https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...VWFSCQJUOYVNQ/
Strong uptake so far has surprised me.
Won’t be long before the majority of urban areas have high speed internet now.
Then what for high ARPU satellite subs?
Printable View
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...VWFSCQJUOYVNQ/
Strong uptake so far has surprised me.
Won’t be long before the majority of urban areas have high speed internet now.
Then what for high ARPU satellite subs?
A colleague who purchased a rural property and has been looking into internet connectivity options, came to the same conclusion. I also pointed out to him that owning the $1000+ hardware meant that you're also responsible for replacement, so make sure that you have adequate insurance cover (where possible) and factor those costs into the equation as well.
I agree with you that it can fill a market gap, but it won't replace fibre/copper/traditional wireless (wifi/LTE/5G etc.) services.
Yes that’s what I thought too. But 10k subs in a relatively short time is pretty good going.
It def won’t replace fibre.
But the (narrow) competitive advantage sky still have is the rural properties. However these properties can get fast internet from Elon Musk now (whereas they are unlikely to ever get fibre in many cases). As more of these properties get Starlink then the narrow moat sky still has will vanish entirely.
And in terms of the internet service Elon offers being inferior…tell that to the Ukranians.
John Fellet has Starlink and he says it is fantastic.
Rural New Zealand population is around 13%, and that's 'people', not internet service account holders. I doubt that Sky is too concerned about their "narrow moat" in rural, for their customers.
But go on, it's interesting how you've changed from multi-year upramper, to completely sold loss making investor, and now monotonous downramper. What else have you got for us, imo nothing to see here with Starlink, or f'all to see.
You don’t have to agree with any of my viewpoints.
But trying to rewrite history in this ultra simplified manner that I was an ‘upramper’ before and now a disgruntled ‘downramper’ says more about you than it does about me.
So far as I see it, the facts have changed this year and so has my opinion. I don’t see why I should be criticised for that?
And your pithy comment about sky not caring about rural NZ just highlights that you don’t understand the business very well.
They care very much indeed. And if the majority pf rural nz move into the 21stC with fibre or Starlink - then it makes it more likely that a conservative organisation like NZR would be prepared to go OTT in the future.
So... Are we reelecting the current directors?
Well that will depend on the smart money, AKA institutions, and the chairman has just put some of his own money in.
And is the proposed capital return even worth it?
I prefer to think that the Chair's investment is not some cynical ploy to convince shareholders that he's worthy of being retained, more that he thinks it's a good investment regardless of whether he retains the role. That may be wishful thinking. The telling moment would be if he was not re-elected and then sold soon after.
It's not about agreement, no one cares about whether we agree, it's about trust and reputation.
For a long time you were a trusted reputable commentator for many (judging by feedback), apart from the numpty meme artist that you chose to entertain with endless pointless speculation, and still do. So much to say and so often saying it, if not an insider yourself(?) you obviously had/have inside information, never had any misgivings about the company even though it was far from sure that the transformation would happen. Apart from slagging the bosses, lucky you escaped a defamation imo.
Heavily invested and making dubious investment decisions (buying long term downtrends way too early and frequently), but the story according to you was worth it, even while holding massive paper losses. Then suddenly when it looked promising that the strategy was working, you turned, sold at a loss that many would be upset about, and have nothing to say anymore except over and over again, that it's all a complete mess and the future is f*cked.
Sorry not sorry, it's about trust, reputation, trust lost, reputation lost. Nothing you say can be taken seriously, imo.
Well, you can rant and rave all you want - that’s fine. Your version of history isn’t all that accurate actually when it comes to the evolution of my views on sky over time. But it isn’t worth getting into all of that with you though.
I will pick you up on one point though - I am not an insider. Have never been an insider. Nor have I ever been privy to inside information. That is a very serious accusation, and you need to take a deep breath and think about what you are saying before you post again sunshine.
I have been wrong on a number of things in the past when it comes to my thesis on sky. I am probably wrong on some of the things I see now.
I certainly don’t think sky is going to go broke or be out of business any time soon. There will continue to be a place for sky, but things are going to be very tough I think - and it will be interesting to see in what capacity Sky are able to continue as a going concern in the longer term.
Clearly I have blotted my copybook with you. I have had plenty of positive feedback from others though - it is very hard to change your mind about something once you have committed so much time, energy and money to it. You are unlikely to give me any credit for it, but my views have been evolving (negatively) for over a year now. I didn’t just wake up one day and say “to Hell with my thesis on sky over the last 4 years, I just hate the company now!”
As the facts have changed, so too have my views. Maintaining a viewpoint because I am worried about what some geezer called Baa Baa thinks of my ‘reputation’ would be absolutely insane if I consider the investment case has deteriorated significantly.
And as for my ‘luck’ at not being sued for defamation - get off the grass mate.