That is not at all what it means: Wireless analysts have come to a broader understanding of the impacts of 4G and beyond technology waves.
As I wrote on my own and edited papers and articles.
It is good to compare what is going on with earnings forecasts for major competitors. This not only provides some insight into what Wall Street figures is the financial competitive position of the firms but also sheds light on whether the view of the industry at large is expanding or contracting. Note: Financial ANALysts are notorious for being overly generous in their long term forecasts. It is much more common for earnings forecasts to be more accurate for close-in quarters than for yearly and quarterly forecasts further out. About 75% of the time forecasts for three-quarters and further out will get shaved down as they come to a closer time window. Therefore, what investors should focus on are greater than what observation has taught is 'the norm' for the industry and stock. If all the companies are seeing greater than the norm revisions down (or up) it usually correlates with worse or better competitive environment.
Look at TMUS: its forecasts have been trimmed for outlying quarters but they continue to show sales and earnings increases that are bullish for the LT stock trend. The history had been a string of upward revisions up til two-quarters back. A view of T and VZW tends to show a climate of increased competition, slowing growth and profits.
The lesson is that two things could be observed: 1) industry flowing 2) TMUS rose in a competitive position as the outlier of positive sales and earnings revisions. "Follow the trends" axiom very much applies to trends in analysts and ANALysts forecasts.
While financial analysts are not perfect, the consensus forecasts offer a good barometer of direction. Financial analysts use modeling that is based on prior results and trends combined with forward guidance and predictive properties of the models (what goes in motion stays in motion until influenced by new forces acting to shift direction).
A change in the forecast of a single analyst usually does not mean much. The most influential analysts have larger followings which can impact a stock's price but even that can be washed out in the laundry of the longer term market.
What makes financial analysts take on a company more important is when they either tend to concur or when one or more step out of line with the consensus while exposing flaws or a new take on how the company will fair competitively and financially. Even though the views had long been expressed elsewhere, Moffett stepped in front of the financial analysts with his call for a $2.00 S target. That was foretelling of analysts consensus which has since come down to 3.50. That consensus caught up with the stock with ANALysts at some firms revising their forecast to fit the market.
The forecasts for earnings have been revised downward.: Zacks tallies show:
March 2017 -.25 3 up 7 down
M 2018 -.25 0 up 5 dn
M 2019 unc
June 2016 -.08 1 up 4 dn
Sept 2016 -.08 2 up 3 dn
Rumors that Apple, Google, Intel, Microsoft, and other companies would try to acquire a wireless operator have circulated for over a decade. Yet I have never seen a single executive, CFO of these companies say they had one iota of intent to do so.
This should be a warning sign for considering investing - hype rather than substantive reasons to buy the stock. This can be a sign that the facts of the investment are weak such that those hoping to see it rise have the need to write about speculation despite there being no indication of interest from the IT/Internet companies often mentioned.
There seems to be a correlation between the weakness of a company and how much hype there is about M&As: The speculation that T-Mobile will be acquired or an acquirer has subsided now that performance has improved and their game plan looks viable.
Each block of spectrum has differences including how wide the channel is (bandwidth in Hz), how uniformly it covers, and how easy it is to pair with and use with other bands without the unique development of devices and equipment. Some bands are used in multiple countries while others are unique to just a few. If it works out the there are few other populations using the band then devices must be provided that cover the unique frequency band. And that can take time and capital because the RF circuits, antennas, etc. must be provided.. stuff just doesn't happen by itself. If few are using the same bands then the operator must bear the cost of the device development and suppliers may be reluctant to even product them. For example, Sprint's use of TDD, while technically the right choice IMO, has less open market device support than 2.5GHz FDD. Sprint talked about providing support for FDD but only if another operator wanted to lease space on the network.
A big question is "What devices support DISH's frequency bands?" AWS LTE band ^^ is a new allocation that has very little device support. That means virtually nobody can use DISH's spectrum to plug in current devices. That is also true for current mobile operators who have AWS spectrum. However, they can phase that in over a period of years because current devices will continue to work on existing bands.
DISH's spectrum has some limitations because it has nearby satellite use, making interference an issue.
Another factor is mobile operators are becoming financially overextended. The plan is to buy as much spectrum as they can afford. They spent way over expectations on AWS-4 and now will spend more on 600MHz. That makes buying DISH's spectrum more of a financial stretch and less needed.
You have no right to call anyone a PRKR basher... the company lost all but a token remaining portion of equity. The technology has proven to be what I said it was, a scam that does not hold up as valid. You are a sumbag thief of honest people's money.
Brand image in the wireless sector has its foundations in the quality of the network, ease of purchase and use, and customer service. The network has to have nationwide coverage in layers - the competitive bar is set to provide both wide-coverage, approx. 330M POPS, and high bandwidth to that population. And competitive must have good coverage of places where people play, as well as live: coverage of POPs can be misleading because it does not necessarily cover all places where people vacation and travel. Competitive wireless service must provide high bandwidth in more places... having high peak rates in some locations while only narrow-band BB coverage in most other places is, at least, not galvanizing of a "good enough reason to swtich" compliment to improved brand image. Sprint has been on a quest to provide "Lumpy Gravy" experience for the past 15 years until they ran out of money to build pervasive, dense, smallcell networks. The basic design philosophy was screwed up bad.
That led to years of attempts to fix the network in places/pieces. Sprint shifted to use the same design philosophy their competitors used - use of common LTE technology and multiple-carrier band aggregation. All good methods for putting a bandaid on the basic problem of having the wrong network design... too late and too little to impact change to the degree that shifts the market.
Once you lose brand image you must do the extraordinary to gain it back.. it cannot be painting a pig with red lipstick and calling it a 'transformational' change.
If you want to use 2.5-2.6GHz in a revolutionary way, use it in a revolutionary way.. not pucked up PR double-think.
The only big mistake made was timing: DISH had shot up to near 80, almost double the current price, on speculation of its spectrum value and what might be done with it. That came after the AWS auction that witnessed a spike in the price of spectrum that led to speculation about DISH's other holdings. DISH/Ergen tried to pull shenanigans by setting up spectrum holding companies which the FCC ruled invalid. That cost DISH a few hundred million, a small amount in the scheme of things, but it also makes it clear the FCC will not let Ergen go overboard in efforts to establish a new competitor in the space.
DISH was speculatively valued when over 70. It is much less overvalued today at half that price. The operating results of the company have remained steady - the speculative value got popped to the tune of $20 billion.
Part of the short selling likely occurred weeks or months prior to the Kerrisdale announcement. The game plan of short sellers is to stake your position before promoting it, not afterward. This came after DISh had already lost ~45% from the highs. Thus far its had limited impact.
You are ignorant of ITC rulings. I have never heard of ITC ruling to block trade or summary judgements against suppliers/importers of accused products with vague patent claims and no proof of infringement. Most actions taken by ITC are done on patents that have either been validated in court or have achieved defacto validation by broad licensing to peer firms. Often the ruling is based on a patent being determined to be essential to the field, such as when the patent covers a technology used in a communications standard. Then if other firms have licensed or it is been tested in court and held to be valid, ITC can figure that other who practice the standard also use the patented technology. However, if the party can show they do not use the patent, for instance, they use an alternative or work around that circumvents the claims, then ITC may rule in their favor despite the finding that the patent is valid and others may license or have been found to infringe.
The chances of PV winning more than the chance to go back to court for another trial on issued not already in PV1 or PV2 is zero.
Yep, as soon as Trump becomes President and declares Parkervision patents are valid and anyone that F.D. Sorrells accuses of infringing does infringe by presidential decree. Jeffrey should pay Yahoo posters for all the great ideas we give him.
I broke out laughing reading the transcript of the PV CC. Jeff has come back to WiFi .. new products just on the horizon! This guy could charm the pants off of an English noblewoman (or man) during a blizzard. He has got to be yucking it up .. no way he can be serious.
Claure is in talks with a soccer club that wants to acquire Sprint. This is real speculation. Soon the US will be taken over by international soccer enthusiasts and Sprint will be way out ahead of the 'transformative momentum' trends. Just wait for it.
The patent system makes it relatively easy and cheap to file. The 'system' is cast in the adversarial context of our legal system: it sets standards that must be met in order for grant of a patent which, then, find their way through commercial adoption, licensing, or legal prosecution.
The rigors of being granted a patent are lower than the tests put to patents in, usually, the commercial world or to obtain validation in the courts. Those skilled in patent law have found ways to overburden or otherwise get patent claims granted. Then comes the difficult task of either using the patents in products or licensing them.
As an individual vs. corporately sponsored inventor myself, I understand deeply how the cards appeared to be stacked against 'the little guy'. The difficulty of pursuing patents is a real but very necessary obstacle.
Parkervision has not had a problem with having the financial means to pursue patents. Quite the contrary: Parker got patent law shysters to maneuver patents through the PTO. Then they concocted a string of stories about commercializing the claimed inventions or license them. This was done despite the fact the claims could never be proven to work because the core claims violate rules of physics - blatantly bogus from the start.
Parkervision has been all along, a carefully crafted scam operation to exploit a vulnerable system. Investors who did not have the knowledge to know this were gambling based on hunches and pleading of the very crafty snake oil salesman, Jeff Parker. That is how I said it would be some 15 years ago... it is how it is despite continued denials.
These filings appear to show activity, that while above the norm, do not change the situation - in fact, that is what the FCC is their initial finding. That is because the transactions are a balancing of the spectrum which does not trigger what is called an "FCC spectrum screen" that would be required if the transactions caused either of the operator;s spectrum holdings to exceed the limits, usually 1/3 of the available band or is an outright transfer. On a quick read, these transactions, (including others not mentioned involve AT&T and T-Mobile), appear to be more than what may be considered average/routine but might have been expected considering the recent spate of spectrum licensing and network builds that have occurred. That is because operators acquire spectrum based on how they think demand will develop. After they deploy, usage and the ability of the spectrum may be found to no longer be the best fit, making adjustments necessary. The FCC encourages operators to cooperate to make the best use of spectrum. Thus, they can, after hearings take place, be expected to approve these filings. The reason why a number of such filings appear near the same date is likely due to how negotiations occur - "I'll trade you Board Walk for Pike Place and two hotels" causes multiple transactions.
I did find a similar filing for Verizon & Sprint:
"Sprint Corporation (Sprint), and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless,
and together with Sprint, the Applicants), have filed applications pursuant to Section 310(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
1 seeking the simultaneous assignments and exchanges of full
and partitioned Personal Communications Service (PCS) licenses and a full Advanced Wireless Services
(AWS-1) license by and among Verizon Wireless and certain subsidiaries of Sprint and Verizon
2 The subject licenses cover geographic areas scattered throughout the country. The proposed
transactions involve the transfer of spectrum; no customers or networks would be transferred.
According to the Applicants, in many of the markets involved in the proposed transaction, equal
amounts of spectrum would be exchanged and therefore the attributable spectrum holdings of Sprint and
Verizon Wireless would be unchanged. The Applicants assert that the proposed spectrum exchanges
would allow for holding larger blocks of contiguous spectrum, which in turn should permit more robust
operations. In those markets where either Sprint or Verizon Wireless gains additional spectrum, the
Applicants maintain that the proposed transaction would help meet the demands of their customers for
broadband wireless services.
Our preliminary review of the applications indicates that the spectrum implicated by the proposed
transaction covers 145 counties in all or parts of 59 Cellular Market Areas (CMAs), covering
approximately five percent of the population of the United States, in parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Pre-transaction, across all the CMAs involved in these transactions, Sprint holds 41 megahertz to
225.5 megahertz of spectrum in total; post-transaction, Sprint would hold 41 megahertz to 230.5 ..."
I found no recent filings of transfer of licenses between Sprint and Verizon. However, there is a recent filing titled: "SPRINT CORPORATION AND T-MOBILE USA, INC., SEEK FCC CONSENT
TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE LICENSES"
The filing can be found on the FCC dot gov website
I will cut and paste part of the doc in a following post
Hmmm what? What are the details? Operators file exchanges and sale of spectrum on a routine basis. Posting that Sprint and VZ filed with the FCC means nothing... are you trying to be misleading? The best use of these boards is to exchange information, not hide it and hope people will let their imaginations get the better of them. I see no reason other than to mislead for not providing the details, or a link.