Tue, Mar 3, 2015, 7:24 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 6 mins

Recent

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

Clearwire Corporation (CLWRD) Message Board

teamrep 567 posts  |  Last Activity: 15 hours ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    So, Sprint & Dish, what say you?

    by mr_whigglee 17 hours ago

    ""The real value of the Networked Society lies in connecting complete systems, not only the devices in the system. That is when we can really start to unlock the hidden value that ICT enables," Vestberg noted." That's always been so.. and has become more important as broadband and media capabilities grow. From Ericsson's perspective, all operators must ongoingly up their game. Sprint can't simply copy what Ericsson is doing with other operators... the opportunity is to push out ahead using technology and approaches from Softbank and wherever else they can graft it on.

    Sprint's job is easy: just increase coverage, bandwidth density, building penetration, while lowering costs to half that of competitors... and do that in half the time it might normally take. Easy! ; ^)

  • Google is an international company. 80% of devices that use Android are sold outside of the good 'ol USA. Why is it aht American's have a cobb up their behesus's in the way they think about what Google does? G works with the leading operators around the world. They manage to sell more devices using Android inside China even though that country limits their domestic operation inside the country.

    Google may expand what they do with Sprint, T-Mobile, DISH, ie. the underdogs that can help them compete. However, they won't work with them exclusively or force feed them. Its still up to individual operators to build and sell their own network services. Sprint's location in the US helps it to collaborate on devices and seamless operation of networks, for example, but the same can be said for Verizon, AT&T, TM or DISH if it enters the space or pushes Android TV or other Google capabilities.

    The MVNO relationship should give Sprint and T-M a closer working relationship. However, you can bet that Google, particularly now that we see how they wish to position it, will not force Sprintsy to innovate if they otherwise are unwilling to do so.

  • If that were to happen it would very likely be at a glacial rate of change. IF the industry evolved to one in which mobile operators offered cloud services, corporate data mining/search, and, most importantly, location based services and mobile payments evolved to be a real challenge to Google, then the company would be compelled more to enter the fray. I think that part of the reason why Google does experimental and seed development in wireless, fiber, advanced telecommunications networking methods is to create the threat that they have the capabilities to enter the infrastructure markets of their customers if they see them trying to close them off from competition. Otherwise, no, you will not see that likely to happen beyond the minor degree it has in the past. A collaboration with Google can help Sprint develop more cohesive device and service offerings but its not going to happen on a large scale due to Google's direct participation in the operator segment.

    This is what I've been saying for years and get hit by the juvenile nimbie posters here. When New Clearwire formed, there were general plans for Google, Cisco, cablecos and Sprint to develop markets together using the vast 2.5GHz spectrum. I talked with people at Google and the other companies and found no concrete plans had been made and no commitments of capital were likely. Google sold off their share of New Clearwire to focus elsewhere. Overall, Google is more opportunistic than a major infrastructure industry developer. There is a lot of hype around fiber and other areas G gets into.. the more you learn about it, the more it turns out to be a '5% solution' at best... nice experiments that, perhaps, Sprintsy wintsy can run with if they have the innovative spirit, balls and capital to do so

  • Implicit in the understanding of what Google does should be that the company, while prodding mobile operators and other ICT industry participants, it does not want to turn customers into outright enemies.

    Mobile operators are generally wretched at doing mobile platforms and applications software.. except to tweak them to work on their networks. Most users avoid their netops own applications in favor of those from Google and other providers to do common tasks such as email, messaging, camera, GPS maps. However, they can push alternatives to Google devices including Apple and Microsoft/Nokia OS platforms which can impact G's core revenues. The only reason G can entertain competing directly as much as they do is due to holding over 70% OS marketshare... they know that mobile ops will not bail on them... at least not quickly. However, they can push Apple and MS/Nokia vs. Android environment devices.

    Google will be extremely likely to 'bend but do not break' their relationships with mobile devices suppliers and operators going forward. The statements by Sundai confirm this long standing posture.

  • This fits with the approach Google has taken in other areas of wired/fiber and wireless networks and communications: Google enters areas it thinks need to be more or remain open to IP traffic or where innovations are possible. However, Google has always said it is doing so not to become a major competitor but to cause the targeted sector to be open to competition and innovation. Google has a vested interest in seeing the ICT, Internet and Communications Technologies, industry become an open platform for it to sell its various services.

    The only area where Google competes on a large scale in infrastructure is in cloud services platforms and, or course, services related to its core offerings of search and data mining.

    This narrows the possibilities that Google+Sprint+TM might develop into a grand scheme that creates a 'wireless broadband commons' in which devices and networks/spectrum are developed. That might have delivered a larger scale to make best use of spectrum resources and lower costs while creating a larger common market for devices that could have been useful to Sprint in exploiting their much vacant 2.5-2.6GHz spectrum.

    This takes away one of the golden rings Sprint might chase on its merry-go-round chase for growth and prosperity. While still a positive development, hopes of developing a large catalyst to growth are lowered to within the scope of another Googley experiment.

  • Dumbarse. Picking stocks should be better than 'no bumdarse knows.. so take a wild swing that makes current investors stock worth more'

  • Yea, what is needed is more news. Let's make up some stuff and post it here. That way thousands of punk lazy investors will read it because their brains are too idle to think so they'll do what we say they should do. These telecom company stocks are so complex most people don't have the foggiest clue what is driving the stock price but they read stuff on the web.. "news" for advice on where to invest. It's like taking candy from babies... buy a stock, pump it up on web boards, and blame someone else if the picks prove wrong. Wowie zowie baby, what fun is this!

  • teamrep teamrep Mar 1, 2015 9:49 AM Flag

    Yes, Parkervision lost the lawsuit at the district court. The typical odds on appeal are 17% for recovering part of the case. Complex patent cases are never (can't find examples) reversed entirely. Since PRKR needs most of the monetary award to justify a higher stock price, this narrows the odds of the investment to a few percent chance of 'winning'.

    The three IPRs have over 60% odds of resulting in invalidation of one or more independent claims. That would cause the lawsuit against Qualcomm to dropped. Parker could then file a new lawsuit based on the revised/remaining patents. The odds of reaching that point are perhaps as high as 1.75% if all goes well for Parkervision.

  • teamrep teamrep Mar 1, 2015 9:36 AM Flag

    You clearly nuts. Read a little about what Google fiber is and what its not. GF is currently deployed in Three metro areas, Kansas City Pueblo, and Austin. It is targeted at four more cities, Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, and Raleigh-Durham. The start of the Atlanta deployment was just announced on Google's fiber blog site. G lists five more 'potential' US cities.

    According to a 2012 study, "Google has covered 0.007% of the populated world’s surface since July 2012. If it were to keep rolling out its services at the same rate, it will take 107.25 years to cover the rest of the Earth"

    Sprint has no direct ties to Google fiber efforts and makes zero revenue.

    Google balloon experiment is even further from having anything to do with Sprintsy wintsy.

    These are valiant efforts that make big headlines. Google's past wireless efforts have been colossal flops. Naive, il-conceived efforts at MuniFi have been disbanded due to basic mistakes in coverage-demand. White Spaces effort remains irrelevant ... while aspects of WS technology are being assimilated by the mobile networks that you buy.

    Google has potential to put together a 'wireless broadband commons' that, due to leveraging of current mobile market mass, might be able to have a broad influence. Judging by G's past efforts, odds are for it to likewise fizzle. However, too few details are out to judge whatever plan there is.

  • teamrep teamrep Mar 1, 2015 9:12 AM Flag

    Short sellers are the gods .. amateur investors like to blame for their mistakes.

  • teamrep teamrep Feb 28, 2015 11:21 AM Flag

    You are looney... Google does many pilot projects that reach the millions of people around the world. So does ham radio.. that does not mean Google has any plan to extend that to a large percent of the US or world population. Stratospheric (and other altitude) balloon projects have pursued by DARPA and commercial companies around the world over the past 20 years. There have even been a few pilot projects that put up enough to cover a fairly wide area. However, not a single project, even Google's, has been used to provide free or commercial service for more than a couple of months. The problem is that even in the relative quiet of the stratosphere the weather can tunr real nasty, leaks and breakdowns can occur and keeping the balloons stationary over an area has proven a deal breaker.

    Google fiber serves a few cities. Its great stuff where you can get it. And Google plans to deploy in about 10 more locations. At the current pace, the average US citizen can hope to get it within 50 to 100 years. Google's plans call for turning over operation of the networks to municipalities.

    Goggle HASN'T done it. If you invest based on what other companies might do, you need to show how that will help out your stock. "Google will slice bananas and make chocolate sundaes for everyone in America!" could be announced.. if you can't show how Sprint will benefit its just so much juvenile hype.

  • teamrep teamrep Feb 28, 2015 10:11 AM Flag

    Most insider buys/sells are options related and, therefore, mean little. Claure is worth like $500+ million so money may mean more as a way to count than it does to average idiots like myself. Nonetheless, what is statistically important (as shown in studies of insider trades) is when insiders buy or sell at market value in an amount that is well outside of the norm, which Claure's buy qualify.

    Insiders are not always right but their willingness to put some of their own money on the table generally bodes well for the mid-long term direction of the stock. It serves as a way to convey to employees the degree of your intent and tone of the company. Often the tone is set by management that they are 'in it for their own'... they will weal and deal in ways that do not always share responsibility for what happens to the company.. such as do deals that have short term impact on the stock price for which they trigger stock option bonuses worth million$ but that latter proves negative to employees... such as causing cuts or worse. When an exec has the gumtion to stake his own money, even if a small portion of his personal wealth, it makes a statement that he is pursuing a common goal to better the company that, in turn, will help assure the future of employees. Does it take a foreigner to have that happen in America?

  • Reply to

    Tampa - the evidence you don't want us to see

    by fud.fighter2 Feb 21, 2015 7:35 PM
    teamrep teamrep Feb 28, 2015 8:38 AM Flag

    "The fictional opinion you spew".. well, this is an investor thread, isn't it? As such, people read about companies and some are wacko enough to base part of their decision to buy or sell/short stocks based on what they read on open web boards. My 'fictional opinion' is valid in regards to having led fellow idiots to make decisions that made them money. It also has, even if by happenstance, been the course of events that Parkervision has followed, ie, never having proven their technology or sold it, then rolling up the tech into storylines used to sell stock to the public, and recently to selling their story to a jury only to have the lack of evidentiary proof come back on them with Hon. Judge Dalton's ruling.

    Yes, my opinion does look like fiction to Rube Goldbergesque storyline tellers. Its fiction opposed to your story that promises fantastic results but never works.

  • Reply to

    Tampa - the evidence you don't want us to see

    by fud.fighter2 Feb 21, 2015 7:35 PM
    teamrep teamrep Feb 27, 2015 3:46 PM Flag

    Funny. Why did Parkervision choose not to develop and sell products companies actually want?

    Qualcomm may have made an error by not putting in their own IPR during the time they had to do so. However, the patents are so ill defined, covered by prior art, and broadly interpreted that Q probably was confident they would win the case in the court known to be best for handling patent cases based on facts rather than bogus stories. Parkervision had no proof that their technology worked and Q became convinced due to their investigation into its use that it could not be made to work. That gave QCOM confidence PRKR would be defeated once it came to CAFC on appeal. Q probably thought much as I had: that PV/McKool would pursue a 'storybook' case that is difficult to defend against in a patent case involving complex and obscure technology treatment. It was nice but unexpected that Judge Dalton ruled in favor of Q's JMOL. Q's case was positioned more to set up a successful appeal at CAFC than the chance they might win at the district court level.

    In any case, PRKR/McKool lost the case splendidly. QCOM, Samsung and others can enter IPRs for the second lawsuit. And its possible additional IPR's will be filed on Dud2Dud technology (sic).

  • teamrep teamrep Feb 27, 2015 12:38 PM Flag

    "Marcleo's transformative momentum" with sales hype like that, Sprint can fire their PR department and rely on this web board.

  • teamrep teamrep Feb 27, 2015 12:03 PM Flag

    Yea, really. There is no program that differentiates Sprint from its competitors. Adding of 5,000 base stations and smallcell B.S. is not going to put Sprint out ahead of anyone, except T-Mobile. The timing and funding of the deployments is speculative. Since Sprint already has iDEN sites, conversion of those would be at lower cost than new sites. The 2.5GHz LTE sites likely includes many new sites which requires some time to acquire access and higher cost. In any case, the numbers are that of a network improvement, not a large scale deployment. At 2.5-2.6GHz about five times the number of base stations are required compared to 600-800MHz in order to achieve similar consistency of coverage and in-building penetration. The information also says that about 4,000 base stations would be for expanded coverage, likely using lower frequency bands. That can help put Sprint closer inline but still well short of numbers of Verizon and AT&T.

    As you have experienced, the market has so much patience before results are needed that show improvement in current or expected future results. Sprint is making progress to improve quality and coverage to be closer to that of major competitors. However, this has to result in a big shift in subscriber growth and bottom line numbers before this will result in lasting improvement in the stock price. Otherwise, investors will hype up the promise, deflate on the falling short of web board expectations.

  • Reply to

    Name of a PRKR component Sales rep?

    by bjingles Feb 27, 2015 10:04 AM
    teamrep teamrep Feb 27, 2015 11:07 AM Flag

    Why not call Parkervision sales department?.. kinda dumb to ask a Yahoo! web board for such particulars when the normal channel is the sales department of whatever company you want to find out about.

    Use of independent sales reps is very common way for a small parts, specialty software and equipment suppliers to get professional salespeople pushing their products into the market. Some leading companies like Philips have used sales reps because it gives them more bang for the buck compared to hiring field salespeople.

    I was in that business... ala 'Teamrep': short for Thorough Electronics Applications Marketing Representatives (been around mil-aero sales which love acronyms) . I repped electronics component firms including semiconductors, passive components, assemblies, sensors. Over time I shifted to mil-aero, test instruments and systems then to telecom. I wouldn't have likely taken on Parkervision because they have no sales.. therefore no commissions to make it worthwhile.. and because of what I think about the parts and technology as being worthless in the marketplace.

    If I had taken it on, I'd expect to see results within a year... or darn well close.

    You can find out about independent reps at ERA, Electronic Reps Association, MANA and other associations. I was a member of ERA and MANA.

  • teamrep teamrep Feb 27, 2015 10:50 AM Flag

    Old news, however, it is notable that Masa Son brought in a technical and deployment expert team from Japan headed by Junichi Miyakawa.

    Son has put his crack technical team onto the task of improving Sprint's competitiveness in networks. However, Sprint-SB must do things differently in the US - it is not primarily a technical shift that will give Sprint a needed edge to rise up the ranks. That's because everyone else now has access to the LTE-Advanced technologies and help from suppliers. When Junichi had helped lead Softbank to jump into Japan's early version of LTE and lead the world in the use of smallcells and network base station servers, it provided a distinct advantage over what had been considered unassailable competitors DoCoMo and KDDI. Softbank used a combination of lower pricing and creative marketing to not just turn around the acquired companies but to develop them into a new model for deployments centered on novel network architecture. The 'massively smallcell' and centralized base station server network architectures engineered and deployed by Softbank were well suited for Japan, a country the size of the state of California with several times the density of fiber optic and smallcell base station deployments ready for Softbank to build the leading edge network architectures. Junichi-Son must think beyond that box to the US scenario if they hope to do more than tread water against rivals.

  • teamrep teamrep Feb 26, 2015 8:31 PM Flag

    Sprint has done enough to pull close to being tied with T-Mobile for a shared 3-4 spot. That is a move down from prior years but shows a positive shift in momentum from steep downward to evening out at a lower and still unprofitable level. Incremental improvements can be viewed for a) ROI, and b) for change in P&L trajectory. While applauded, unless the capex of recent years and ongoing investments results in an accumulated surplus needed to repay the build cycle and new plateau of investment endemic of the industry, then it is a business failure, plain and simple. What compelled Masa Son to think Sprint was worth acquiring was that he might replicate a fair amount of the success he had examples in acquiring failing wireless companies in Japan. I understand the basics for his success and think well enough of it and of Sprint's US circumstances to think a turn around was, and still is conceivable. However, by whatever means he may wish to fashion it, it must be done by dealing with Sprint's fundamental faults in a timely fashion. He has done some of that: gutting costs, shifting to more efficient contracted engineering and deployments, streamlining device supply chains, converting networks. However, that does not change the lopsided arrangement of spectrum and costs of deploying for wide area coverage or large scale densification while achieving lower cost than competitors so that a lower cost to consumers is not lunacy.

  • teamrep teamrep Feb 26, 2015 5:40 PM Flag

    The overall message to Sprint from regulatory actions and how markets have evolved is that the company must 'innovate to survive/thrive'. The Title II decision, Google or RadiosHack deals, the ~5000+4000 base station re-task and smallcell deployment campaign or any other action does not shift the pivot point in Sprint's operations by enough because it does not shift the cost factor of building out the 2.5GHz spectrum or provide funds to acquire and build on 600MHz. Masa Son is focused properly in characterizing the situation as SB not being willing to invest significantly more in Sprint if the ROI does not make sense. I suspect his analysis has resulted in expectation of improvement that does not shift the pivot. S will continue to lose money on operations into the foreseeable future regardless of these moves.. and will continue to need a fresh round of investment down the road for which there is no clear path other than again seek bailing out for the purpose of only incremental positive change in position... if that.

    If the FCC had not ruled IP BB subject to Title II, there would be stronger difference S and TM could build upon... particularly Spintsy with its wondrous supply of 2.6GHz spectrum. Sprint is Open IP without the brainpower and cumulative actions of WiFi's hundred's of millions of small/personal cell user deployments to empower it. Still brain dead after all these years.. and still continuing to fall behind.

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.