A number of reports today—Bloomberg and Credit Suisse among them–that AT&T is this close to scooping up Qualcomm’s 700 MHz spectrum now that Qualcomm is pulling the plug on its FLO TV service.
We may find out how much spectrum is worth from this auction before CLWR's?
Success in using the spectrum is inevitable. Demand will grow, devices will flourish, applications will make use of that in more exciting and productive ways.
I did not say "Clearwire's success in using the spectrum" in regards to current investors.
The rationale for spectrum acquisitions and LTE is similar: demand is growing for mobile devices that can be used anywhere. You may not want to watch TV or other video on mobile devices.. I don't unless I am traveling. But the facts so that people are using video, file sharing, SaaS, collaboration software and services and are willing to pay for it.
Don't take any individual point of view.. look for confirmations or contrary viewpoints. For example, here is a preso by Interdigital, a provider of 2G, 3G, 4G technology (licensing and some chips) that shows the gulf between network capacity and BB demand growth, among other things: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/IDCC/1102099698x0x427607/d5b430c7-6db6-4839-b2ee-cb8e69f1fa1c/IDCC_Pres3_12.13.10.pdf
The chances CLWR will become a provider of multi-channel digital video to homes and businesses - and compete head-to-head with cable video is next to nil so long as the cable companies remain CLWR's strategic investors.
Similarly you probably will never see CLWR deliver its own mobile voice service and compete head-to-head against Sprint's own voice service as long as Sprint remains a strategic investor.
CLWR's range of business opportunities and service offerings are highly limited because of protected business areas of its strategic partners.
You are certainly right that the vision is important given the massive investment in infrastructure. I think it was a risk worth taking but it is hard to see it working out in a big way for CLWR. Do you think it is still conceivable that moderate success could come?
Two ways I can see it.
Massive adoption of smart phone/tablets. That is certainly coming but if LTE is up and running and is the preferred standard what did they really accomplish unless it is easy to convert the network over to LTE in a cost-effective fashion?
Internet television. Hesse has talked about 4G being about media and as I hate watching tv or video on my phone I always thought he must be talking about replacing cable/dsl in the home. Was this ever even a hope?
Is it possible that this could happen in a couple of years?
Basic questions I know but maybe it is a worthwhile speculative bid at some point in time.
So it doesn't matter that CLWR's ARPU is in the $4-$9 range, instead of $34-$39/mo range CLWR might get if it delivered its own mobile voice services.
You really expect institutional investors to buy that theory?
Yes, great big muddle. The value of being first is worth how much? It isn't a magic wand, 'poof' and everything turns into gold. Being first to use the next generation wireless platform network provides a long term migration path, some first mover advantages in marketplace awareness and momentum but that only goes as far as the service has reached at stage of deployment.. "Great that you've got '4G' but its not available (yet) where I am so what?". While Sprint-Clearwire was compelled to do something with the spectrum and in some regards had to take the first mover step into NG==>4G, the competition was never figured to just stand aside and watch. The threat of WiMAX becoming 4G sped up LTE development by probably 3-5 years.
The rate at which the market evolves to need higher bandwidth to require the use of the higher frequency bands is a 'big muddle': competition always tends to spur operators to adjust their move to the next generation, acquire more spectrum, and spend the tens of billion$ that is more typical for deployments.
Perhaps investors should have been looking at the situation this way: "Sprint-Clearwire is trying to do the impossible, create a profitable nationwide network to compete against networks that cost several tens of billions of dollars and have taken the past two decades to assemble marketshare leadership. They say they will do this using a new generation of technology in previously unused high frequency spectrum. and they claim they will be able to pull this off for a small fraction of the cost of the competition's networks. Are these guys hoping to discover unobtainium?"
From the start the promise has been predicated on using technology that could unlock the use of the spectrum while, coincidentally, the demand for BB has been growing at a proven rapid pace. While the technology has been proven to the extent that the "3G BORG" has assimilated it for their version of NG==>4G, the market has still needed to grow to place the service in high demand that a new competitor needs to peel away large numbers of subscribers without going bankrupt in the process. While this is a mess to figure, the trends say its only a matter of time. Getting that timing right is easy in hindsight but is the vision is the critical factor for success.
... did a good job of addressing your points, cohsgrad. Although bashers will pound away at the fact that Sprint uses a different network for voice than it does for data, that fact is virtually transparent to the the subscriber, which is what matters.
That's amusing. Anyone with money that had an inclination to invest in CLWR for the long haul already knows CLWR very well.
I like your 5 year plan of hope though. It makes the day entertaining.
... that CLWR is currently losing $4 billion a year, please refer to the company's Q3 report below to determine the magnitude of Hurtz's fabrication:
... again, I caution new readers of this board to be VERY CAREFUL when reading posts by mega-hurts as he will make up facts for the sole purpose of bashing this stock.