Tue, Mar 3, 2015, 12:09 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 9 hrs 21 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Clearwire Corporation (CLWRD) Message Board

  • apierce apierce May 16, 2012 10:15 AM Flag

    A couple of notes from conference call

    1. Prusch suggested the $300 million is a small amount of money and did not clearly explain its purpose though it reiterated that its a controlled offering ("if and when they use it" etc)

    2. He effectively said they're done in the debt markets and that the equity availability was not being used to enhance their position in the debt markets

    3. Said equity, spectrum sales and vendor financing were really only options for capital. Its very clear they don't want to sell spectrum and they will fight hard against that because they firmly believe they have a huge competitive advantage with their spectrum.

    4. Talked in detail about the advantages of TD vs. FDD and the reasons why VZ and T didn't go the FDD route (they had no choice b/c they needed talk which CLWR doesn't).

    My take: this is a race -- will they get revenue from their LTE overlay fast enough to avoid having to get too much more capital? The answer to this is a function of many things, including their ability to sell LTE wholesale services on time, which requires that devices be available on time. I believe they have no intention of selling shares with their shelf but they needed the flexibility to do so "just in case".

    The story they're telling is compelling but obviously fraught with risk. Their success may depend on factors totally outside their control, such as the global economy or the creation of new technology that solves the problem they will be attempting to solve for carriers (spectrum capacity and speed).

    If it all goes as planned, they could truly dominate and ultimately build their own (or purchase) their own retail arm to monetize their network even more. We will see how it goes but it will be a wild ride in any event.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Good post again..

    • <Why would CLWR want to replicate that kind of coverage as a wholesaler at this time? >

      Huh? HetNet is a commercialization of the capabilities brought forward by a few companies. The underlying methods could have been exploited by Clearwire starting years ago. These methods improve performance of the network regardless of whether it is used for retail or sold as wholesale. Devices/uses do not care how the signal is sent/received so long as it gets there.
      Microcell, advanced MIMO, tiered networks, use of multiple carriers are all technology and deployment methods. These are not business methods. Having the equipment and organization arranged to design and deploy the network using company employees and contractors is part of the methods of the business. Apple, for example, decided to change the business methods of the mobile industry by building an end-to-end solution that circumvented the position of operators. The iPhone/iPad were created as platforms for development of software/apps, delivery of content, as well as the sale of the end user devices... end-to-end participation that takes advantage of 100s of thousands of developers and millions of customers to change the business methods operators must follow. If you want to describe the iPhone, how much sense does it make to look at the display and say "they have the best display on the market.. that is what the iPhone is, the display and other components including a cool OS and interface". Like the iPhone, building of a killer network is 'enabled by' the technology but goes beyond that to the development community and user's actions. Without that, its just nice technology. WiMAX had a lot of nice technology potential which Clearlywired failed to put into an end-to-end solution.

      Far more revenue at much less expense can be derived by being a wholesaler of spectrum in the same areas with macro cell technology. Absolutely wrong. Read up .. "you disgust me with your nubie lack or work! ; ^) ...Especially with the depth of CLWR's spectrum. What, the depth of cash burning idle spectrum?

      <As CLWR earns more revenue they can expand coverage and offer even better service. > That is the hope that thus far has not worked out so well: Clearlywired has 1.3 million subscribers on claimed coverage of ~130 million POPs. However, that POP coverage is like saying 'it rained in Florida today' while it rained only in some places. Clearwire's real world experience is that users have problems connecting if not in ideal locations. Read the technical white papers and then go on to read the many users boards .. "I get fair reception until it rains. Then I have to move the modem to the window on the south side and carefully adjust the antenna to get 2-3 bars." Look at Clearwire's website... you will find explanation on how to place the antenna for reception that describes that type of in the window, point the antenna type scenario. Nothing wrong with that except that it might not be a problem if microcells were used, according to white papers by Ericsson and other suppliers. The technology helps just like having good pieces of technology helps make the iPhone a success... but it has to be built as a whole solution, not just this or that improved part of a solution. Nonetheless, to understand what the whole might be for various segments of the business, the enabling technology is the starting point.

    • Books don't hold water. Boats hold water.

      Books hold words. Opinions. Facts. Fiction. Pictures.

      Not sure how a book would help this analogy! Not even a soggy book trying to hold water!

      Happy Thursday!

    • Let the facts speak for themselves. Write a book and see if it holds water.

    • Clearwire is running a business here and not your personal techno amusement park. Are you so arrogant to believe that you’re more qualified than John Saw and his team of engineers? It is obvious that you have always been just a “techi worker” who sits alone in an obscured cubicle that everyone avoids, and you've never been in management.

    • Can I ask a technical question for those of you intimately familiar with the way these networks work?

      I've read that one of the weaknesses of the 2.5mhz spectrum is that it is weak on building penetration. First, how true is this and how big of a problem is it? Second, are there known solutions to the problem? And, third, has CLWR publicly stated how they plan to address this issue?

      • 1 Reply to apierce
      • Thanks for asking these foundation questions: First, just take these boards as information exchanges and always do your own searching out of the details taking note of inherent prejudices, such as how objective the source is due to commercial or other interests. Once someone buys or shorts a stock, they become prejudiced as a rule.. everyone needs to check their hat at the door so to speak... even for their own prejudices.

        Google for key words/terms such as <3GPP 700MHz compared to 2.5GHz 2.6GHz> and <WiMAX Forum 700MHz compared to 2.5GHz 2.6GHz>
        Also look at the IEEE 802.16 and 3GPP standards group web sites to drill down for white papers and discussions

        One white paper worth reading was put out by the WiMAX Forum. This is obviously not biased toward LTE. It compliments white papers by individuals companies such Motorola and ALU which can be found on their web sites.

        Here is the link for the paper: http://goo.gl/ixKzg

        This paper has much detailed analysis based on mobile industry methods for modeling of signal propagation. However, it provides simple charts that show the differences in range, building penetration, ground clearance/topography determinants, and projections for density of base stations. Other papers go into the use of microcells, MESH networking, multiple-carrier band networks, SONs, Smart Antenna technologies which can be used with 'all the above'. More recent white papers sum up parts of these discrete areas into effective commercial systems - such as the papers on HetNet. These can help develop an understanding for how the technology can be used within the current standards and commercial availability... if you want to look beyond that read the patents and forward research papers on the underlying technologies and methods.

    • I appreciate your response.

      Though, CLWR is trying to offer depth of spectrum to augment existing an existing carriers at this time.

      What you've described is HetNet that will one day come to fruition for retail carriers.

      Why would CLWR want to replicate that kind of coverage as a wholesaler at this time? Far more revenue at much less expense can be derived by being a wholesaler of spectrum in the same areas with macro cell technology. Especially with the depth of CLWR's spectrum.

      As CLWR earns more revenue they can expand coverage and offer even better service.

      Frankly they need to execute the existing business plan to the best of their ability and hope that the devices come on line as they go live.

      Right now CLWR needs to be a great partner for Speintand garner as much usage based revenue from TD-LTE when it gets launched

    • Your response didn't address what I articulated relative to the best business plan for CLWR at this:

      ...What they need to do is offer cheap spectrum in the heart of major metro cities in the from of TD-LTE.

      They have limited resources and need to monetize their spectrum depth.
      Sorry to be a broken record but that's what they need.

      Micro cell technology is a solution to a problem that CLWR does NOT have at this time. They are not trying to offer 100% coverage at this time and couldn't possible hope to do so, nor do they need to maximize existing spectrum usage via micro cell at this time, as it is what they have plenty of.

      Your response of... Not being innovative otherwise having to dilute the common further.....isn't a lucid response honestly, and avoids the discussion of what is the best business plan at this time. That is what management at CLWR is proceeding with. And that's why I asked how you would better allocate their resources to increase revenues at a faster rate???

    • Your response didn't address what I articulated relative to the best business plan for CLWR at this:

      ...What they need to do is offer cheap spectrum in the heart of major metro cities in the from of TD-LTE.

      They have limited resources and need to monetize their spectrum depth.
      Sorry to be a broken record but that's what they need.

      Micro cell technology is a solution to a problem that CLWR does NOT have at this time. They are not trying to offer 100% coverage at this time and couldn't possible hope to do so, nor do they need to maximize existing spectrum usage via micro cell at this time, as it is what they have plenty of.

      Your response of... Not being innovative otherwise having to dilute the common further.....isn't a lucid response honestly, and avoids the discussion of what is the best business plan at this time. That is what management at CLWR is proceeding with. And that's why I asked how you would better allocate their resources to increase revenues at a faster rate???

    • On a broad level, I really do not care as much as I let on here about the fate of Clearwire... this is one of the only '4G pure plays' on the planet to study as a researcher. However, I criticize them outlandishly because I have found that my little assed opinions often have to be shouted out to get heard. I get frustrated by what I think are obvious that get ignored. Heck, I get frustrated by a lot of things... but am just another happy idiot in many ways... entertained by this human comedy... including my own.

    • View More Messages
 

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.