Member Info for fleccy

Bitcoin is neither inflationary, or deflationary, it's just a free floating gambling chip whose value is determined by nothing more than belief and speculation. It's pumped by its cheerleaders who claim it to be a store of value, because all the other use cases have come to nothing. It's pumped by the church of Bitcoin with all its priests and soothsayers spreading the gospel to persuade more potential believers into thinking BTC is the second coming.

The latest hype is around Trump opening the door to the US recognising and using BTC as a store of value, but a US president has no control over the US's currency, or what they may or may not recognise as a store of anything. If the US did decide to use BTC as a treasury asset, they'd have to rely on the rest of the World going along with it, and anyone with any sense knows that BTC is just a manufactured useless piece of code that has no real function outside of the BTC Network. Jamie Dimon described Bitcoin a pet rocks, he was just expressing what most sensible people think.

Yet you promote Starlink mole_man, which will always be a niche offering imo. As I've stated previously, I believe the idea of putting 12,000 satellites in low Earth orbit is probably a bad one, and will probably be scaled back at some point. I'll be happy to argue the technicalities around Frequency Bandwidth, Distance, noise and atmospherics if you disagree.

With reference to Vodafone, it's more about their ability to service their debt while making a profit from their European assets; They can realise growth through their holding's in Vodacom and other emerging market assets.

The number of daily trades for QBT is pitifully low. If there was great demand for the stock you'd expect the number of trades to ramp up significantly and the price to rise. It could mean anyone sitting on a large number of shares may struggle to get a decent price should they want out.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/QBT/quantum-blockchain-technologies-plc/trade-recap

Microsoft are talking their own book, the truth is the software providers want to rule the internet without consequence when things go wrong. The US Tech Giants and software companies have been given a free lunch for far too long, the reason the EU crack down on companies like Microsoft is because they ferment an anticompetitive environment, by saying use our software and no one else's.

BT have just been fined £17.5 Million by OFCOM for the 999 call failures last year, caused by a software bug, which was miniscule compared to what Crowdstrike have just caused. Big Tech seem to think they can get away with anything by saying use us at your own risk, and if we do something wrong it's your fault for trusting us. If anything the regulators should be scrutinising big tech more than infrastructure providers, like BT, since this incident proves the potential damage can be catastrophic when they get it wrong. By allowing these software companies to relinquish all responsibility when things go wrong, it disincentives them to build in more checks to prevent catastrophic events such as this. Basically Crowdstrike caused a millennium bug type event 24.5 years later, and all I'm hearing from the likes of Jim Cramer is that it'll be forgotten about in 3 months, no harm done.

Will this get brushed under the carpet, or will it open the regulatory floodgates and affect the whole of the Tech sector? And why are the Financial commentators playing down the damage this has caused? Thousand, if not millions, of individual consumers have been affected by this, are we expected to believe that Crowdstrike will walk away from this without any real consequence?

It isn't an optimistic view, it's a common sense view. Clearly BT is undervalued and since FTTP and convergence will require far lower running costs, less staff, less buildings, the cost savings will soon start adding to the bottom line; Add to that the drop off in CAPEX as the FTTP and 5G rollouts wind down, in my opinion BT is a no brainer investment at such low valuations.

Https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2024/07/ofcom-uk-hit-bt-with-17-5-million-fine-for-999-call-handling-fault.html

It's fair enough that OFCOM should punish BT if their response failed in some way, but any additional backup/restoration procedure's probably cost a lot more money. Between OFCOM nailing BT down and litigation like the CAT case currently awaiting judgement, it feels like BT are under attack from all sides.

It amazes me the amount of BT bashing that comes from all sides, and the number of people that join in wishing for the demise of one of the few remaining truly British companies. BT was probably one of the few UK companies that may have grown into a tech giant, but we as a country don't appear to want national giants.

BT has a market cap around $18 Billion, Crowdstrike is currently valued at around $74 Billion; Crowdstrike's revenue is/was expected to be around a fifth of BT's, but the valuation given to the company is currently 5 times BT's; This demonstrates why US companies take over the World, they can simply sell stock to finance acquisitions of more profitable, or upcoming, undervalued UK/foreign companies.

Since Crowdstrike set out disclaimers, in their terms and conditions, against any responsibility/claims for any losses incurred due to their software, affected customers have few options to recover losses due to the recent outage, so I would hope the World's regulators dish out far harsher punishment than OFCOM regularly dish out to BT, since Crowdstrike have caused considerably more damage than BT could ever do.

I can't read the article as it's paywalled, but Drahi's stake should pull in dividends of over £191 Million during FY25. As long as he can cover any interest, or requests for extra capital, it shouldn't be a problem for him.

Does no one on here know how to use the filter button? The board is filling up with unrelated chaff, maybe that's the intention to bury sensible comments in a sea of noise. I mostly see green bars, but I see the residual comments when other's respond. I filtered UB ages ago, as their posts were repetitive and added nothing, it's a pity I still have to see the chaff.

What about people affected who don't use their software? I can see the potential for Crowdstrike to face Class action lawsuits arguing that they didn't put in adequate safeguards before rolling out the update, whichever way they spin it they obviously didn't test the software before rolling it out; The Lawyers will go after Microsoft and Crowdstrike, either way Crowdstrike will likely take a major hit off the back of this. Elon Musk has already binned Crowdstrike today.

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Musk:-We-deleted-CrowdStrike-from-all-our-systems/62401310

"It just roll updates out with testing, so while crowd strike are the root cause, the company is culpable"

No doubt the Lawyers are all over this to determine if they can go after Crowdstrike, and see if there's arguments nullifying Crowdstrike's disclaimers.

"Limitation of Liability. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW CROWDSTRIKE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO SOFTWARE USER (UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STATUTE, TORT OR OTHERWISE) FOR: (A) ANY LOST PROFITS, REVENUE, OR SAVINGS, LOST BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, LOST DATA, OR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF CROWDSTRIKE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR LOSSES OR SUCH DAMAGES OR LOSSES WERE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE; OR (B) AN AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS IN THE AGGREGATE $100. THESE LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY REMEDY SPECIFIED IN THESE TERMS. MULTIPLE CLAIMS SHALL NOT EXPAND THE LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION 7"

It also says:

"For Software Users Outside the United States and Australia. Some countries, states and provinces, including member states of the European Economic Area, do not allow certain exclusions or limitations of liability, therefore, the exclusions or limitation of liabilities and disclaimers of warranties in these Terms may not fully apply to Software User if the laws directly applicable to CrowdStrike in the performance under these Terms do not allow such terms"

https://www.crowdstrike.com/software-terms-of-use/

If I'm understanding that correctly Crowdstrike, or Microsoft, will likely face massive claims for losses in the EU.

I was pondering if Crowdstrike may also be liable in the US due to rolling out a faulty update, and breaking something that was effectively working ok; The end users didn't update the software manually, Crowdstrike automatically upgraded customers without their knowledge or participation, so I do wonder what arguments the Lawyers might use against Crowdstrike for consequential losses due to the outage; As an example Airlines will have to compensate their customers, but they'd argue it wasn't their fault it was Crowdstrike's fault,

" we all know mobile networks are the technology of the future"

Not in isolation, FTTP is just as important as household bandwidth requirements get ever higher; In reality FTTP and Mobile networks compliment each other and are equally important. Going forward, more Wi-Fi calling from home will release valuable bandwidth on the mobile cell site's. The rhetoric suggesting mobile broadband will replace FTTP is misguided and wrong.

Don't forget in FG's own words "We still haven't announced that we will not generate revenue this year"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY9rlua-gC0&t=135s

So that means they're unsure if they'll generate any revenue this year, and they may at some point announce they won't make revenue this year. What do others read into that wording?

"Starlink is breakeven cashflow positive already."

Is it?

"A False Sense of Success

In contrast to the lofty claims made by Elon Musk and the higher-ups at SpaceX, the data present a dismal picture. According to sources acquainted with Starlink’s financial foundations, each ground station sold incurs substantial deficits, which leads to astounding losses. Profitability is more of a fiction than a reality due to the opaqueness of the company’s accounting processes, which intensifies these issues."

https://remunance.com/industry-news/the-reality-of-spacexs-starlink/

As I've stated on previous occasions, in my opinion putting 12,000 satellites in orbit is a bad idea. No matter how many satellites you put into orbit, you can't bend the laws of physics when it comes Frequency/Bandwidth vs distance and atmospheric losses. Even land based terrestrial towers, using MIMO phased array antenna's, struggle at higher frequencies that allow more bandwidth, imagine how difficult it is for a small satellite at a minimum of 550km away and travelling at around 17,000mph. To provide a reliable service to urban locations they'd have to have huge bandwidth capability and handoff each user seamlessly as satellites move in and out of range.

A more sensible approach seems to be that taken by OneWeb, where they're using less satellites and offering services via terrestrial Communication Providers who aggregate and backhaul through their satellites.

If it's proved that satellite debris does indeed damage the ozone layer, then Starlink will likely have to use a more sensible approach with less Satellites anyway.

I thought software providers are supposed to test updates before rolling them out? I also wonder who'll be liable for the costs associated with this, it appears they've achieved more in this update than the Worlds Cyber Terrorists combined could cause.

Bet he wishes he'd sold more.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/insider-sale-chief-security-officer-044121767.html

They've all been Crowdstruck.

"Starlink commercial and community gateway now gets 8gbs download. Innovation is coming"

Starlink burning through profits

https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/spacex-starlink-failure

Some environmental concerns

https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/controversial-paper-claims-satellite-megaconstellations-like-spacexs-could-weaken-earths-magnetic-field-and-cause-atmospheric-stripping-should-we-be-worried

https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-internet-b2567423.html

The Gateway Tech is aimed at remote inaccessible locations, including maybe on ships and aircraft, not to compete with terrestrial communications in urban areas. It wont impact the likes of Vodafone or BT.

https://uk.pcmag.com/networking/153419/spacexs-starlink-teases-8gbps-downloads-with-mobile-gateway-tech

There are alternatives to LEO's, like HAP's, maybe putting 12,000 satellites in orbit with a lifespan of only 5 or 6 years might not be a good idea.

What's the significance of £1.25?

"In any case what's the point of a dividend if one always suffers a greater capital loss as a result of its payment"

You only make a capital loss if you sell, and the dividend ensures investors who're sitting on a paper loss get a return. Vodafone need to focus on the debt and Free Cash Flow, next years dividend of around £1 Billion will make little difference to that.

When it comes to the FCA DCA and PCP investigation, the Barclays request for a judicial review should it progress to a court case could potentially drag this out a lot further than September.

"While Barclays is seeking a judicial review over misinterpretations of the law concerning Miss L’s case specifically rather than against the notion of car finance mis-selling claims in general, any outcome in the bank’s favour is likely to have a profound impact on the FCA’s investigation and potentially on the prospects of millions of consumers seeking redress"

https://www.lawplus.co.uk/pcp/fos-aiming-to-block-barclays-judicial-review-of-car-finance-mis-selling-decision/