jnardone said:
Yes, I have to agree about the concept being a good idea for the future in HD. However, DVR is now the prevalent technology. Would like to see it for HD VOD but I won't hold forever.
Webcast: Q4 2004 Cablevision Systems Corp. Earnings Conference Call
- Thread starter riffjim4069
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 106
- Views 10K
Yes, I have to agree about the concept being a good idea for the future in HD. However, DVR is now the prevalent technology. Would like to see it for HD VOD but I won't hold forever.
Voom HD LLC does not exist, other than as a potential buyer for Rainbow DBS assets, so this isn't "pre-paid operating expenses". Your speculation is noted as such.riffjim4069 said:
This is the operating loss for the PAST quarter and year. Nothing prepaid. They did take a hit last quarter as the debt caught up with them, so the cost for that quarter did include some PRIOR expenses. But paying your debt IS an operating expense. (Even in this charge it society.)
And when Voom HD LLC does exist they will take the debts as well as the assets of Rainbow DBS. Cablevision would have ended the year with a $600 million profit last year if it were not for Voom. That's where they want to be this year when Dolan takes the debt away ...
JL
You the TROLL, man. You shouldn't post bad information.riffjim4069 said:Just setting a troll trap - it works!
JL
Looks fine to me. Gaslight?gutter said:You must be getting worked up as our typing is falling apart. mmmmmmmmm
JL
Troll trap? lmao
All seems redundant anyway since everybody already knows Voom has been a money pit for Cablevision since it's conception. I'm just hoping Dolan dumps enough cash out to keep HD programing going long enough to get us past this era of very little compelling HD content, I mean let's face it, the amount of true "filmed in HD" content we have available is very meager.
With that said I could care less if he loses everything or begins to make money hand over fist, I'm just looking to get some nice equipment and good programing during the next year or so for the least expense.
All seems redundant anyway since everybody already knows Voom has been a money pit for Cablevision since it's conception. I'm just hoping Dolan dumps enough cash out to keep HD programing going long enough to get us past this era of very little compelling HD content, I mean let's face it, the amount of true "filmed in HD" content we have available is very meager.
With that said I could care less if he loses everything or begins to make money hand over fist, I'm just looking to get some nice equipment and good programing during the next year or so for the least expense.
I was posting to two threads and caught that about the same time as you did. And I managed to get the edit in quickly enough that the "edited" tattletale didn't post. Gaslight is a reference to a cool old film ... thought maybe you would see the non-flagged edit and think "but I know there was a letter wrong" and be gaslighted.gutter said:
As far as your comment, lets keep it professional, OK? My post is fact, and can be confirmed by reading this morning's press release. Cablevision has sunk a lot into Voom, and Cablevision shareholders would enjoy not losing $661.4 million on $14 million income.
JL
Vicki said:Would I be banned for life if I started a Troll Poll Thread?
I dunno Vicki, this added to the "Dreaded Thread Virus" thread might put you over the top.
I think this might just wipe out any points you have left on your SatelliteGuys user license. Let's just keep it real. This is only TV. I have been telling myself this for 30 years in the business. I was kidding with you and yes I know the old film gaslight very well with Bergman and Charles Boye (sp). Like FOX News you deal in selected facts and ignore the bigger picture. But let me put some balance so we have a chance to compare.justalurker said:
DIRECT TV "For 2004, the company reported a net loss of $1.9 billion on revenues of $11.4 billion, compared with a loss in 2003 of $362 million on revenues of $9.4 billion".
I have nothing against *D or *E. but a 1.9 billion dollar loss is no big deal for a company like DIRECT so why would a little $661.4 million be such a disaster for Cablevision who also has big pockets. As someone else pointed out, VOOM didn't do any heavy marketing until the latter part of the first quarter of 2004. For a company that was less than a year old, I don't think it was unexpected to have severe growing pains. As I said I have nothing against *D or *E if all you want is inferior SD. I also kept my BUD with a 10 foot dish and 4DTV. That is PQ of SD at its finest. However, not really a future technology for the masses, I will admit that.
So stay healthy, and a new fact.. with that many posts...I would say you don't fit the definition of a "lurker." A very avid follower of satellite happenings yes... more than most. So pat yourself on the back. (That is a compliment. )
gutter said:
What!? You mean Fox News isn't "Fair and Balanced" as they claim in their tagline?! :shocked Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head. Ouch! :yikes
gutter said:
Awww. Justalurker is just out to redefine the meaning of "lurker" by turning it into just-the-opposite of justalurker.
Kind of like Fox redefining "fair and balanced". 
It is a matter of scale.gutter said:
Cablevision took in $4,932,864,000 company wide with only $14,935,000 coming from Rainbow DBS (0.3%).
Their operating loss of $59,437,000 company wide was 1.2% of their revenues. Not bad and really an indicator of how well the rest of the business did. Taking Rainbow DBS out, Cablevision would have had an operating gain of 12%.
The D* figures you gave come up to 16.7% in (4/1000 % in 2003).
Rainbow DBS alone took in $14,935,000 and lost $661,446,000. That's 4428%.
Rainbow DBS in 2003 was all loss in preparation for launch. D*'s better 2003 numbers help balance their expensive year.
D* can afford to lose 4/1000% of revenues one year and 16.7% the next.
V* cannot afford to keep losing 4428% of revenues.
Bottom line ... the loss figure is important in both businesses but is much easier to overlook on a business that is making it and is #1 in its field than a business that is struggling to be #1 in a nitch.
JL
I was afraid that might be the case...oh, well, back to the drawing board!jame_g said:I dunno Vicki, this added to the "Dreaded Thread Virus" thread might put you over the top.
Vickijustalurker said:
Tell me again. How old is *D vs *V.? *D has been around since 1994. That is 11 years and still loosing money. When do you think *D will turn the corner? I Echostar #2 is making money. Seems to have a better handle on costs and profit. *V has a long way to go since it is only 15 months old.
I hope to be around to watch the fun.Is that your way of claiming D* has lost money EVERY year? They are certainly not losing over 4400% of revenues.gutter said:
They are a better service, despite their flaws. And they are closer to being a pure satellite provider than Hughes/DirecTV and Cablevision/Voom. When everyone on the board keeps the main thing the main thing it helps. (And the sillyness of BingoTV is easier to overlook.)gutter said:
With Cablevision their main thing isn't Rainbow DBS. It represented less than 1/2 a percent of their revenues for 2004 yet still caused them to post a huge loss.
#1 and #2 are good positions to be in, even if you have an occasional loss year.
JL
Which is unsustainable---high losses in the startup period or continued losses several years down the road? This is one of those situations where there is no single correct answer but we argue as if there is.
First we have to define and prove continued losses, unless we want to stay hypothetical.Geronimo said:
Businesses need boon years to balance the bust years. V* hasn't had a boon year and Cablevision doesn't expect one soon. And Voom's losses certainly are not self sustaining.
JL
