StarHub    Last:1.16    +0.01

Starhub

well the thing is how much does a wimax point cost? can any company set up a wimax point for low cost just like a wifi point?

 

That's why Wimax haven't roll out. But it's more complicated than that. Anywa, the telcos (together with eye-dee-aey) will not be so stup*d to shoot their own feet.

humblepie      ( Date: 25-Mar-2010 19:17) Posted: there is another threat to the 3 telcos that is rolling out wimax. what is missing in the past is wimax compatible phones. if i am correct one wimax point can cover the whole of singapore. rolling this out might just undermine the telcos, which will make their 3g , lte investment wasted.  still to determine how badly this will play out.

 

there is another threat to the 3 telcos that is rolling out wimax. what is missing in the past is wimax compatible phones. if i am correct one wimax point can cover the whole of singapore. rolling this out might just undermine the telcos, which will make their 3g , lte investment wasted.

 still to determine how badly this will play out.

 

right now, i have one 27" TV infront of my lap top, err...any idea right now, if there is any gadgets to link up to watch programme from internet?

christan      ( Date: 25-Mar-2010 16:34) Posted: probably end 2012 when singapore is fully fibred.

 

probably end 2012 when singapore is fully fibred.

 

""" ditching cable for web-based TV is an increasingly attractive option.* High-end consumer electronics companies like Sonos and Sony already sell products to link your TV wirelessly to your computer or directly to the Internet.""""

 

Wow, we dont have to subscribe to SCV anymore!

 

humblepie      ( Date: 25-Mar-2010 06:39) Posted: Cable TV Is Doomed Mar 18 2010, 11:30 AM ET The death of cable television would probably still be inevitable without the Federal Communications Commission's national broadband plan, which aims to expand broadband Internet access to 90% of Americans and dramatically increase access speeds. But the measure, if it passes, will accelerate the demise of cable television as the standard method of consuming television. Now that Google is leading the way in developing Internet TV, the rise of this technology will come even faster. Cable TV was always a bad model for the consumer because, in a sense, you're paying twice. When you watch The Daily Show, for example, you pay the cable company to bring Comedy Central's programming into your home. But you also contribute to Comedy Central's bottom line by watching its ads. However, the Internet allows you to connect directly to Comedy Central without the cable company go-between. You only pay once -- either with your eyeballs on ComedyCentral.com, or with your wallet on iTunes. (Sure, you have to pay for Internet access, but if you consider it a necessary utility rather than an optional luxury, as the FCC's national broadband plan clearly does, then that cost is incidental. That is, access to streaming TV shows isn't the primary reason you buy Internet access. It's a bonus.) We're already familiar with two business models for web TV: Hulu's ad-supported programming and iTunes' micro-payment system of about $2 per ad-free show. Both of these are preferable to cable not only because they're more cost-effective but because they allow the viewer a greater degree of control. You only pay for what you watch, whereas with cable you pay primarily for things you'll never watch. Americans watch on average 5 hours of TV a day, so a cable subscriber with 100 channels is only consuming 0.2% of the programming he or she is charged for. With the average cable bill swelling to $64 a month in 2009 from $47.50 a month in 2004, ditching cable for web-based TV is an increasingly attractive option.* High-end consumer electronics companies like Sonos and Sony already sell products to link your TV wirelessly to your computer or directly to the Internet. The two greatest obstacles for web TV are video quality, which lags online, and certain programming. While more TV shows are available online all the time, news and sports remain the big holdouts. The problem is that these shows are best viewed in real time, but live streaming technology still produces jumpy and relatively low quality video. Foxnews.com just can't sustain a million viewers flooding its web site for four hours every evening. So news shows opt to upload high-quality clips after the broadcast is over and sports events tend to not make it online at all. But broadband speeds have risen for years (excepting a recent stagnation) and the FCC aims to make it many times faster. Inevitably, broadband capacity will catch up to the monumental demands of live-streaming 60 Minutes and Monday Night Football to millions-strong audiences. The gradual rise in capacity will also close the gap in video quality between web and cable. When YouTube launched in 2005, few users had the bandwidth to watch the videos. Five years later, not only can nearly everyone watch, but YouTube has introduced progressively higher resolutions to take advantage of growing bandwidth. Eventually, the picture quality of web videos could match or even exceed that of high-definition TV. After all, cable video quality is fixed. Ratcheting up the resolution, as with the introduction of digital high-definition TV, requires cable providers to overhaul entire networks of physical infrastructure and requires consumers to buy new hardware. Cable can't keep that up. It's not hard to foresee a day when Americans come home and, using an Internet TV system that would probably look a lot like your DVR menu, queue up the latest situation comedy or key in to a live news broadcast. Maybe shows will have traditional ads, maybe they'll be ad free but cost a dollar each, or maybe viewers will get to choose. But payment model would be just the beginning of the changes. Networks, no longer forced to fill exactly 24 hours of daily programming, would act more like movie studios, releasing as many or as few titles as they wished. High-quality shows would prosper as networks dropped the unneeded filler. The market would open up to anyone with a camera and a server host, inviting a flood of independent TV shows produced on a shoestring by directors with broad creative license. Ironically, the much-troubled print journalism business could find its way into broadcast. Outlets like the New York Times and the Atlantic already put out video. One day, Atlantic TV could compete with Nightline and Meet The Press. We're no Katie Couric, but it's better than paying a cable bill. _______________ *Of course, I know that cable is cheaper because it bundles. Five hours of TV a day multiplied by $2 per hour-long show would means $300 a month on cable. That's too much. So what's more likely is that iTunes or Hulu begins experimenting with different pay models. One can imagine, say, $10 a month for infinite access to Hulu, or a Sam's Club-style program where paying a low monthly subscription rate gives viewers a cheaper micropayment rate on each iTunes-sold show. The specific strategies don't particularly matter now. The point is that there's no cable-bill middle-man, and that cuts significant fees on manpower and infrastructure upkeep.

 

Added value for Star-hub then.

ValueNCIndex      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 01:16) Posted: D-Link Router for Starhub Digital Voice Modem

 

Cable TV Is Doomed

Mar 18 2010, 11:30 AM ET The death of cable television would probably still be inevitable without the Federal Communications Commission's national broadband plan, which aims to expand broadband Internet access to 90% of Americans and dramatically increase access speeds. But the measure, if it passes, will accelerate the demise of cable television as the standard method of consuming television. Now that Google is leading the way in developing Internet TV, the rise of this technology will come even faster.

Cable TV was always a bad model for the consumer because, in a sense, you're paying twice. When you watch The Daily Show, for example, you pay the cable company to bring Comedy Central's programming into your home. But you also contribute to Comedy Central's bottom line by watching its ads. However, the Internet allows you to connect directly to Comedy Central without the cable company go-between. You only pay once -- either with your eyeballs on ComedyCentral.com, or with your wallet on iTunes. (Sure, you have to pay for Internet access, but if you consider it a necessary utility rather than an optional luxury, as the FCC's national broadband plan clearly does, then that cost is incidental. That is, access to streaming TV shows isn't the primary reason you buy Internet access. It's a bonus.)

We're already familiar with two business models for web TV: Hulu's ad-supported programming and iTunes' micro-payment system of about $2 per ad-free show. Both of these are preferable to cable not only because they're more cost-effective but because they allow the viewer a greater degree of control. You only pay for what you watch, whereas with cable you pay primarily for things you'll never watch. Americans watch on average 5 hours of TV a day, so a cable subscriber with 100 channels is only consuming 0.2% of the programming he or she is charged for. With the average cable bill swelling to $64 a month in 2009 from $47.50 a month in 2004, ditching cable for web-based TV is an increasingly attractive option.* High-end consumer electronics companies like Sonos and Sony already sell products to link your TV wirelessly to your computer or directly to the Internet.

The two greatest obstacles for web TV are video quality, which lags online, and certain programming. While more TV shows are available online all the time, news and sports remain the big holdouts. The problem is that these shows are best viewed in real time, but live streaming technology still produces jumpy and relatively low quality video. Foxnews.com just can't sustain a million viewers flooding its web site for four hours every evening. So news shows opt to upload high-quality clips after the broadcast is over and sports events tend to not make it online at all. But broadband speeds have risen for years (excepting a recent stagnation) and the FCC aims to make it many times faster.

Inevitably, broadband capacity will catch up to the monumental demands of live-streaming 60 Minutes and Monday Night Football to millions-strong audiences. The gradual rise in capacity will also close the gap in video quality between web and cable. When YouTube launched in 2005, few users had the bandwidth to watch the videos. Five years later, not only can nearly everyone watch, but YouTube has introduced progressively higher resolutions to take advantage of growing bandwidth. Eventually, the picture quality of web videos could match or even exceed that of high-definition TV. After all, cable video quality is fixed. Ratcheting up the resolution, as with the introduction of digital high-definition TV, requires cable providers to overhaul entire networks of physical infrastructure and requires consumers to buy new hardware. Cable can't keep that up.

It's not hard to foresee a day when Americans come home and, using an Internet TV system that would probably look a lot like your DVR menu, queue up the latest situation comedy or key in to a live news broadcast. Maybe shows will have traditional ads, maybe they'll be ad free but cost a dollar each, or maybe viewers will get to choose. But payment model would be just the beginning of the changes. Networks, no longer forced to fill exactly 24 hours of daily programming, would act more like movie studios, releasing as many or as few titles as they wished. High-quality shows would prosper as networks dropped the unneeded filler. The market would open up to anyone with a camera and a server host, inviting a flood of independent TV shows produced on a shoestring by directors with broad creative license. Ironically, the much-troubled print journalism business could find its way into broadcast. Outlets like the New York Times and the Atlantic already put out video. One day, Atlantic TV could compete with Nightline and Meet The Press. We're no Katie Couric, but it's better than paying a cable bill.

_______________

*Of course, I know that cable is cheaper because it bundles. Five hours of TV a day multiplied by $2 per hour-long show would means $300 a month on cable. That's too much. So what's more likely is that iTunes or Hulu begins experimenting with different pay models. One can imagine, say, $10 a month for infinite access to Hulu, or a Sam's Club-style program where paying a low monthly subscription rate gives viewers a cheaper micropayment rate on each iTunes-sold show. The specific strategies don't particularly matter now. The point is that there's no cable-bill middle-man, and that cuts significant fees on manpower and infrastructure upkeep.

 

Very nicely done. 2.28 was a non-issue resistance. :)

 

Long term I ride on profit on this counter.(Stable growth counter)

EQ_Trader      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 14:02) Posted: haha ! well said!  pharoah88      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 13:56) Posted: it is a  TRUE-HEARTED  ADMIRATION. IMAGINE,  if  every  CPF member can  enjOy  this  kind  of  BENEFITS, they  would  honour  you  as  the  *FATHER of CPF*. there is  nO need  to have the  pathetic  REVERSE  MORTGAGE  proposal  by  HDB.

 

haha ! well said! 

pharoah88      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 13:56) Posted: it is a  TRUE-HEARTED  ADMIRATION. IMAGINE,  if  every  CPF member can  enjOy  this  kind  of  BENEFITS, they  would  honour  you  as  the  *FATHER of CPF*. there is  nO need  to have the  pathetic  REVERSE  MORTGAGE  proposal  by  HDB. EQ_Trader      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 13:49) Posted: hey pharoah!  should i say thanks? is it a compliment? :)

 

it is a  TRUE-HEARTED  ADMIRATION.

IMAGINE,  if  every  CPF member can  enjOy  this  kind  of  BENEFITS,

they  would  honour  you  as  the  *FATHER of CPF*.

there is  nO need  to have the  pathetic  REVERSE  MORTGAGE  proposal  by  HDB.

EQ_Trader      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 13:49) Posted: hey pharoah!  should i say thanks? is it a compliment? :) pharoah88      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 13:05) Posted: EQ_Trader  should be the CHAIRMAN  of CPF BOARD so that  every CPF member  gets  FREE STARHUB  shares  after receiving FIVE years of  dividends as well as more dividends to come in future years. this is  the  TRUE  TALENT  that  Singapore  needs.

 

hey pharoah!  should i say thanks? is it a compliment? :)

pharoah88      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 13:05) Posted: EQ_Trader  should be the CHAIRMAN  of CPF BOARD so that  every CPF member  gets  FREE STARHUB  shares  after receiving FIVE years of  dividends as well as more dividends to come in future years. this is  the  TRUE  TALENT  that  Singapore  needs.      EQ_Trader      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 11:59) Posted: bro is 20Cts    so far i keep 5 yrs. my share is almost free now. hehe.

 

EQ_Trader  should be the CHAIRMAN  of CPF BOARD

so that  every CPF member  gets  FREE STARHUB  shares 

after receiving FIVE years of  dividends

as well as more dividends to come in future years.

this is  the  TRUE  TALENT  that  Singapore  needs.     

EQ_Trader      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 11:59) Posted: bro is 20Cts    so far i keep 5 yrs. my share is almost free now. hehe.

 

ANYTIME

STAR HUB  is  bEttEr  than  CPF  ANNUITY.

fOr STAR HUB  DiViDEND  is  FREE.

fOr  CPF  ANNUITY   PAYOUT  WiLL  eliminate  CPF  PRINCIPAL.

STAR HUB  BOARD  should  manage  the  CPF  BOARD.

STAR HUB  MADE MONEY OUT OF  NO MONEY

CPF  ANNUITY   MAKES   CPF  PRINCIPAL  INTO  NO MONEY  AT  THE  END

WHO  IS  BETTER  TO  MANAGE  CPF  ANNUITY ?

 

 

What I meant is if no 0.20.... 0.16 more than enough...

 

bro is 20Cts    so far i keep 5 yrs. my share is almost free now. hehe.

 

Zero growth to me also doesn't matter .... so long can maintain the profit at current level and dividend constantly pay out. To me $0.16 pa more than enough...

 

hi guys.. well in stock market, its good to have a gd calculation method. however if market is at down trend no matter wat news the stock counter wont have much impact to move. logically look at it, don u think if a company can maintain payout dividend will be classified as gd company?

genting for eg? it may be a potential company, but  how soon will u see a dividend pay out? whether this company make money in long term no one will noes?

rather be smart buyer right? thiis counter is u risk and u gain.  others ? u think?

share with u something?  i take back bout 4k per yer for the dividend. is my one month pay bonus.

just hold it. no regrets. 

 

STAR HUB  is  One  ExcEllEnt  ExamplE  Of:

HOW  MAS's  lOw  iNterest  Rate Policy  transfErs   WEALTH   frOm   RETIREES'  CPF  and  Bank  Deposits  tO  corporate  borrowers.

this  is  BAD Monetary Policy  fOr  the  CITIZEN  DEPOSITORS, especially  RETIREES.

lOOk  at  Australia,  hOw  they  pay  gOOd  Deposit iNterest  Rates to  their  citizens.

lesliesiaky      ( Date: 24-Mar-2010 00:01) Posted: Negative asset is based on current asset, net asset (non current) is still positive as you have indicated. That is probably why humblepie pointed out to consider the long term cash flow. Depending on how you see it, the rationale of having negative asset (attribute mainly by its loan) but yet still distributing 10% dividends with long term loan decreasing year over year, could simply indicate it is better off to bear the low interest debt and maintain a high yield return to shareholders. Some people might not like this combination, as it might indicate company is taking the stand that shareholder is better off investing the 10% payout themselves as compared to Starhub reinvesting into the business for future growth. If starhub can maintain its cashflow for the next few quarters, with some organic revenue growth, then it should be strong indication that it has achieve a good mix of cash return and growth that should propel the stock back to $3 region. The future competitions with SingTel and M1 is something that put some investor away, .