Let's say you are not. Well then I am really interested how you come up with the logic that you would like to block me while you agree with almost everything I said, according to your own words in post #667? That is the complete reverse of moosie_900's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." So you still think I am the one with issues here?
Excellent finger pointing. That is exactly why, polarizing and emotive.
I'm happy to discuss, but I don't really like people that use shock and use extremes to argue instead of comment. What cant be summed up in a paragraph often isn't worth reading. And pages and pages of posts of how ignorant we all are can get a little dull.
I don't work for Chorus, as stated in other posts I work in e-learning design and development.
Well done detective.
Thanks. I am sure we share the knowledge that the internet was not built for the intention of usage in the form of today when it was born, and sometimes short-term quick and dirty solutions look more favorable than long-term ones; but as the mindset of software developer gradually changes so would the software.
I can give a real life example I personally experience with that most of you could relate to. Probably you are aware that the mobile device space is divided between iOS and Android. When Steven Jobs first announced that the iPhone could only run with web-based apps, most software developers thought that was just crazy and that missed the total point of having a smartphone. So a year after that, Apple released their SDK and now we are flooded with native apps. But if you have worked in this space long enough, you would feel there is something wrong with this approach. Wait a minute, aren't we simply moving back to the PC era with a replacement of a smaller device? We are killing the web, or more exact we are killing the openness we treasure so much when we develop native apps. To be fair, at the time when Steve Jobs announced web-based apps only for the iPhone, the browser technology could not handle the work required for a native experience. However, the case is not the same anymore as of today. It turns out that Jobs was right and luckily we have a group of people working so hard to make the web better.
My point is, even experts in the field often have blind spots and we always need counter arguments to challenge our traditional wisdom. There are two golden principles in this industry: follow the rules, and break the rules. So while some may argue that my suggestion are too idealistic for their current situation, I could also argue that their current situation is not necessarily a good anchor to stick with.
You said you agreed with most of what I said, but you still would block me. I asked how you came up with that since discussion forum does rely on respecting the rights of others to express even we may disagree among each other. And your answer to that is because 1) you don't like people use shock and extremes and 2) people who cannot sum up in a paragraph isn't worth reading.
Are you saying that we should all follow your rules of using mild examples and express opinions in not more than a paragraph, so that you won't block any of us and be happy to discuss? Oh thanks for the heads up, it does clear up a few things.
Honestly mate I'm not doing this. Good luck with flaming someone else.
Fair enough, and I do believe none of us is perfect and surely under that frame I share as much flaws as the next person. I am also with you that when we read a post perhaps there are two components to it: the cover and the content. A logical person could separate them and perhaps would not confuse one with another. For me, I don't mind people being obnoxious if the reasoning of their content is sound. If you work in an academic field, you must have met most of these people, right? Just try to remember the comments from the reviewers you get from your last paper, then surely you know what I am talking about.
Of course I take criticism but I have to be selective. I can't possibly entertain those asking me to go home or indicate their desire to block my post right? So could you accept that I take your word seriously enough that I also differentiate you from those illogical folks? Also I am really tired of those who gang up on people just because they don't like them.
I was and still am pretty excited when Google announced New Zealand would be the place they first launch their Project Loon. I know at this stage this project still doesn't really relate to the discussion of UFB or CNU. But maybe it will become relevant eventually, who knows.
http://www.google.com/loon/
P.S. Hey CNU employees, I really like to hear your comments on what you think about this type of project from a professional perspective. I am sure we could all learn something from you.
Sold FPH down last week and bought some Chorus, very good price on yield, earnings or DCF in my investment view.
In my amateur technology view (and someone who upgraded to fibre in March), fibre is the way forward simply because of speed. The market place will always have people who code stuff terribly, build websites poorly, make files that are too large, and while geek purists can grandstand that we need to be smarter about programming et al, there will always be developers who are monkeys, therefore, in my lay mans view, you will always need a bigger pipe to cope with more and more data.
From a political economic view, while Craigs view on downgrading Chorus is valid, it is a short term call, and in 2 years time we will be back at 3.5+, with two 25 cent divs in the bank as well, and Craigs will have a buy based on yield.
May I ask, why in 2 years time we will be back at 3.5+ with the promised dividends? And if that is indeed more probable to happen than the opposite, why the downgrade is also valid? Let's assume brokers recommendation covers at least 12 months; then for both your view and their view to be correct, there would be a 12 months period of low and flat followed by a 12 months period of up. Then my question would be, why buy in now if indeed that is what you try to tell us? I just don't see the action and the explanation of the action match.
Okay if I am the only one who feels this way, I guess I am being obnoxious again and I am sorry about that.
futurist,
May I suggest you create a new thread for communications technology relating to NZX stocks (call it what you will).
This topic is directly relevant to many stocks: CNU, DIL, SNK, SKT, TEL, VCT and XRO to name but a few. So your thread could be a central point for in-depth discussions of the sorts of technology issues about which you are so passionate.
Those with a deep interest in these topics could explore these issues in detail; it would be available and potentially useful for anyone who wants to help to understand how technology developments might affect their portfolio.
Hope that's a win for everyone.
Craigs call for a sell was at $2.60 with a target price of $2.29, and this price would reflect all uncertainty. We hit $2.29 yesterday, so according to Craigs all uncertainty is built into the share price now, in theory they will move to a hold at some point, but brokers usually release reports every 2 to 3 months, so they will say hold in 3 months time.
Once things move to being more certain (could be 2 weeks, could be 2 years) people will pile back into the stock, because, oh yeah, Chorus is still making over 40 cents per year, and paying out 25 cents of it in dividends, confirming dividends does wonders for sentiment, and the move back up may happen way before 2 years, I will be out circa $3.50 either way.
Markets move on sentiment, and a couple of times a year share prices reflect the underlying business value, the rest of the time stocks are undervalued or overvalued, reflecting participants optimism or pessimism.
Muppett pull your head in, that is NOT the idea at all.
LOL loving the drama on this thread!
Thanks for your reply Silverlight. You did explain very clear your underlying assumptions here, even sometimes an assumption and a fact is difficult to differentiate from our use of language. But I think you have done a great job clearing my questions earlier.
I accept the picture you paint for the 2 years horizon on CNU is a possibility; but in terms of entry I would be a bit more cautious. Using your words, the pessimism on CNU could have more or less reached a certain point but the pessimism around the globe has just begun. Even predicting 2 years is difficult, maybe waiting a couple of weeks can make a difference. The dividend yield of this share would always look attractive anyway for the range of prices it is trading recently.
All the best.
Messy next 12 months or so ... but surely it should sort itself out ... surely... ... ... he tells himself 'reassuringly'....
Commerce Commission final decision on the telecommunication development levy is published.
https://www.nzx.com/companies/CNU/announcements/237864
Chorus were trying to avoid paying $6.4m towards the levy, unfortunately they were unsuccessful in their bid.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/commerc...ations-levy-CK
I would think the news was expected and already factored into the SP.