DISH Network Reports Fourth Quarter 2007 Financial Results and Conf call Thread.
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 78
- Views 8K
No only a little over three months, but since he is discussing the last quarterly events, he can technically argue he did not wait at all
Charlie: Some churn was self inflicted due to promotions and price increases. In good time or bad times from an ecinomic perspective, we were expecting some churn from the year before due to promotions ending
Wall street is wanting a buyback of shares. Next, Confrence in 5 min for Sats, Next Dish call is in may.
Wall street is wanting a buyback of shares. Next, Confrence in 5 min for Sats, Next Dish call is in may.
Exactly what I speculated what DISH has done. I don't think anyone can still insist Charlie is bluffing. He obviously believes they had solved the issue, and the worst case is to pay the fine which they have set aside.
and you KNOW THIS because...............................?
If you listened to DirecTV's call they in fact said that advanced products account for 60% of NEW subs.
And BTW, they only RECENTLY lowered the price of HD-DVR, and it has been DISH giving ALL of this for free for over 6 months now.
Spinning their results to make them sound better won't help IMHO.
It is fair to say that those launch delays are not his fault. But let's also remember that AMC-14 was only supposed to launch in December, so it would NOT have been on-line yet anyhow (or just barely). E11 was known for over a year would not launch until 2008. Even if both had launched as set it would NOT have had any effect on the 4th quarter results - but might have had some impact in THIS present quarter.
Combative as ever, I see. You can't say the delay had been known for over a year, and then say that it didn't have an effect on churn. Had the satellites stayed on track to launch in 2007, as originally planned, Dish churn over the last two quarters would certainly have been reduced. Not eliminated, just reduced.
Direct has been aggressively marketing it's HD advantage, as they should. When Dish gets a couple more satellites up, that advantage narrows. In a couple of years, the advantage could go to Dish again. Competition in the marketplace. It's a good thing!
Combative as ever, I see. You can't say the delay had been known for over a year, and then say that it didn't have an effect on churn. Had the satellites stayed on track to launch in 2007, as originally planned, Dish churn over the last two quarters would certainly have been reduced. Not eliminated, just reduced.
Direct has been aggressively marketing it's HD advantage, as they should. When Dish gets a couple more satellites up, that advantage narrows. In a couple of years, the advantage could go to Dish again. Competition in the marketplace. It's a good thing!
Actually, not trying to be combative, don't see where you get that from. Can't you accept another point of view? I did agree right up front that the delays were NOT the fault of DISH.
E11 was known to be going up NO earlier than November almost from the day that the Sea Launch accident occurred (OVER A YEAR AGO). It had 3 or 4 birds that had to fly ahead of it - and return to launch was not to be before around October at best. It would not have aided the results in the 4th quarter.
These launch events also had a delay on D* and the churn was not affected the same way last year before D10 went up. It's just the way I see it, and I know you see it differently - so that's combative? Or just differing opinions?
Noticed I did not mention HDDVR lease? I have always said what drives HD is not much the number of HD channels but the cost of "leasing" HDDVR's.
My conclusion was drawn based on the sub numbers, the Q4 sub additions for both D* and E* are similar to the Q3's (when E* had more HD's in Q3 than D*), meaning the new HD additions did not have much material impact, of course there should be some impact, just not as much as you have always made it to be.
On the other hand you have yet provided a single fact to associate D*'s # to the new HD's, or E*'s lack of # to its lack of HD's.
Now I will agree, and have always said so, that once D* stops charging upfront fees for their "lease" program things can change a lot.
I don't think D* will or needs give away their HD-DVR's especially when they are making 4.4 billion dollars in profit a year. E* is giving away theirs and only making 750 million a year.
This was understood, if unspoken, at the DIRECTV Earnings call. Chase Carey spent a couple of minutes explaining how they were going to fill the hole left by the bundle customers (or unbundle them as the case may be).
Thats the only way E* can get new customers,Give equipment away. I for one wouldn't pay E* $99 for a receiver,let alone $199. If D* started giving HD DVR for free E* would be out of business. D* already out sells E*.
AMC-14 has been kind of a problem child for a while now. It has been bounced around a couple of times and as you may have noticed, AMC-15, AMC-16 and AMC-18 are already aloft.
