# DirecTV 4th Quarter Results



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

DIRECTV Fourth Quarter Results Complete Another Record Setting Year for the Company
DIRECTV Q4 Free Cash Flow Increases 64% to a Record $710 Million
Solid revenue growth, improved margins and lower capital expenditures at DIRECTV U.S. fuel full year DIRECTV free cash flow growth of 40% to a record $2.4 billion

DIRECTV Q4 Revenues Grow 13% to Nearly $6.0 Billion
Four-year high net subscriber additions at DIRECTV U.S. of 939,000 and record full year net additions at DIRECTV Latin America of 692,000 propel DIRECTV revenue growth of 10% to $21.6 billion in 2009

DIRECTV Q4 Operating Profit before Depreciation and Amortization Increases 22%
DIRECTV U.S. Q4 margin expansion of 260 basis points to 25% contributes to full year DIRECTV U.S. Operating Profit before Depreciation and Amortization growth of 7% to $4.7 billion

DIRECTV Announces $3.5 Billion Stock Repurchase Program

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Feb 18, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- DIRECTV (NASDAQTV) today reported that fourth quarter 2009 consolidated revenues increased 13% to $5.98 billion, operating profit before depreciation and amortization1 (OPBDA) increased 22% to $1.49 billion while operating profit increased 49% to $862 million compared to last year's fourth quarter. Fourth quarter net income attributable to DIRECTV declined to a loss of $32 million while earnings per share fell to a loss of $0.03 compared with the same period last year. Excluding a pre-tax charge of $491 million ($486 million after tax) related to the merger with Liberty Entertainment completed on November 19, 2009, net income attributable to DIRECTV and diluted earnings per share increased 37% to $454 million and 50% to $0.48, respectively, compared with the fourth quarter of last year.

http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=445565


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

Good news for D* investors...always nice to see a tidy profit.

Now, I wonder of D* would please turn on some of those extra channels they have the capacity for?


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Churn rate stayed about the same. It looks like they gained about 119,000 net subs


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)




----------



## Garyunc (Oct 8, 2006)

mobandit said:


> Good news for D* investors...always nice to see a tidy profit.
> 
> Now, I wonder of D* would please turn on some of those extra channels they have the capacity for?


especially since we are now paying for those extra channels.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

From DIRECTV Fourth Quarter Results 
"We head into 2010 with strong operating and financial momentum. *In the U.S., we look to extend our video leadership with the introduction of many innovative and differentiated services including Multi-Room Viewing, 3-D, DIRECTV Cinema and the debut of our much-anticipated Home Media Center in the second half of this year." *White added, "In Latin America, we're expecting another year of tremendous growth fueled by greater sales of our popular pre-paid services, increasing demand for HD and DVR services, as well as unparalleled coverage of the FIFA World Cup. With these strengths in both the U.S. and Latin America, we're targeting another strong year financially as DIRECTV again strives for industry-leading top-line and bottom-line growth rates."


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DodgerKing said:


> Churn rate stayed about the same. It looks like they gained about 119,000 net subs


119,000 net adds is the lowest in several years.

DIRECTV would appear to have taken control over additions -- a goal met.

SAC is up there at $607 but down big from a Q3 SAC of $668


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

thelucky1 said:


> *...the introduction of many innovative and differentiated services including Multi-Room Viewing, 3-D, DIRECTV Cinema and the debut of our much-anticipated Home Media Center in the second half of this year." *...



MRV - Not paying extra for it.
3-D - Overhyped and not worth it on less than a commercial theater sized screen
D* Cinema - Haven't bought a PPV since they went to the 24 hour model
Home Media Center - Could be of interest.
Unmentioned channel additions - Significant interest

I'm happy that D* continues to add subscribers as I want them to be successful.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

How much long are they going to want supress the new sub adds ?
Are we nearing the end since they are now doing the 200 HD channels add push now ?


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

DodgerKing said:


> Churn rate stayed about the same. It looks like they gained about 119,000 net subs


So the loss of VS didn't hurt D*.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

harsh said:


> 119,000 net adds is the lowest in several years.
> 
> DIRECTV would appear to have taken control over additions -- a goal met.
> 
> SAC is up there at $607 but down big from a Q3 SAC of $668


I guess that is better than actually have a net loss, something only Dish is familiar with


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

Actually, Dish is reporting a net gain of subscribers, as well during this past quarter...just sayin'


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

mobandit said:


> Actually, Dish is reporting a net gain of subscribers, as well during this past quarter...just sayin'


I know. Never implied they didn't


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Garyunc said:


> especially since we are now paying for those extra channels.


When testing is completed....soon guys....soon.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dcowboy7 said:


> How much long are they going to want supress the new sub adds ?


The cheapest way to make money is to wring more money out of the existing subscribers as opposed to having to cultivate new subscribers and suffer the SAC. DIRECTV surely has a balance point in mind and they'll continue to watch and refine it.


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> I know. Never implied they didn't


I know...and Dish has, in the past, felt the net loss...something D* hasn't in quite some time...I was just being obstinate..sorry.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

TANK said:


> So the loss of VS didn't hurt D*.


maybe they would have had 300,000 new subs if they had VS. You can't just take that stat and give a blanket statement.

I wonder if they have record profits, why did we see a rate increase?


----------



## hikeraz (Sep 20, 2009)

I found this on the DirecTV website:

"Does my DIRECTV with TiVo support networking?

The USB ports on our current DVR models are not available for networking, the TiVo Home Media Option or TiVo ToGo. Today, these features are only available on the TiVo Series 2 or Series 3 standalone models.

However, as you may have heard, we're preparing to launch a new advanced technology system called the DIRECTV Home Media Center. Our new Home Media Center will allow you to share, move and view content from room to room, throughout the house. It will also have DVR functionality and the capability to support both standard-and high-definition signals. We expect to have more information about this new advanced receiver soon, so please stay tuned to DIRECTV.com for the latest updates.

Our goal is to continue to expand our programming and technology offerings, in order to bring you the best television entertainment experience available."

http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/610

Is this the same Home Media Center they announced at CES in 2005? 
http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=286505
If so, why the delay?

Does anyone know anything more about it's capabilities?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> maybe they would have had 300,000 new subs if they had VS. You can't just take that stat and give a blanket statement.
> 
> I wonder if they have record profits, why did we see a rate increase?


You assume far too much about the popularity of Versus.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

ffemtreed said:


> maybe they would have had 300,000 new subs if they had VS. You can't just take that stat and give a blanket statement.
> 
> I wonder if they have record profits, why did we see a rate increase?


Because their profits have little to do with how much your bill is. Your rate is based on what their finance and pricing folks believe the market will allow.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

To be honest with you, this net new subscribers number is very poor and cannot be blamed on the economy. If you ask me, DISH's hard-hitting ad campaign has hurt DirecTV. Then look at my brother, a DirecTV customer who left for UVerse, with which he is very happy, because of UVerse having a lot more HD channels and being cheaper.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> You assume far too much about the popularity of Versus.


I didn't mean to say that they would have, I was just showing a different point of view.

Although one would be foolish to say that losing VS didn't hurt the numbers at all. Surely no one signed up that said woo hoo I am joining DTV because they dropped VS. I do know of a couple people in my area that I am friends with who considered DTV until I told them they don't have Versus. They went with the local cable company.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

raott said:


> Because their profits have little to do with how much your bill is. Your rate is based on what their finance and pricing folks believe the market will allow.


Who else is giving them money if it isn't the subscribers?????????? your logic makes no sense. I can assure you that customer subcriber fee's are DTV's #1 revenue stream. I don't even need to look at financial reports.


----------



## PaceHD (Jan 10, 2010)

Is the Home Media Center the same one from CES that was manufactured by Pace?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> Who else is giving them money if it isn't the subscribers?????????? your logic makes no sense. I can assure you that customer subcriber fee's are DTV's #1 revenue stream. I don't even need to look at financial reports.


You missed the point. Profits earned are from the past. Fees raised are done with future projections in mind. The profits they earned in Q4 have little to do with a decision to raise rates in the following Q1.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> Who else is giving them money if it isn't the subscribers??????????


Every religion channel, every 24/7 infomercial channel, and some of the sports channels.

That's all.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> To be honest with you, this net new subscribers number is very poor and cannot be blamed on the economy. If you ask me, DISH's hard-hitting ad campaign has hurt DirecTV. Then look at my brother, a DirecTV customer who left for UVerse, with which he is very happy, because of UVerse having a lot more HD channels and being cheaper.


Another way of looking at this is that they achieved a sustainable growth number without having to do huge rebates or give away as much equipment. Subscriber acquisition cost is down, and perhaps they simply grew at the rate in which they wanted to grow.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> You missed the point. Profits earned are from the past. Fees raised are done with future projections in mind. The profits they earned in Q4 have little to do with a decision to raise rates in the following Q1.


We will call a truce until they release the next quarter results and post record profits again.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

ffemtreed said:


> Who else is giving them money if it isn't the subscribers?????????? your logic makes no sense. I can assure you that customer subcriber fee's are DTV's #1 revenue stream. I don't even need to look at financial reports.


Actually, I never said subscriber revenue wasn't their number 1 revenue stream. What was meant by my post is that the reason you saw a rate increase even if they had record profits, is the rate increase is allowed by the market. That logic is based on how almost every company prices whatever product they are selling. They don't sit down and say, all I want to make $x profit, how much do I need to sell my product for to make that.

The company prices their product as to what the market will allow. The fact they had record profits has no impact on the decision to raise prices.


----------



## slam22 (May 14, 2007)

Since they are doing so well maybe now they can afford to get Versus back.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

TANK said:


> So the loss of VS didn't hurt D*.


This is just a guess on my part but I would suspect that the loss of a single channel, no matter what it is, isn't going to be the driving factor in most peoples decision to goto or leave DirecTV.

FWIW. :grin:

Mike


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I think these things have to be kept in perspective. The first question to ask is: 'is this specific to DirecTV, or is it something happening industry-wide?' Well, most providers haven't put out their 4th quarter numbers yet, but Verizon has. The result? Verizon added 153k subscribers in the 4th quarter - well below where they were a year earlier. Their additions seems to track pretty closely to DirecTV's. This tells me that there's something going on industry-wide. Maybe Dish grabbed a bunch of DirecTV's subscribers... we should know soon enough. But I get the sense that most customers are just staying put.

For a while customers were flopping around to different providers to get better deals. I just don't think that's happening quite as much as it was.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

raott said:


> Actually, I never said subscriber revenue wasn't their number 1 revenue stream. What was meant by my post is that the reason you saw a rate increase even if they had record profits, is the rate increase is allowed by the market. That logic is based on how almost every company prices whatever product they are selling. They don't sit down and say, all I want to make $x profit, how much do I need to sell my product for to make that.
> 
> The company prices their product as to what the market will allow. The fact they had record profits has no impact on the decision to raise prices.


I understand that, but when they increased the price they gave a sob story of increasing programming costs and etc.

Just be truthful, say "we raised the price because we think you'll pay the higher price and not switch to another company."


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I agree, jpl. It seems the whole industry is getting a lot more sensible in not just giving away the farm to new customers. 

I'm no stock analyst (one of many things I am not) but it seems to me DIRECTV did ok. Considering they offer a service that is still a luxury, and these are protracted hard times, they managed their expenses, took in a lot of money, and continued to operate in a sound way. 

Do I wish that they could offer 500 channels of HD for $12.95 a month? You betcha. But that's just not reasonable. 

Now, on the other hand do I wish they would lay down for content providers who want 30-40% increases in their per-sub prices, just because they may have a little more cash? Of course not.

Oh, and by the way, did they raise prices "just to protect their profit margin?" Well, they are a business and their business involves maximizing profits.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> I understand that, but when they increased the price they gave a sob story of increasing programming costs and etc.
> 
> Just be truthful, say "we raised the price because we think you'll pay the higher price and not switch to another company."


so use the money that would have gone into developing the new "Smell-O-Vision" :icon_hroc Receiver to pay for the extra costs of the channels?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

ffemtreed said:


> I understand that, but when they increased the price they gave a sob story of increasing programming costs and etc.
> 
> Just be truthful, say "we raised the price because we think you'll pay the higher price and not switch to another company."


Why do that when you can spin and tell your customers who don't know better that you are just "passing costs" on.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> maybe they would have had 300,000 new subs if they had VS. You can't just take that stat and give a blanket statement.
> 
> I wonder if they have record profits, why did we see a rate increase?


Because each year programming costs go up incrementally.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Another way of looking at this is that they achieved a sustainable growth number without having to do huge rebates or give away as much equipment. Subscriber acquisition cost is down, and perhaps they simply grew at the rate in which they wanted to grow.


Somehow, I'm willing to bet that DirecTV, while doing well, wasn't too happy about such a large reduction in the number of net new subscribers. After all, it's not like the number dropped by only a few thousand. The decrease from Q3 to Q4 was quite substantial, and that was during a period where the economy performed at its best when compared to the other 3 quarters of the economy's calendar year.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> I understand that, but when they increased the price they gave a sob story of increasing programming costs and etc.
> 
> Just be truthful, say "we raised the price because we think you'll pay the higher price and not switch to another company."


Uhm, because programming costs do increase considerably. That's why EVERY MSO increased their prices because every deal out there has these costs increasing, whether it's Xfinity (Comcast), Time Warner, FIOS, etc. Some raise base package prices, other say they don't but raise their per box fees and put the price increases there to cover those costs.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Somehow, I'm willing to bet that DirecTV, while doing well, wasn't too happy about such a large reduction in the number of net new subscribers. After all, it's not like the number dropped by only a few thousand. The decrease from Q3 to Q4 was quite substantial, and that was during a period where the economy performed at its best when compared to the other 3 quarters of the economy's calendar year.


I think that would be an interesting bet, but I'd have to claim an unfair advantage, so I won't be able to take your money


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

You're forgetting that with the Force, the future I can see. Minds I can read.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> You're forgetting that with the Force, the future I can see. Minds I can read.


you forget that Master Yoda is on the Directv board of directors


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> You're forgetting that with the Force, the future I can see. Minds I can read.


And this weekends Powerball numbers are....


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

DTV is just like the oil companies... raking in huge profits and still jacking up the rates. Kind of a slap in the face like it is with the oil companies when you hear "Oh... we made $4 billion this quarter, but we want to make more, so we are raising gas prices to $3/gallon" .

Eventually they'll reach the point where people will leave... but I guess they aren't there yet if they added 119,000 subs.

Look at what happened to the WWF (WWE)... PPVs started out at $39.95 or whatever and now they are close to $60. Buy rates are way way way down, so they just keep raising the prices and milking the die hard fans since a lot of people won't shell out that kind of money anymore.

My cable company actually CUT internet rates last year , by $10/month.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> DTV is just like the oil companies... raking in huge profits and still jacking up the rates. Kind of a slap in the face like it is with the oil companies when you hear "Oh... we made $4 billion this quarter, but we want to make more, so we are raising gas prices to $3/gallon" .
> 
> Eventually they'll reach the point where people will leave... but I guess they aren't there yet if they added 119,000 subs.
> 
> ...


Welcome to America...where we don't limit profits or curtail successful businesses. (which is considered by most to be a good thing)

DirecTV has no business-related reason to do anything other than what they are doing. They are the #1 sat provider and there is no reason to believe that will change. Their investors appreciate them trying to make all the money they can.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Their investors appreciate them trying to make all the money they can.


Yes I do.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Satelliteracer said:


> Because each year programming costs go up incrementally.


I am not doubting programming costs go up. But apparently DTV's subscriber increases are out pacing the cost of the programming. Even in fiscal quarters where DTV launches a brand new satellite, yet they still post record profits.

DTV is quickly gaining a very bad image with its customer base. Both of the people in the past two years I directly referred have told me they won't listen to me again because of how evil they feel DTV treats them. I actually feel embarrassed to have referred these people. Granted some of their complaints are pretty baseless and I told them that, but its still a bad perception. The loss of VS really hits me because I used that as a reason to go with DTV, because they didn't have a history of losing channels through negotiations like DISH did.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> My cable company actually CUT internet rates last year , by $10/month.


Did your cable company cut video rates last year? Internet is a high high margin business, just like wireless. The costs for content aren't there like they are for video.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Somehow, I'm willing to bet that DirecTV, while doing well, wasn't too happy about such a large reduction in the number of net new subscribers. After all, it's not like the number dropped by only a few thousand. The decrease from Q3 to Q4 was quite substantial, and that was during a period where the economy performed at its best when compared to the other 3 quarters of the economy's calendar year.


Your premise that because of the economy, one would expect better subscriber numbers is flawed. Your characterization of the economy performing at "it's best" is only true in comparison to the prior years when it was getting worse and worse. Yes a complete plunge into a depression looks like it has been avoided, but just because it looks like the economy has bottomed out and turned the corner, that doesn't mean that we are suddenly back to prosperity. We are just barely starting to dig out of the hole that we were falling into for many years, so if one expected DirecTV subscriber numbers to be strictly tied to the performance of the economy, the 4th quarter should be when they bottomed out.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

On the call DirecTV said they were not going to be a value provider so I wouldn't count on them reducing rates and/or fees.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Their investors appreciate them trying to make all the money they can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me too. Compared to the broad market, DirecTV stock has performed spectacularly during some rough economic times... http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DTV&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=^GSPC,^IXIC,^DJI


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

MicroBeta said:


> And this weekends Powerball numbers are....


Always in motion the future is.

Like I'd share that information with you anyway. :nono:


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

cartrivision said:


> Your premise that because of the economy, one would expect better subscriber numbers is flawed.


That's not my premise at all.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Ed Campbell said:


> Every religion channel, every 24/7 infomercial channel, and some of the sports channels.
> 
> That's all.


Sports channels? Which sports channels give D* money?

Also home shopping channels.


----------



## netraa (Mar 28, 2007)

A more interesting number to me would be the ratio of calls that fell out of retentions, versus the number of calls that resulted in saves.

Also interesting would be an inflation adjusted comparison on cost per save that came out of retentions.

Also high on that list would be an breakdown on the initial cost per sub...

Based on the tone of the 'call and cancel and see what they give you' posts I would wager that the total saves are down the cost per save they do make is down. And with the first hand information I have from the field initial cost per sub is down. They are giving away less and less, they don't throw credits and free equipment at new subs at near the rate they use to.

It doesn't take a big leap to figure that D* has decided to let the rest of the providers fight over the low hanging fruit.


----------



## Luck255 (Mar 5, 2009)

ffemtreed said:


> I wonder if they have record profits, why did we see a rate increase?


...because they had record profits...


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c23fbdc-1c8d-11df-8456-00144feab49a.html

It's still a very difficult economy out there.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

Why don't they give everybody a one time monthly bill discount.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

gomezma1 said:


> Why don't they give everybody a one time monthly bill discount.


They're a for profit business.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

gomezma1 said:


> Why don't they give everybody a one time monthly bill discount.


If ESPN, HBO, Showtime, MTV Networks, Fox, Comcast, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc, etc, etc do the same for D*.......

:nono2:


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

ffemtreed said:


> DTV is quickly gaining a very bad image with its customer base. Both of the people in the past two years I directly referred have told me they won't listen to me again because of how evil they feel DTV treats them. I actually feel embarrassed to have referred these people. *Granted some of their complaints are pretty baseless and I told them that*, but its still a bad perception. The loss of VS really hits me because I used that as a reason to go with DTV, because they didn't have a history of losing channels through negotiations like DISH did.


Uh...what? :nono2:


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Your premise that because of the economy, one would expect better subscriber numbers is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you say so, but that's exactly what is sounded like you were saying with this statement....



Lord Vader said:


> The decrease from Q3 to Q4 was quite substantial, and that was during a period where the economy performed at its best when compared to the other 3 quarters of the economy's calendar year.


But regardless of what exactly you meant, it bears repeating that the economy's "best performing" quarter for 2009 (Q4) was best only because the bottom seemed to finally stop dropping out, so essentially the economy hit the bottom in that "best quarter". The climbing back out of the hole hasn't taken place yet, and from what DirecTV said today, it doesn't sound like they are going to chase after the desired "high end" customers as aggressively as they have in the past until the economy is much more fully recovered, but if they can keep doing what they did in Q4, those lower subscriber growth numbers won't come at the expense of lower revenues.


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Justin23 said:


> Uh...what? :nono2:


Some of the complaints my friends had about direct tv didn't really have any merit. Like not having MSG-HD in Center Ice, and the signal goes out too often (DTV did send someone out to realign his dish and solved the problem).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The results are only surprising in the context that it has taken *all this time *for the new NET subscriber growth to show a significant change due to the economic conditions.

While Cable and even Dish have shown negative impact (expected) from the current financial and jobs climate....DirecTV somehow managed to grow subscribers. This quarter the pace has dropped obviously, but there are still NET new subscribers - quite a feat.

That said....the next 2 quarters will be very revealing in several regards....

1) Does the NET subscriber rate still grow in some form or another, or reverse into the loss trend?

2) Are there strategic price or other changes in response to the economic downturn that even DirecTV is starting to feel this late into the game?

The next quarterly report will be a key one on both fronts.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...While Cable and even Dish have shown negative impact (expected) from the current financial and jobs climate...


Dish had a very good Q3 with a large net sub addition, based on Charlie's comments regarding the D* v. E* ads case two days ago, he seemed to be hinting that his Q4 number will be good too, in part by grabbing subs from D*. It will be interesting to see the actual number from E*'s quarterly call.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jacmyoung said:


> Dish had a very good Q3 with a large net sub addition, based on Charlie's comments regarding the D* v. E* ads case two days ago, he seemed to be hinting that his Q4 number will be good too, in part by grabbing subs from D*. It will be interesting to see the actual number from E*'s quarterly call.


Yeah...but both Cable and Dish lag waaaaay behind DirecTV over the past year as a whole. One quarter is a sliver of the big picture and any trends.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yeah...but both Cable and Dish lag waaaaay behind DirecTV over the past year as a whole. One quarter is a sliver of the big picture and any trends.


Which is why I said it will be interesting to see the next E* number. If it is much better than the last good one, one can say D*'s reduced net gain might have to do with folks switching to E*. Otherwise maybe both are pulling cables' subs. Or if E*'s number looks bad, then there is no new trend.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jacmyoung said:


> Which is why I said it will be interesting to see the next E* number. If it is much better than the last good one, one can say D*'s reduced net gain might have to do with folks switching to E*. Otherwise maybe both are pulling cables' subs. Or if E*'s number looks bad, then there is no new trend.


I'm with you on that....trends need to be 2 quarters or more...so yes indeed...the next round should be watched to see how business is going.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

The full transcript:http://seekingalpha.com/article/189...-inc-q4-2009-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1​


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...the next round should be watched to see how business is going.


I didn't mean the next round, E*'s soon to be released number will be part of "this round". Depending on what it is, we may be able to tell a lot already.

Personally, I have decided to stay with DirecTV for now because it provides the best value for me. Dish charges too much if you have several DVRs, so is Uverse. However it is clear to me DirecTV is under a lot more pressure from Dish, Uverse and Verizon than it was a year ago.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jacmyoung said:


> I didn't mean the next round, E*'s soon to be released number will be part of "this round". Depending on what it is, we may be able to tell a lot already.
> 
> Personally, I have decided to stay with DirecTV for now because it provides the best value for me. Dish charges too much if you have several DVRs, so is Uverse. However it is clear to me DirecTV is under a lot more pressure from Dish, Uverse and Verizon than it was a year ago.


Trends in 1 or 2 quarters alone are snapshots...not trends....even the analysts look at annual or semi-annual trends.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Do I wish that they could offer 500 channels of HD for $12.95 a month? You betcha. But that's just not reasonable.
> 
> Now, on the other hand do I wish they would lay down for content providers who want 30-40% increases in their per-sub prices, just because they may have a little more cash? Of course not.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, did they raise prices "just to protect their profit margin?" Well, they are a business and their business involves maximizing profits.


You're right. How much did they squeeze out of not carrying versus at the same rate as it was before it was shut off in Sept? They take away a channel, say it's costing more when it costs the exact same and put the money in their back pocket. ...oh yeah, then they increase your monthly rate and pocket more while we wait for more national HD that has been promised for over a year.

to the shareholder it looks great. to the customer it seems disingenuous to run a commercial on the radio talking about how Comcast is increasing rates during tough times ... lo and behold 3 months later D* does the same? Wow.... they really have cojones..


----------

