Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Well said, Tracker. There's such an obvious irony in the zealots accusing anyone daring to express a negative opinion of being a troll or a member of the mythical Evil Global Shorting Conspiracy (TM) while busily themselves ramping the living daylights out of this stock with far FAR less (if any) justification. Just look at this share's performance over the last couple of years... it's bizarre to gainsay market opinion as expressed in the SP movement. What gets me is the zealots' self-stated aim to get all negative opinion removed. I've said before (since deleted... can't imagine why) that these are the classic tactics of agenda-laden fanatics. Kim Jong Un, anyone?

So... all that the zealots can point to in terms of public domain information on pre-selling of H4 capacity is... 1. A year and a half old press release re a small $1million deal with Berley Walker. 2. A woolly announcement with precisely zero monetised detail re a partnership with Millicom (which is clearly so commercially insignificant, it didn't even merit being announced via a full-blown RNS). 3. An H4 launch update that simply says that revenues are expected to start from the 2nd half of 2018. How much revenue? Ten bucks? A bazillion? Who knows... there's absolutely no info. Seriously? "A significant amount of the payload is contracted out"... and details are all on Google? Get real. Wishful thinking? For sure. Emperor's new clothes syndrome yet again? Probably. Reality? Absolutely not... well certainly not at this stage. But hey... why let the truth get in the way of a nice daydream?

I have no issue with anyone's hunches or opinions... that's all good. We all know that opinions are like alimentary exhaust ports... everyone's got one. I do however have issues with mere opinion being quite deliberately and misleadingly presented as concrete fact (presuming of course that this is the case here...).

Think they've undercalled the number of premises in the UK sub 10Mbps... it's nearer 2 million. The Yorkshire bid hangs on the recent Quickline acquisition as it's all about FWA. This one's a solid slow burner upwards IMV, rather than liable to show volatility or ever be prone to going up and down faster than the proverbial lady of the night's lingerie. One to hold and cherish IMO. PS I remain strongly impressed by the management team.

"GCCRa your hunch is correct. A significant amount of the payload is contracted out." That's a very blunt, categorical and definitive statement? So either that's information in the public domain (if so, source please), insider information or pure hopeful guesswork presented as cast-iron fact. Care to enlighten all as to which?

"This is getting shorted on a huge scale ..." Any evidence of this (apart from the pure assumption that because AVN stock is worth considerably more than it is trading at, therefore evil shorters must be holding it back... there's no other possible explanation)? I'm not seeing AVN appearing in any report on most shorted shares. TCM however...

Aaaah the old Evil Global Shorting Conspiracy (tm) trope, trotted out by true believers as the only possible explanation for negative opinion... To play quite deliberate Devil's advocate here - there's a much more tenable argument to be made (though it's equally as false) that those who are still perma-positive here in the face of the current state of play at AVN simply must be fully paid-up employees of some boiler room pump n dump ramp squad for peddling such outlandish opinion. ...Or perhaps it's not entirely beyond the bounds of comprehension that some people entirely legitimately don't hold a positive and rosy view on AVN and yet other people entirely legitimately do.

As mentioned before, I cannot for the life of me see any issue with counter opinions being expressed - that to me is a useful thing. Would anyone really want a hopefully mature discussion on a stock where only positive views were allowed? Would anyone with more braincells than fingers and toes actually want opposing views censored and/or silenced? That way lies madness - or at least crashingly naive and blinkered fanaticism IMO. I'm all for AVN silencing the cynical, but would suggest that the best (and only practicable) way of doing this is by delivering unmistakably positive results. Anything else is just puff and spin to feed the zealots.

...why any less than positive opinion gets the zealots here in a frothing rage? There's a definitely supportable case to be made for AVN currently not being in the best of financial health (no point rehashing the hows and whys of that understatement) and there's a potentially supportable case for things turning round for AVN over the next two or so years, if it can continue to service its debt mountain while simultaneously far more successfully selling its existing and future capacity. Where's the harm in both arguments being made? More than that, surely it's useful? Devil's advocacy is a powerful decision-aiding tool IMV. On that basis,, only an idiot would welcome nothing but pink, fluffy and glowingly uberpositive (or indeed negative) opinions being expressed...

IMO day traders are going to make hay in the short term, because the lack of clarity and possible question marks over reported figures are going to mean near on daily up and down volatility. That's the exact scenario that the rapidly in and out boys love. Agreed, Shadow. The sidelines are the best place to be at the moment, pending more surety.

Trouble is, when a share enters such a period of volatility/uncertainty - at least in the short term - the day traders get busy (well, wouldn't you, with 5%+ movements on the day, rinse and repeat?). That level of potential return becomes worthwhile, if you want to play... And that just means that more confusion, smoke and BS is spread all over the place as varying sides try to influence sentiment in their preferred direction and weird-looking deals pop up all over the place in all sorts of directions. I still say, sit on the sidelines and let the short-term merchants have their playtime. Calmer waters will eventually appear - though I wouldn't hazard a guess right now as to what that water level might be.

True, but there's (at least) two sides to that particular coin. At risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, it's potentially in the interest of day traders to peddle equally speculative plus side opinion and positive comments... as it is for holders, albeit from a more "seeking psychological reassurance" point of view.

That's the smartest post on here in a while and as such, one I totally agree with. Moniman... "I've come to the conclusion that you guys don't have a feckin clue... ...which way the SP is going" But that's the whole point that's being made? What with all the recent shenanigans, resultant fog of war and previously reported figures now being queried (entirely reasonably, given said shenanigans), it's currently pretty much impossible for anyone to have the slightest "feckin clue" which way this one's going to move in the short or even mid-term. Such is the lack of clarity that IM, it'd be a brave holder who sold at this level - and it'd be an equally brave punter who bought in at this level. Time for watching and waiting on the sidelines, I reckon.

My! It looks like my post of 4th Aug below was strangely prophetic. SSW has just RNSed that it's acquired Quickline, a specialist UK based wireless ISP... That was a lucky guess, since I apparently know nothing about SSW, the VSAT market or anything else at all. Whoda thunk?

WhatsOccuring, what a highly reasoned and well-argued response - unsurprisingly you effortlessly achieved my expectations of you. GCCRa, it depends what you mean by "BT using Avanti services for the fringes of the network". If we're talking about broadband provision to individual premises, it is true that BT's most recent involvement with Avanti (and Tooway, though not SES) was in the early days of BDUK's Better Broadband subsidy scheme (Q4 15 - Q1 16). This was particularly unsuccessful for several reasons, with the nett result being that BT was removed from having any role in the Better Broadband scheme as a supplier of satellite connectivity. BDUK (rather sensibly for a change) then looked to specialist providers such as Europasat and Avonline (now one and the same) to be the suppliers of connectivity and the direct subsidy recipients. For info, the BDUK Better Broadband subsidy scheme is technology neutral (as is the Welsh ABC scheme and the Devon/Somerset local scheme)... all three will fund or part fund any technology that provably delivers the required speeds to an eligible applicant's premises - so it happily includes Wireless, 4G, community fibre builds etc etc as well as satellite. To put some numbers on things re the BDUK subsidy scheme, the pencilled in budget was c. £10 million and I believe that so far only c. £3.5 million has been expended - and the max subsidy per qualifying premises is £400 - so the scheme, which has 4 1/2 months to run unless extended, has so far only awarded c.9,000 subsidies. The current number of properties within the UK that are still estimated to qualify, should they choose to apply (being sub 2 Mbps) is around 180k - 200k... so there's clearly not anywhere near enough budget allocated to cover all of those. Which a cynic would say explains exactly why no effort is being made by BDUK to publicise the scheme's availability.

WhatsOccurring, did it "occur" to you that I might have already researched or know SSW? Yes they're "simply a reseller" of services, but so what? It's the business model and balance sheet that's surely key? SSW has a latest set of accounts and a market cap that AVN holders can currently only dream of. And as for SSW having zero bearing on AVN's business? Really? I imagine that between Europasat and Avonline, SSW's existing subscriber base provisioned on AVN services is responsible for delivering a fair few million pounds worth of revenue to AVN every year. Given that not a few people on this BB get all excited at the announcement of even shared contract wins at a total pre-shared value of £1.5m, I'd respectfully suggest that you're much mistaken.

I remain highly respectful of SSW, Andrew Walwyn and his management team. SSW is a very slick operation run by some equally astute individuals - and perhaps surprisingly, they're nice guys too. What's impressive is their carefully researched acquisitiveness, which they've utilised to scale up. Plenty of activity in France, but also the Nordics and Australia over the last couple of years or so. I expect SSW to now look to acquire businesses offering different alternative broadband delivery methods and would not be at all surprised to see them targeting a number of wireless ISPs. As to whether SSW's ever-increasing presence outside the UK will present AVN with opportunities, who knows? Their primary engagement with Avanti remains UK-based (a market they've now pretty much and entirely knowingly left to their Avonline acquisition to manage while they get busy elsewhere). I'm sure they're all over Viasat, in preparation to leverage the terabyte service due over Europe in 2020, with or without Eutelsat. If it happens - and as with all things VSAT related, that's still a fairly large if - that one will be a game changer. Also pleasing to note that the French government acknowledges the role that can only (currently at least) be played by VSAT in delivering connectivity at the extreme edges of networks. Compare and contrast with the UK Government's apparently permanent kowtowing to BT - the current UK strategy seems to revolve around spending many hundreds of millions in getting people with say 15 Mbps up to 24 Mbps, rather than spending a few tens of millions enabling the 200k or so premises with next to no service (and who thus are most in need) up to a decent connection speed. And please don't point at the BDUK Better Broadband subsidy scheme as evidence of serious government intent to help the connectivity starved. Perhaps unsurprising though, since allegedly BT employs a higher number of political lobbyists than all those working in the European VSAT industry put together...

Don't know if people have seen these before, but I thought it might be of interest to post the submission docs from both Viasat and Eutelsat into Ofcom's recent consultation on fulfilling the USO (Ofcom conclusion published Dec 16). Here they are:- https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/51478/eutelsat.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/51761/viasat.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/76403/viasat_supporting_slide_pack.pdf Obviously Eutelsat & Viasat are referring to the same assets/capabilities. If credible, this would seem to be the step change in technology that satellite-delivered broadband is so desperately in need of. 2020 is the currently estimated go-live date, but (as AVN shareholders know) such dates can slip. Even so, the window for many existing technology satellites - whether in orbit or yet to be launched - to be successfully sweated as assets would seem to be shrinking, IMO.

Given that this whole conversation started around whether satellite can reliably handle streaming for the domestic market, let me paste something that may help you, Tyche. This from AVN's own RNS-R re the Eurona deal from Jan 25th this year:- "The service delivers packages with speeds of 30Mbps using the new Jupiter 2 platform, which can support throughputs of up to 100Mbps." So, that transponder/hub combo... how many concurrent users, each running at a continuous 5Mbps, do you reckon it could support? Satellite is really not good at all for streaming in the wider market - it's much better for downloading video for later viewing. On top of the overall throughput limitations, satellite is much MUCH better at downloading single large files than multiple fragmented - and time-critical - files.

Okay Tyche, let's hear it. How many concurrent users at 5Mbps (iPlayer's minimum requirement) can a single KA transponder handle today? What's your number? I'll be interested in your reply. While you're about it, care to take a stab at what the minimum average monthly QoS that the network operators contractually guarantee for each GB-based package? Take a mid-range package, say one with a 50GB monthly data allowance as your yardstick. Again I'll be curious to see your answer.