Why should/would Son/SB invest heavily into Sprint when it has opportunities like Alibaba to develop? What makes Sprint similar to the combination of factors of Telefonica Japan and exclusive introduction of the iPhone on which Sprint can ride?
Son/Softbank has built a conglomerate that has moved into explosive growth areas or established industries that could be exploited by harnessing basic industry shifts. What are tho shifts that present themselves to Sprint that would justify Son putting good money after bad, so to speak?
I think we have exhausted the potential opportunities: For Sprint to acquire 600 MHz spectrum and build more competitive networks. For Sprint to acquire DISH and build a ground-up BB-TV-mobile network using a lower cost of deployment model to go after a combined 'everything' package at lower competitive prices. These prospects look very interesting, however, because either will take additional capital and, in the case of DISH spreading of the enterprise, neither provides prospects for Sprint to grow internally so much as growth by dilution at the hands of Softbank's further investment.
You have become extremely delusional.. "There is no mixer!" ... because I can't explain how the baseband signal can be resolved by a mixer and also resolved at TX where energy must be integrated. You can sling out explanations .. they only make sense to you and some remaining longs. I am bored chatting with you about this.
TMUS down 1.3% is tanking? T-Mobile seems to be doing fine imo. Iliad has been a long shot: DT's CEO said that BOD considers Iliad's offer inadequate and had concerns about its financial strength, etc. Iliad then said they were in talks with additional funding partners but nothing appears to be coming from it. I give Iliad a slim chance of acquiring T-Mobile unless they were to partner with DISH but that is itself unlikely.
TMUS is unlikely to be acquired until after the AWS-3 auction if at all. Sprint will give T-Mobile more competition likely to limit their growth, however, they appear to be a stable operation.
" S has been the subject of a number of other recent research reports. Analysts at Barclays reiterated an equal weight rating on shares of Sprint in a research note on Thursday. They now have a $7.00 price target on the stock, up previously from $6.00. Separately, analysts at Wells Fargo & Co. reiterated an outperform rating on shares of Sprint in a research note on Wednesday, September 3rd. Finally, analysts at Goldman Sachs reiterated a neutral rating on shares of Sprint in a research note on Tuesday, September 2nd. Four research analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, eight have issued a hold rating and six have given a buy rating to the stock. The company has a consensus rating of Hold and a consensus target price of $7.67 "
The technical analysis of Sprint (S) looks short-term bearish. However, the Alibaba IPO may serve as an upside canalyst for a brief period... the impact is speculative.
I cannot find a reference to the Wells Fargo price target of $11.75 except the StreetInsider website which may have misquoted. This morning theFlyontheWall had this:
7:36 EDT S Sprint price target cut to $8-$10 from $11-$11.75 at Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo cut its price target on Sprint as the firm thinks that the company's guidance is likely to be "somewhat more muted" following its Q2 results. However, the firm thinks the company has a number of upcoming positive catalysts and keeps an Outperform rating on the shares.
I think that upside catalysts that can move the stock higher than about 7.75 will take time to emerge, perhaps several months. As posted here early this week, that leaves the most likely scenario for price action jostling around this level between about 6.60 and 7.70. As always, 'new news' can modify the outlook.
Reiterate hold, take profits, or sell covered calls on moves higher to resistance levels.
You are not having heated discussions here.. rather the failure to accept any explanation counter to that of PV despite the court decision.
Tampa touts an understanding of RF yet what he has to say ignores basic concerns brought up. If the single line idea is valid then the baseband generated at the quarter or half wave out of the filter is coupled with the integration of energy from the carrier wave. How does that occur? You have the admitted baseband signal that has removed the carrier wave.
Let's suppose that the RC filter is coupled to the mixer in such a way that the carrier wave is still present. The carrier wave signal is present at the input of the mixer, therefore the single point line must be present at both the input and out of the mixer. If Tampa does not agree with that, then ask him to explain how the carrier wave is both resent at the input of the mixer and at the output and, therefore, also at the input and output of the RC 'energy integrator'. Qualcomm says the TX RC filter operates such that the signal line 'flies by' it. Parker's Prucnal says it does not. The appeal says that the 'wire' is a single point where the baseband exists both prior to and after integration in the RC using PV's patented technology.
Tampa may find Texas Instrument's and other reference works valuable in finding an explaination: swra030.pdf
You and Parkervision did not try hard enough: PRKR/McKool did not provide evidence to support what you say happens in the circuit. The function of the TX capacitor was admitted by both Prucnal and FD Sorrells. However, then they claimed it can be used to convert energy from the carrier signal into the baseband while showing no proof that can or does occur.
Your basic problem is that whatever your side says the function of the parts of the circuit are or refute problems such as interference that might be caused, you fail miserably to show proof that Qualcomm's or any similar circuit functions in the way it must for there to be infringement.
Your real problem is you cannot admit you have lost ... insisting on fairy dust explanations.. sprinkle it on and say it will fly .. and everyone, including courts/judges are expected to believe it.
Judge Dalton shook off the fairy dust and did not believe in promised circuit operation theories without proof.
That is not so. When a signal is gated into an R-C along that wire after it has passed through the mixer to be rendered into quarter or half cycles, it is impacted by the RC constant. Qualcomm's theory of operation is opposed to Parkervision's ignoring of these facts: Q says the TX RC filter is designed to allow the RX signal to bypass that point while it filters out the transmitted (TX) signal which can occur at a magnitude higher signal level and would otherwise swamp out the received signal. If that is the way in which it operates, as a common TX filter, then PV has not case on infringement and all other aspects of the assertion for infringement are moot. If, on the baseband signal appears all along wire, then it is ignoring the impact of the RC filter. The baseband signal, Prucnal admitted, appears at the output of the mixer. The switch opens and It then enters the TX RC filter so the alleged energy accumulation can occur, right? How does that occur if the baseband has already been resolved from the carrier wave? If it does occur, where are the signal measurements to show that?
The excuse can be that the reverse engineering of Qualcomm's circuit did not go as far as to produce a circuit that could be exercised or recreated as a representative circuit to demonstrate the alleged infringing operation. However, it is required to show infringement beyond an expert's opinion that it could work in a specific manner to cause infringement. The problem is complicated by what Dalton said was unclear teaching of the patents and case circuit theory that failed to explain how the circuit operates in the prescribed manner.
Its a lost cause folks. It will not be so puzzling to the circuit court of appeals... who I think would have struck it down if Judge Dalton had not done so.
"This contract is up at end of 2014 and is the only REAL reason for Network Vision." Huh? What BS. Network Vision was "industry vision" which goes by the names of 3GPP LTE-Advanced, ITU IMT-Advanced. Sprint needed to get onto the mainstream of network adoption or face higher costs and less common devices than competitors... making it overall a higher cost, lower performance operator. Verizon will likely renew their contract with Sprint... its profitable to them and they are hardly losing share because of it. They can't be so BORG like that they bring down the wrath of DOJ and FCC who have urged operators to have greater ease of roaming across each other's networks. If the duopolists go too overboard, who knows, maybe the FCC and DOJ will do something like the EU, regulate lower roaming charges and issue hefty fines.
No responses.. "we are feeble followers... we cannot do what our 8th grade home economics teacher talked about... ask questions and compare results with 'classmates'. Instead, let's make up stuff based on prejudices and personal experience that favors our position. Then when those dastardly analysts point out new trends, we will diss them because they are not like us.. they use methodical approach to gathering multiple points of data and filtering it to come to likely odds bets on what is/will happen."
Go out and do 30 minutes of work besides and before clicking the buy/sell button on the screen. Whatta ya afraid of?
You are serious?
If you pay near that much using any operator you must like to spend money for the heck of it.
Most mobile device users also have DSL, cable or fiber broadband service (over 66%). And the vast majority of them use Wi-Fi at home or work when viewing video, watching TV on either a widescreen using broadcast or over-the-top service. Many users who watch movies and TV shows while outside of home or office connect to Wi-Fi, or have previously downloaded the content. The degree to which the user makes use of Wi-Fi depends on their mobile data plan but also on where they are located. If the dummy uses a lot of mobile data without knowing they will run over their data plans perhaps they should ask their 7 year old kids/nephews how to get around it.
"I have no spin" and yet you insist on describing a theory of operation that has no evidence only "Dr. Prucnal's opinion is that it operates in an infringing way." Judge Dalton found, as I, fudgfighter, MF and others had pointed out, that Parkervision's CTO, Mr. Fairy Dust Sorrells and expert witness, Professor Prucnal, had failed to provide proof of their theories of operation that could support the jury's erroneous verdict. The appeal repeats the opinions but fails to point out the required proof. Despite being an emotional and eloquent twisting of the proceedings and facts, Its dead in the water.
Next up to bat is Qualcomm. They should put together a clear and convincing document. Qualcomm's defense can perhaps be slighted for lacking clarity on some of the issues and not belaboring points that would nail down points. Q may have felt that the real test would be on appeal where the case would be more removed from the 'picture painting' antics. Dalton, fortunately, did not drink McKoolaides laced punch, bringing the issues of overreaching breath of claims, indefiniteness of teaching of the alleged invention, and lack of proof of PV's theory of operation to an early conclusion. The odds of the appeal succeeding are, thus, much lower than the average... I think almost zero.
Stick a fork in it.. this roadkill is stinking up techdom.
Who said that Verizon will always be number one? What theory says that? The 'Business Economics and Management 101' courses teach about basic stuff like marketshare dominance. It boils down to the ability to deliver goods and services to the market that gains sales and locks in preference. That does not mean that number 1 positions cannot be overtaken. Usually that happens due to better anticipating and taking action in the direction of pivotal changes in ability to deliver the products or services, develop new P&S, take advantage of market changes, or lower costs. While Sprintsy wintsy is lowering costs its not being done by taking advantage of a shift in technology ahead of or better than competitors. Instead it is a marketing centered approach. If all things were equal, that would have a chance to work out if it coincided with an industry shift, such as inevitable commoditization or taking advantage of more efficient networks and packaging of services. There is such a shift occurring... the problem is that Sprint is not riding at the top of the industry in taking advantage of network technology to deliver the lower costs/subscriber and costs/bit to the average POP.
The way Verizon could be toppled is by gaining a significant advantage in the basic aspects of the service and/or devices. Devices have become increasingly commoditized such that all four major operators have the hot devices. While offering lower price or service agreement can sway parts of the market it comes at a cost that impacts long term competitiveness. Lowering costs for 'me too' service capacity or devices takes advantage of the price elasticity in the market but cuts future ability to spend on new spectrum, networks, or R&D.
How might have Verizon been toppled? By not being stupid about acquiring Nextel Netwrecks. By deploying revolutionary technology in appropriately revolutionary ways.
Now how could Sprint-Softbank gain on Verizon and AT&T? ad naseum repetition.
I wasn't surprised by the ruling: I have not studied the VHC and surrounding patents thoroughly but a glance at them and the court proceedings supported validity and Apple's infringement. However, I did take issue with the amount of the award: the methodology used by VHC's attorneys is fairly similar to that used by McKoolaide in PV's case against Qualcomm. That led to factoring of the award based on false measures of overall sales while failing to fully consider the importance of multiple features and growing list of applications that drive sales of mobile devices. Even while the patent infringement ruling looks likely to remain valid in the VHC case, the amount of the lower court award has been likely to be revised downward at the appellate court.
This is likely to be the trend in such cases for several reasons: the appellate and Supreme courts have issued rulings that trim back valuation methods, particularly for component technologies or applications used in complex fields of technologies such as mobile devices and networks.
Parkervision faces several challenges on appeal or on the new case if they get consideration on appeal. The valuation will certainly force settlements downward. The 'wash rule' comes into play in the more recent lawsuit that brings in device defendants. PV offers no additional value above the level of the alleged technology embedded in the RF portion of the mobile chips. The pursuit of Samsung et al is posturing that will get thrown out imo.
Twisting in the wind... McKoolaide's wonderful legal representation is going to get taken out to the back shed.
Most data use is over Wi-Fi: CTIA, GSM and ITU reports show that over 60% of data comes over the Wi-Fi small cell in subscriber's homes and businesses or out in public. The percentage of Wi-Fi use goes up for heavy users... up to 90% of data among the top 5% of data users goes over the local smallcell, ie. Wi-Fi connection.
Verizon has held an edge in coverage and expanded that with the rollout of the first nationwide LTE network in 700MHz. That plus the mere advantage of being the consumer marketshare leader helps lock in loyalty. That has shown up in survey after survey/analyst report over the years which are confirmations of the long term results Verizon has reported. The metrics of subscriber churn, marketshare, gross sales, ARPU, margins... these are the important indicators of how loyal and willing to pay for the services and devices operators offer.
Verizon has held onto the spot because they bought enough 700MHz spectrum, (not having squandered $35+ billion on acquisitions similar to Sprint prior), to roll out a network across the country that had capacity to serve their large marketshare without 'rip and replace' disruption. Now they are expanding service in AWS and plan to roll out mobile TV into new spectrum.. again without disruption and with enough capacity not to cause pain to subscribers.
That IS what the majority of subscribers have voted with their wallets contract period to contract period that shows up in the results. Changes from that are worth watching but shouldn't belie the facts.
How well are Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T doing with the introduction of iPhone 6 and the 'price wars'? Is T-Mobile continuing to add net subscribers or has Sprint captured the flag of being the lowest cost/service and device 'Maverick'?
One way for investors to find out before being caught flat-footed late to the game is to pool their efforts by doing a crowd sourced survey of phone kiosks and stores.
Proposal to the willing
Go to nearby malls and phone stores to ask sales persons, managers, and shoppers these questions:
1) Are you considering changing operators?
a) How likely are you to switch within the next 30 days?
2) Who is your current operator?
b) If, switching, who to?
3) What is your priority among price, device choices, service reliability, coverage, use by friends/family or company?
4) About what are you currently paying per month? For how many lines?
5) What price do you plan to pay per month if switching? For how many lines?
6) What do you think about data plan caps? Is unlimited BB important to you?
For managers and employees:
7) How is business? ...Are you seeing more traffic.. by what percent?
8) Are customers being swayed by recent adds by Sprint, T-Mobile for lower prices, trade-ins and contract buyouts?
9) How well are iPhone 6 models doing? Is there a shortage? What other brands are hot? What percentage of Apple vs. Samsung (and others) are you selling?
10) How much interest is there for new and proposed services like mobile TV? (optional question)
If just a few of fellow idiots take an hour to do conduct this survey they may a) gain real insights into the market for themselves, b) be able to compare notes with fellow idiots to go beyond the bias and useless banter.. and possibly get a jump on the market. This idiot is going to conduct the 'walking about' survey.. if others do the same I'll trade notes.
You bring up a good point, even if redundant in PV's case: the value of the award was much higher than is normal for RF technology. Parkervision's appeal cassts back to early negotiations at a time when ZIF technology was being ferreted out for use in mobile SoCs. The sums suggested in the appeal, although redacted, where for entire RF implementations which PV has never been able to accomplish. The component technology has a much lower value than a complete implementation that some at Qualcomm once thought Parkervision might have been capable of delivering and, thus the negotiations for entire solutions might have netted a substantially high sum. PV's solution, if it had been used, would have been a small part of the whole which itself is a small part of the value of the mobile wireless chip set solution, If, by some miracle, PV won on appeal, Q would appeal the award and likely have it greatly reduced. Furthermore, QCOM has worked on successor RF solutions that would make it hard for PV to win ill-begotten awards for infringement.
This legal plight must go on because it is all PRKR has left. No sales, no licenses, and, imo, what will prove to be no valid patents to claim infringement. The appeals court will take hard looks at PV's patents and reject the appeal imo. The IPR process will throw the gambit of broad claims interpretation on its head, helping to determine invalidity of most or all claims.
Softbank's acq. of Sprint has resulted in several positive steps including cutting costs, reorganizing management, partnering with rural operators, changing suppliers, hiring a new CEO. engaging a price reduction and simplification suited to the competitive environment, introduced devices that work on its networks, aligned Sprint with Brightstar to streamline and lower cost of devices, and other measures. Softbank and Sprint have done a lot of incremental improvements. Even if they have not been able to change the balance of networks-spectrum and have not gained on rivals in being 4th in networks, they have somewhat laid the foundation to make bolder necessary steps going forward.
You are speculating about a scenario of T-Mobile losing all the subs they have gained and then some on the heels of T-Mo reporting they have continued to gain subscribers after Sprint joined them in lowering prices, new contract buy-outs, and simplifying plans. What are you smoking?
The results of Sprint's new pricing campaign and introduction of devices including iPhone with attractive pricing remain to be quantifiable. All that can be said is that the early results look encouraging that Sprint has turned around from losing subscribers. The rationale for suggesting Sprint will so harm T-mobile, which has better network performance overall, is not supported by any facts other than the fact its easy to post bullshisa on web boards.
Sprint has held onto the grand illusion of having bandwidth capacity while failing to engage in innovations in how it is being used. Consideration for capacity in raw spectrum, particularly that above 2.1 GHz, has to be tempered by how it has been and is planned to be put to use.
The basic formula for network capacity is bandwidth per user which is gated by how much spectrum bandwidth the device they are using can access at that moment. Peak capacity is a nice thing but the user is concerned about the bandwidth where they are located, not what Claure may experience in downtown New York. It always comes down to coverage or, for measure of bandwidth, bandwidth-to-coverage. Sprint still has the same 130 MHz plus of spectrum but finds itself having to rim back to major cities, as if that weren't pretty much the plan to begin with, because the way they deploy is brain deadingly limited in innovation.
T-Mobile has recently changed their offer for 802.11ac Wi-Fi routers to giving them away for a $25 deposit. I recently installed an 802.11ac 3200 router that cost about $300 in order to get coverage in a large home. It works fine... and now I wish I had known about the T-Mobile offer because they are giving the ASUS units away. What is wrong with that statement is I cannot talk about Sprint's 802.11ac program or a RoofTop program or any other small cell VoIP and broadband synergy program... Sprint, the guys with the massive amount of excess spectrum have been in lala land of macrocell brain deadness after all these years.