The race to compete involves cannibalization of succeeded modes of momentum by all operators. Price wars are a way to compete for short-mid term gains that fits with the overall trends of enabling networks and services. In a gross way of looking at the competitors, Verizon and AT&T are lowering prices reluctantly even though the advance of technology and amalgamation of markets should allow decreases/unit over time. The industry juggernauts are able to avoid the degree of competition based on price that Sprint and T-Mobile must engage in within the structured flow of 'eat your own' competition.
Vomit, chortle, ad naseum ... Sprint must get their networks working right to compete. There is no leap to the front of the pack from being the 4th string player in spectrum and networks.
The Framily Plan is a marketing attempt to update Sprint's plans .. it is a great idea but lacks the backbone of network performance across the populace or the integration from the network up to be more than the typical popycock exuding from the anuses of Sprint management.
You seem to know less about what happens than Nin Laden and he's dead.
You and Parker/McKoolaide try to explain a process a_ without any showing of proof presented to the court or anywhere else. B) If we and the court were to accept it, the way this purportedly works is not explained, its Fiary Dust buggery for incompetent idiots like yourself to spend money chasing.
That is the 'black box proof' that could have been used several years ago to show off the technology. I was involved with using a black-box test article circuit that showed off signal acquisition technology before the patents were granted... clients were able to fully observe the test setup, inputs and outputs and compare that to the operation of circuits designed without use of the technology. PV could have brought in a test article into the courtroom alongside or with a disablement capability to show a conventional mixer operation. Why not? Because it would require additional circuit functions to implement. Why hasn't PV provided that in the past as a way to win over customers to the technology without having to give away all the details? I've asserted over the years its because the technology either does not work as advertised or it does not work without complex and problematic additional circuitry and operation.
The company and its lawyers cannot get to what Parker needs to show as proof of the alleged technology. I say they can't get there period. In the more restricted court case, that is undoubtedly true.
That is just wrong: " D2D BB generation happens in a continuous process over a full clock cycle." The energy from the carrier wave cannot be integrated over a full cycle of the baseband signal. Or perhaps you mean something else?
DT is a company that takes very deliberate moves. The article stating DT may hold onto TMUS through the spectrum auctions is notable because it is a shift from their stance over the past ~five years. This is not a contest primarily between T-Mobile and Sprint: even though they clash very visibly, they both want and need to gain share from Verizon and AT&T and get a greater portion of the remaining Americans who don't have or will expand their SmartPhone and broadband use. The two could fight it out as the junk yard dogs while VZ and T sit back with smiles on their faces unless the dogfight results in peeling away some of the 68% market leaders share. One aspect of the dogfight is that it creates public awareness and 'call to action'.. "Hey wifey, maybe we should consider changing the family mobile service.. some great deals out there.. Sprint and T-Mobile are going at each other.. Verizon is good but expensive."
RCR: Deutsche Telekom’s attempt to find a new investor or owner of its U.S. operations appears to have stagnated, with the German telecom giant reportedly now considering ownership of T-Mobile US for at least another year.
This is a vote of confidence from DT that TMUS can continue to grow their business based on ramping of networks ahead of competition. How is T-Mobile 'ahead of competition'? T-Mo has built the multiple carrier network that has the compliment of coverage and bandwidth capacity to support an aggressive marketing campaign that gained momentum ahead of closest rival Sprint. And TMUS is doing some of the 'innovation in the network' that helps keep them ahead in the market.
The success of Sprint does not depend on beating out T-Mobile but offering a better value that results in gains against VZ, AT&T and overall market growth. Both Sprint and T-Mo are going after the value segment of the market ... T-Mobile has the right formula and momentum to carry forward with good prospects of continuing to stay ahead of Sprint and gain share, modest but a few percent of share makes a lot of difference if networks are leveraged well. Sprint has likely turned a corner but is in a 'keeping head above water' mode until they gain spectrum or 'innovate in the network to market in scale.
Justr put him on ignore.. such statements as that add no value. Responding to them, I find, just encourages more obnoxious posting. If readers can't figure out the extreme statements are not worth reading then what good does it do to protest them... the lazy suckers among board readers will usually get what they deserve - loss of their money.
If Parkervision had laid out their case from the start to show that the baseband was created either as two points of conversion, both at the output/by the mixer and at the TX capacitor or showing that a process occurred between the mixer and TX filter by showing measurements or a live demonstration as Judge Dalton mentioned, then they might be grounds on appeal. However, there has never been the evidence shown to support any theory of circuit operation upon which a reasonable jury could deduce a finding of infringement.
The only thing left is the capital and litigation momentum that keeps PRKR alive as a traded stock.
Comments on this board that short interest is high, suggesting that can fuel a higher price are wrong: short sellers can ride any ripples in upward fantasy chasing to cover their positions at zero or within not worth the bother distance from it.
The wireless industry is a high turns cash-flow business model.. a fast moving treadmill. How well Sprint will fair over the next 2-3 years given the current framework for deployments and partnerships, etc. is bound by how many subscribers they can gain. I don't think there is any chance for Sprint to grab in the range of 10-14 million new subscribers. Not everyone will take advantage of the new pricing .. many people just stick with what they have because they don't take the effort. The subscriber base may take 18-36 months to be mostly converted to the new pricing structure. However, there is no doubt this will impact the topline.. which is why Claure has stressed price cutting and started by making cuts in visible areas and sending the message to managers and employees that anything that can't justify the expense will be cut. I view Claure as a person who follows through. Coming from being the founder and CEO of a very lean distribution and service operation, the guy knows how to cut costs to the bone while being competitive. He also knows that Sprint will take time to change stripes.
Sprint (S) has come down to a level where support may form. It time to stop profit taking/selling or selling of covered calls in a buy-write strategy and consider buying back those calls (caching). I think S will head into a range bound sideways trend until results or news determine otherwise.
Long term rating is hold for new trend catalyst to emerge, perhaps some tepid buying if you think the longer term direction is up or the stock will bounce between about 6.10 and 7.10.
That is off by about 6 years, the emergence of LTE-Advanced, new ownership and new management, and a more evolved marketplace in which SmartPhone have HD screen graphics and recording and mobile-social creates increased demand. Thus far Corpus Christie does look almost the same as Clearwire from the perspective of being focused on fixed broadband as an attachment to mobile service rather than a closely integrated network user device to device/node to wide are network and media services development. The RoofTop units DISH is using add high gain MIMO antennas to transmit Wi-Fi service and do not appear to be multimode 3G+LTE+WiFi or do Hop routing. Its a limited approach but given the improvements in technology an the fact that there are about 2 billion Wi-Fi capable TVs, handheld devices, set-top boxes/Sling recorders, etc. the market dynamics are very much different than Clearwire.
The approach is what is different fellow idiot: Clearwire had limited ability to deploy RoofTop units. The RoofTop units can evolve with the field rather than as a unaccepted standard. And using first mile nodes has the potential to not just deliver BB and TV to the home but also to sen Wi-Fi and LTE to communicate with the much more prolific amount of devices that our fellow idiots are now using. The technology is primed, the market is primed, and the merging opf mobile and TV/media enhanced by social sharing is here now.
Use your brain instead of being a one trick mental midget.
Not newsworthy... Iliad is not worthy of acquiring TMUS .. I agree with DT's BOD. T-Mobile is best being on their own for a while so long as they can get enough financing to go after 600MHz spectrum auction and deploy networks. T-Mobile is in a better position than Sprint and likely retains the better marketing image among the two junk yard dogs. That can continue to result in gains in subscribers, although probably at a slower pace now that Sprintsy wintsy has entered the 'price war' that T-Mobile started.
Let the roll of the dice ride.
The clash between pumpers (longs) and bashers (short or grudge monsters) is wasting a lot of space, cluttering up the board. Fine to have an opinion, even a biased one... but posting the same basic thing 40 times is juvenile.
What we know and what we don't know: we know stuff like Sprint has entered the price war and leads with an iPhone plan independent articles have said is the best deal (all else being equal).
What we don't know and can't fully until results are known is how well Sprint will do in stemming the tide of defections of core post-paid subscribers. My own opinion is that Sprint has probably turned sales momentum around to become net positive, but not by a large number. Add-on and pre-paid subscriptions may have a strong showing including through MVNOs. Once again, cost cutting will be highlighted. This has the potential to surprise in magnitude.. even though details of some cuts have been known. At worst, cost should not be a big let down imo.
What we don't know is how sales are doing: reports by individuals is not up to measure of the type of survey an analyst would typically do. In the least, they would have a list of questions on key metrics that would be asked, recorded and compiled into a report format without bias. Just asking one or two sales people what they think is plagued with chance for happenstance and bias. That is why I asked fellow idiots to ask a series of questions and report what they found. That was an experiment to see whether the useless chatter among lots of posters could be turned into something more useful.. power of the open Internet and all. It didn't work but perhaps some will use the method of mall/store walking to gain personal insights.. so long as they get their bias out of it.
Sprint had been the company that was speculated to be most likely to have ushered in quadruple play broadband-voice-messaging-TV/media starting with introduction of WiMAX. The same thing prevents that from happening now as in the past: lack of deployment to reach the majority of users with consistently high bandwidth to do OTT or grab marketshare. What makes you think the overall picture has changed?
On the one hand, Sprint's dense urban deployments that include Spark 2.5GHz is capable of much higher bandwidth. On the other hand that only reaches into ABOUT 20% of the US market within users homes. If you cannot get a strong signal, OTT does not compete and Sprint has to rely on having lower pricing to hold onto marketshare. The partnership with DISH or Sprint's own pursuit of a tiered network approach using RoofTop eNodeB routers can change that if its done in a broad program. Nothing like that has been announced. For now, the prospects for Sprint is to hold onto or slightly grow share based on being the low cost supplier with 'best network' status in isolated metro areas. The results of the recent campaign will be an important measure or how well the new price aggressive approach is doing.. namely, do consumers buy based on low price or are they being swayed by better service of competitor's networks? With TV on the horizon a new set of questions will arise if Sprint has no or only a limited counter.
VZ has TV going on wwithout DISH, Sprint lacks low-band spectrum or a strategy other than delivering broadband with TV running over the top.. so they should very much more want DISH. Son expressed so much early in 2014. Its why Sprint has done the trial with DISH which has now gone into a commercial phase.
There are some parts of the strategy of rolling out a hybrid fixed-satellite-mobile service package between Sprint and DISH or other operators like nTelos: 1) The rollout can be done area by area similar to Sprint's recently modified strategy of rolling out full 2.6GHz Spark. 2) The alignment in deployment strategies could lead to speculation that a mutual strategy is being developed between Sprint, rural operators and DISH. I think its a valid piece of speculation.. can't bank it but the piece fits in the puzzle. 3) The benefits extend to advertising/marketing of a triple-quadruple play package. That could potentially result in cost savings/revenue. When VZ and T roll out mobile TV packages in a more concerted way next year, Sprint could respond with a joint package of DISH plus mobile. Without the RoofTop component that would be "same old" but is better than nothing imo. With a large scale plan for hybrid network rollout it would counter VZ/T with a lower cost and better broadband component. The problem is this cannot happen overnight while VZ has been deploying for launch of eMBMS for about two years and it will likely work well on initial launch day. VZ does need more spectrum to compete longer term.. but there are good expectations they will get it.. and move on to densified networks that give up to ~10X boost in capacity over the next ten years using the current spectrum. Three x boost is feasible.
Keep in mind, while operators are pigs at the regulator and Congressional banquets asking for 'we need more spectrum', their alternative is to deploy denser networks. That is particularly true now that LTE-Advanced rel 10+ is rolling out.
I don't think VZ will try to acquire DISH but has said they are interested in and have talked to DISH about acquiring some of their Spectrum, the AWS. The problem with VZ acquiring DISH is that they already are pursuing both OTT, over the top, and multicast/unicast eMBMS LTE. Verizon will be able to achieve about 150 million POPs coverage when they open that up come the middle of next year and 220 mil by early 2016, 85% US POP coverage by the end of 2016. What do they need DISH for?
The need more spectrum to expand broadband mobile. Th AWS spectrum wold be nice. Verizon will almost certainly be able to get 12-24 MHz additional 600MHz prime coverage spectrum in next year's auction. An advantage of deploying eMBMS multicast is that it uses spectrum efficiently for the specific purpose of broadcasting video for direct viewing (broadcast) or replay viewing. The alternative to owning a lot of spectrum that awaits users demand rising and for competitors to sit on their hands before dense deployment is justified (but never seems to come) is to own the right mix of spectrum and use it soon after it becomes available to print piles of money.
Chances of VZ acquiring DISH? Give it 5% because strange things can occasionally happen
Chance VZ will acquire some of DISH's spectrum? I think that is low because VZ want prime cuts while Ergen wants to sell all or nothing at a hefty price tag.. or build a competitive alternative fixed-mobile service business.
"A different baseband signal after the capacitor? Where's the evidence that it's not the same baseband signal?" It has to be a different baseband signal or its not resolved at the mixer as everyone agrees and is the purpose of the mixer. If there is an intertwining of operation between how the mixer resolves the baseband and how its, say, augmented by energy integration at the storage component, in this case the TX capacitor, a required component of the MARKMAN claims interpretation as agreed by all parties as ruled by the court, then it had to be clearly shown in the testimony and evidence. Judge Dalton found the explanations of the expert witness and Fairy Dust Sorrells to be compelling all right.. compellingly confusing and void of evidence. If Dalton had not ruled as he did, the CAFC would have looked at Qualcomm's appeal which would have continued arguments used in the JMOL, perhaps with some emphasis on recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the need to clearly teach the alleged invention, be clear, and show proof, and would have kicked the case out.
As it is tuning out, McKool has set up the case to almost certainly have PV's patents declared invalid with few if any surviving claims. The PTO must consider how Parkervision has attempted to use their patents to apply to circuits which clearly teach and are practiced in hundreds of millions of device applications using well understood circuits. The type of mixer Qualcomm uses, although having many variation, is widely used across the wireless industry. The PTO will look at the prior art and how PV has asserted their claims can apply with loose or no explanation as to how it works in each situation and will rule the claims vague, failing to teach a specific invention, and anticipated by the prior art as interpreted.
This thing is roadkill that stinks of rotting skunk flesh.. shovel it to the side of the road already.
The amount of evidence in and outside the courtroom that Qualcomm has developed, patented, and uses conversion technologies, up and down, that use the exampled Magellan quad input mixer or, perhaps, a newer version 25% or 50% phase output mixer that resolves the baseband signal without use of a latter or, as PV wants to explain it, simultaneous stage energy integration in the conversion process forms the baseline for Q's RF circuit operation. In this case it was up to Parkervision to bring into evidence the proof that shows the extraordinary step of energy integration. Although proof of actual infringement is fundamental requirement in patent cases, it should be even more so for a technology that is ill defined and taught by the patent claims that are so broadly asserted.
Again, this is all over about a last gap effort to recover a case that McKool and Parkervision have lost. The odds of that are historically slim. Made all the more so by the circumstances in this case that are impossible for McKoolaide/Parker to magically introduce, er show.