ExpressVu 1st QTR Results...4000 new subs vs 12,000 last yr...Avg Rev up to $57/month

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mozza
  • Start date Start date
Cable has been in business since the late 1960s. Satellite is celebrating 10 years (notice anyone celebrating?). If there are any bandwidth "brick walls" for either cable or satellite, that's a function of bad planning. No one asked Rogers to re-build to 860 MHz or 256 QAM cable plant or On Demand technology; it's not a part of CRTC licensing. It's not something that many US cable operators have bothered to do. US satellite operators cover less geography in Canada but manage to put up dozens of satellites to provide service vs. (effectively) 2 each in Canada by Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu.

This brick wall, as you put it, was built by the respective satellite companies here taking the gamble that consumers would be content with fewer channels, that HD would take off much later, and that newer technologies like On Demand weren't a threat. They were wrong on all three counts and it will get messier, and uglier, before there is a chance to turn the corner.

Satellite in Canada is a victim of its own short-sightedness, not circumstance or regulatory indifference.

As for point two, yes, apartment dwellers may not be able to subscribe to satellite due to northern exposures or local rules banning dishes on balconies. But that is just part of satellite "line-of-sight" issues. Cable doesn't reach to many places satellite does. It's a trade-off.



The CRTC has no voice in "selling off" ExpressVu bandwidth to anyone. ExpressVu has twice as many customers as Star Choice. If a merger dance ensues, Star Choice is well equipped to lead, if it chooses. And, at this juncture, ExpressVu is not for sale. On paper, it's worth $3 billion or so (and a billion or so in revenue): any takers?
 
BEV didn't take a swipe at Hugh's pocketbook, Hugh did it...he had posted an article with info in it to which BEV said was not accurate and requested it be pulled...Hugh refused, so BEV no longer advertises on this site.
 
Bev is way superior to star choice in promoting internation channels, hd or receivers , so there is no way that star choice will ever take over BEV.
 
Several years ago, it would've been financially insane to build that much bandwidth. Rogers built out the basic cable plant, and used the cashflow from that to fund building the next level.


And if Canada had 9 times its present population, Bell and Starchoice too might have the customer base to amortize a dozen satellites.


Lemmee see
  • Cable TV- has better reach in high-density (i.e. lotsa paying customers) urban areas
  • Satellite TV - has better reach out in the boonies where population density is very low (i.e. very few paying customers)
Substitute "cell phones" for "Cable TV" and "Iridium" for "Satellite TV", and you see a familiar picture...
  1. Iridium satellite phone service went under, and has been brought out of Chapter 11 as a niche service
  2. XM and Sirius burning through cash like crazy. I don't expect them to be around by the end of 2008, heck, maybe even the end of 2007.
  3. Satellite TV in Canada
 
Probably correct about the first part, but to make such a never statement really shows how little you know about business and the companies behind them.

I'm not saying it might not be that way, but you've failed to even consider the possibility.

Consider, wether you like it or not, ExVu is part of BCE, a big company with tons of money, BUT the ExVu unit carries significant debt, maybe nearing the end of it's intended purpose, that is to keep cablcos at bay in the telephony market and now needs some major cash infusion to maintain the lead/expectations they have set forthemselves.
And ownership is in question at the moment, so generally not much happens until that's settled.
And there seems to be some growing customer backlash and image problems as well.

On the other hand, Shaw's business is without debt, turning positive cash flow, award winning customer service, managed growth=managed costs, investing in increased capacity.

If I were the banker, I'd consider all of that and decide which one has the best prospects of being viable to repay the loan.

So it's not inconceivable that it could happen.
Probably not, I think Shaw will just wait for BEV to burn itself up in all the turmoil and rape the ashes.

Or BCE could just buyout Shaw, either way, I've considered the possibilities.

May I suggest you do the same.
 
Here is the relevant chatter from a site that cannot be endorsed for those that may be curious.

The thread title is as above.






This concludes our public service announcement.
Please resume normal posting.
 
Why all the speculation on BCE "giving up" on BEV? I see no indication of that whatsoever. In anything, they are pushing it much harder lately. Not something I could see a company who was thinking of shutting down a service would do...
 
If Bev's pulls thers ads from Hugh's site, how is this not taking a swipe at his pocket book?

Hugh posted an article, so what, he's a journalist, that's his right.
It appears to be fundamentally accurate, albiet with a slightly delayed time line and was deemed to be accurate at the time of publication, so I can't lay any blame on Hugh.

While we have had our moments, I have found his integrity to be beyond reproach.
 
Bell has a going concern with ExpressVu satellite: $1b revenues, positive cash flow (finally), 1.83 million customers -- a good place to start.

No one knows what is on the table in terms of carving up Bell Canada that may happen during or sometime shortly after a merger/acquisition.

New owners are almost certainly going to have more debt than Bell has now -- typically a "leveraged buyout" means you put down 20 cents and borrow the other 80 cents from banks. In this case that's around $24b borrowed.

It makes little sense to sell off the wireline fibre/telephone network or the wireless network -- they offer each other great synergies. Bell ExpressVu delivered via satellite is a barnacle on the side that is (currently) producing revenue but doesn't enhance the businesses of wireline or wireless. If someone showed up at the door for a cheque for, I dunno, $5b, they might cash it.

Bell ExpressVu over the wireline network, OTOH, makes a good deal of long-term sense and having $5b magically to trhow at such a project would make for an interesting new competitive landscape for national TV.
 
ExpressVu has always been kinda risky....

....they came to the table late
....their security system sucked
....their satellite positions are second rate
....they don't have $$$ cable headend business like Shaw

We will see how this plays out....IMO Shaw will eventually buy ExpressVu
 
It's interesting to note Shaw senior management only stated "they" are not for sale. There wasn't so much as a whimper about whether they were in a buying mood.

Star Choice, with 872k customers, is stagnating but could be said to be profitable on an ongoing basis. But there are 10 years of expenses piled up that the original investor (or his next generation family) may wish to find a way to "surface" (to use Michael Sabia's prescient term) this value.

Spinning off Star Choice, in a merger with Bell ExpressVu (1824k customers), which is also stable as a "going concern", might make sense. Satellite radio is about the reduce from 2 to 1 players: why not TV?

And it might make sense for the new 2.7m customer company to be independent of both original parents and even split the satellite obligations into Regular and Premium -- one brand being SD only providing great service with one satellite; the other brand offering all the bells and whistles at a higher price.

Question is: what would the Shaws do with all that new found cash?
 
Probably kicks Telus's a$$ with a major wireless push, which is already commited to, just a matter of timing.

The 2 provider, 1 system model collapsed in the DSS arena when DirecTV purchased the Premium Provider USSB. (They carried HBO/Showtime franchises while DTV carried cablenets)

I suppose no different that paying a different LD company than your local loop provider, but these seem like such antiquated notions.

There are certainly the ingredients to have a superb service with such a joint venture with Bell bringing it's HD content to the table and Shaw/Starchoice bringing a secure CA, and award winning customer service.

Imagine how nice it would be to have the best of everything. :D
 
As much as I do not like Hugh, I would take his word on this subject way before I would believe BEV.
 
It's funny how people keep quoting "customer service" as a strong point for *C in a business sense. Investors could care less about it.
 
But in terms of a business plan, I would venture that if a company is adding subs, but spending less on customer service, that's probably a positive in terms of investment.
 
But you've failed to factor that when adding a new sub, there is a significant capital cost to do so.
I think they call it Cost Of Acquization (COA).
This would include the heavy subsidy of the box and any promotional credits.
Our couse they hope to recoup that investment over the long term, but if customer service is a factor in people not staying, then that translates into a real dollar loss and is almost impossible to recover from.

In addition high churn rates could make it difilcult to make good budgets whereas a stable and managed growth is actually fiscally more responsible and goes to a longer visionary approach rather than a shotgun approach.

As a banker/invester, I'd prefer to do business with a better managed company that has a sustainable plan with less volatility.
 
Back
Top