Dumb statement: The WSJ article reported that Sprint was considering, via the typical "reliable sources" an acquisition of T-Mobile. So?
If you reverse this around and ask "Should Sprint consider all potentially viable alternatives for M&A at each stage of the future?", the answer would be, "Of course idiot, every company should continuously weigh the options they might pursue if the circumstances are right".
Of course its possible. You can differ on how likely it may be but stop the B.S. blanket statements.
QCOM is preparing their case for appeals.. its possible for Dalton to rule favorably on Q's JMOLs. If ruled against them, Q has prepared the way forward on appeals.
DISH is not immediately pushing T-Mobile to be acquired by Sprint: DISH is not in a marketshare position to call the shots, is not a direct threat to TMUS for mobile marketshare, and is unlikely to cause D. Telekom to drop their asking price for TMUS in the mid-term.
What can happen is what would make sense for each party and is much less of a regulatory road bump: Sprint-Softbank can provide DISH with mobile access, on fair but profitable terms and, potentially, do the same with T-Mobile.
The competitive environment has been shifting to where the satellite and cable companies need to also offer mobile access. DISH has little chance of spooling that up independently imo. They can do deals, such as extending that being trialed between Sprint and DISH in Texas, to parlay their 'roof top' and in-home TV deployment service into a hybrid home-mobile 'broadband everywhere' service that benefits both Dish and Sprint-SB.
The reasons why that can work out has its foundations on the way the network can be built and how that can provide richer fixed to mobile services that both companies can use.
Sprint has lots of (wasted) 2.6GHz spectrum. DISH has over 20,000 installers and contracted installers who can place small cells into a combined use network that otherwise would cost more and take longer for Sprint-SB to attempt on their own.
Here's some ball park numbers:
The cost of deploying a small cell on a business roof-top or lamp post is $20,000-30,000. While that is much less a macro cell site, it becomes expensive to nationally deploy hundreds of thousands to a few million. The cost of 'deploying' a roof-top LTE "Dish" router should be about $100-200 more than a satellite dish... call it $600. The same type of customer that uses satellite TV plus others should be more than willing to a reasonably priced combined BB and TV service with much higher capacity and, probably, tie-in to mobile service.
The FCC 'turned the check' on the 2.6GHz spectrum because they wanted the faltering Sprint to survive into the next stage of evolution of competition. The spectrum amalgamation had been previously 'screened' when New Clearwire was formed about 6 years ago. The FCC ruled that there was no cause for it to be re-screened. Sprint's position was that only about 50MHz was licensed, the rest was sub-licensed by the EBS/BRS operators.
Sprint's 2.6GHz spectrum has yet to become net profitable (after all these years) to the level expected of competitive mobile networks... including that they spin up sales to the point of funding turnover to the next and next generation of service.
The announcement of trial networks between Sprint and DISH, long viewed as strategically viable, is a counter to the need for Sprint to acquire either T-Mobile or DISH: the better 'New' way forward may be the 'old' consideration of offering wholesale partnered use of the 2.6GHz band and other services.
You post makes good sense.
At this point... or until there are solid signs that what the WSJ was reporting on was what companies often do, exploring multiple strategic alternatives with only a few panning out.
Sprint needs more low frequency spectrum more than the AWS/PCS spectrum that is closer in performance characteristics to the 2.5-2.6GHz band aggregation.
Network integration is becoming less of a problem as Sprint has migrated networks to LTE and CDMA is common in devices. S and T-M both work with Ericsson for network integration and management, smoothing a potential integration of networks following Sprint's and T-M's conversions over the past three years.
The odds of a deal, suggested sometime in the first half of next year, are slim imo.
First, the assumption that regulators would look at the deal favorably is as much wrong as it may be right: The DOJ and FCC want there to be more competition in the various segments and geographic areas of the country. T-Mobile and Sprint target similar value areas. The combination would reduce competition in the value segment including prepay and MVNO. However, it would also strengthen the ability to compete with Verizon and AT&T. The spectrum combination also has issues - it would strengthen Sprint, particularly in the mid frequency bands. However, Sprint would most likely need to spin out some of its spectrum, likely in the 2.6GHz band.. but that is problematic since it's a hodge-podge collection of licensed and sub-licensed spectrum.
What is the purpose of preparing a bid?.. how serious is it?
The last time T-Mobile was considered for acquisition, AT&T agreed to pay Deutsche Telekom $39 billion. This recent speculation is for Sprint to be preparing a bid for about half that price. Meanwhile, T-Mobile has benefitted from the spin out from AT&T of a few billion and AWS spectrum on the collapse of the acquisition. Furthermore, T-M acquired metroPCS, one of the most energetic and successful smaller operators. T-M has since gone on to reinvigorate their networks with LTE and push into effective marketing that has taken share away from Sprint. Shouldn't DT want more rather than half of the previous price tag?
Sprint-Softbank may be pursuing an offer as a way to elicit a dialogue with DT. As it looks now, I think the price will be much higher... to the point Softbank, the backer, might walk away. Also a deal looks unlikely next year... partly because if a bid is made and accepted, he regulatory process will likely take as long or longer than usual - 6-12 months.
What are the impacts? Too vague at this point.
I saw that incongruence in the documented testimony... its been mentioned but this recent exchange should (yea, sure) put it to bed.
Testimony also discussed the reverse engineered Magellan circuit that PV had commissioned by the outside firm: that gave a work up of the circuit but was not an operating circuit upon which measurements could be directly made. In fact, I don't know if the Q SOC could be probed to take live measurements. However, the circuit is obvious... Prucnal and Mr. Fairy Dust conceded that the (relatively) large capacitor was used as TX filter. Fundamental laws of electronics, ie. Shannon-Harley, show that a signal is relative to the environment that surrounds is... Qualcomm pointed out that the transmit signal energy level is orders of magnitude higher than the receive signal. That is something every Radio Shack hobbyist understands. Whatever small amount of RX signal that might pass into the TX capacitor, it is so much lower than the TX energy level hides it.
It would have been another matter if Mr. Fairy Dust had shown a sample circuit which operated at similar RX/TX levels for which he could demonstrate his magic. To have done so would have controverted decades of understanding of RF circuit theory and practical operation. That would be so breathtaking... and makes me wonder that if its so, then #$%$ hasn't Jeffrey Parker gotten his comrades in crime to do it?
The bad thing is that Sprint has room to make up in both its financial standing and its network services. The Good thing for investors is that it has room to make up in its financ... lada lada. Growth can come to a company in both topline numbers or in improvement in operational efficiency and financials. The mega trends in both the economy and evolution of the ICT business model press operators to become more efficient in the deployment of networks and rollup of the subscriber based cash flows. Softbank-Sprint have made progress but have plenty of ground to make up on the peg leader Verizon Wireless. Some of that should continue come out of the device and network equipment supply synergies etc.
Longer term, Softbank has become one of the world's most technologically savvy and efficient operators and, also, a diverse ICT model conglomerate engaged in many exciting areas, some of which should spill over into Sprint in coming years. However, Sprint is still in the process of changing from the basket case among major US operators to being on relative equal footing in terms of network and overall operating efficiency, device innovation and market effectiveness as reflected in the hard numbers such as gross and net margin improvements.
Results are showing signs of improvement 'already'...
Its early in the new arrangement with SB and not too much can be expected yet. However, there has been improvement in financials, cost of capital, bond ratings, etc. And improvements in operations, supply, corporate services, etc.
What the numbers show and the company says about measurable results and future expectations that look reachable should come into sharper focus now that the first phase of Network Vision is on the horizon. The needed TDD LTE-Advanced generation of chips from Qualcomm, followed by others, are moving into the supply pipelines. The competitive environment will remain very tough, but S will be on a better footing to lead the value segment.
That is part of the PV Fairy Dust story that the long Sharezombies refuse to acknowledge. That goes back to the Markman ruling that accepted and then expanded via lack of enforcement by Dalton a very broad interpretation of PV's patent claims... at times confusing because PV ixes terms and gives 'because I say its so' testimony rather than what the vast majority of the RF design world considers as evidence.
If one were to accept PV's case for infringement against Qualcomm, as the jury errantly did, then any RF that samples the signal infringes. There was no evidence of energy transfer across a TX filter common to RF/TX integrated devices found in mobile and embedded devices. .. however, that does not matter according to Mr. Fairy Dust David Sorrells and Prucnal.. infamous leaders of 'if we cannot invent something that can be used, reframe the prior art and cloud it in email innuendos'. Whatever PV's invention of technology might be, nobody, including Parkervision has figured out how to use it or sell it. PV does not use their own D2D in their products.. according to JP. But Q does?
Son did thorough DD and Softbank is a good fit for Sprint and all that jazz.
However, Softbank is a conglomerate business operation that might best be described as a 'new ICT business model': a large part of SB's capital value is in Internet businesses including Alibaba. The mobile business segment is important ... however, Sprint is only a part of it. S was one of only a limited number and perhaps the best option available to Softbank to stretch out as an infrastructure and device kingpin in international markets. To some extent, Softbank was faced with a need to grow larger scale and international markets or face increased pressures as leaders in the space leap forward. The moves of competitors have already been evident.
However, Sprint Corp must also right itself within the newly transforming competitive environment. The future, at this point, look much better than it had, however, Sprint was probably closer to being annihilated by competitors and cost of capital than the past price level fully accounted for... and has zoomed up since to more fully reflect near term value iom.
The expectations among investors seems to be that a turnaround in sales and road to profits will happen in the near term. Son is probably fully aware how long it may take.. he focuses long term. Investors often focus 3-12 months and if events unfold more slowly than expected leave for greener pastures.
How soon can Sprint-SB spool up higher capacity to counter Verizon et al rollout of AWS? Will the competitor's new services outpace S, resulting in continued net losses in subs or will the bottom have been reached this year? When will the competitive balance have been reached? Its still too early to say. i suspect it may take until 2015 or longer for true parity and a return to profits (return, since when?).
Sprint, despite the much stronger and broader backing of parent company Softbank faces continued economic and industry trend influences including:
1. The macro economy: growth, interest rates and capital availability.
2. Maturation of national mobile network services and device markets
3. Convergence of TV, content, Internet, eCommerce, social networking, business services and collaboration
4. Broadening out into MtM and multiple devices 'broadband and connectivity everywhere. all the time'.
5. Influx of more spectrum and growth of multiple-carrier band networks
6. Industry consolidation - mobile and also into converging industry segments.
In the past, Sprint and Clearwire had been impacted by the macro economy. It impacted CW's ability to raise cheap capital and may have impacted speculative interest in their spectrum, causing Sprint to foot the bill for the shortfall.. and acquire CW at a short-term loss. More grossly, the lofty $35 billion Sprint paid for Nextel Netwrecks only to see customers flee and protracted losses to mount, might have partially been avoided if the economy had no so soured. Higher cost of capital is subjective.. but might account for up to $10-$15 billion in additional costs imo.
The macro environment trends influence prospects for companies in the sector. Sprint was more vulnerable than VZW or AT&T and thus these things were more important #$%$ tettered on the edge.. until acquisition. Gong forward, they serve as comparative issues that influence Sprint-SB's fate.
LOL! You are refusing to acknowledge commonly accepted principles of electronic circuits: The Tx filter was not shown to function as an energy sampler. Show one piece of evidence of that. You can only show Fairey Dust testimony... no evidence. To the contrary, the evidence and cross testimony shows operation of Qualcomm's circuit is a conventional quad-samling, dual-balanced mixer. The Tx filter as evidence by either Qualcomm or Parkervision shows and was stated by Mr. Fairy Dust David Sorrels and Prucnal to be as Qualcomm claims, a bypass of TX for the balanced mixer. Furthermore, because the transmitted energy levels are orders of magnitude higher than the received energy, any incidental received level that is coupled to the Tx capacitor is swamped out. There is no further filtering back out or other way to bypass the Tx bypass to recover that incidental theoretical 'non-insignificant' energy. Sorrells was asked his observation of why the voltage levels showed no corresponding energy transfer that would fit Mr. Fairy Dust's theory of the circuit operation. He simply did not have an answer other than 'I knows it when I sees it' funkyville answer.
You are missing the point: lawyers or those exposed to them swim in the milieu .. you are saying Dalton's court are experts in technology on which patents are based? Don't be so ridiculous.. the tract record of ddd.. district court level is appalling. Some third world countries might be ashamed.
If you blame on faction or party you are nutty as a fruit cake. Ignorant American who polarizes and simplifies down to neanderthal mentality.
PV/McKool have attempted to make it easier for Dalton to issue an injunction ruling.. however, this is way out of line with the norms.. which is why they have structured the motion as they have. Read between the lines. The overriding determination is how the higher court will review this.. its possible for Judge Dalton's court to have gone astray of the norms and become a piccadilly circus due to McKool's artful skills as plying the jury and assuaging the less than astute lower court judge into an errant decision (imo of course), however, if he does go with the flow or his mistakes, Dalton will be rebuffed and throw his judicial standing into ill repute imo.
McKool/PV's request for an injunction is a red herring. Your problem (and with others suggesting it is a significant possibility) is you are not familiar with the surrounding case law and business and legal course of actions that is typical in the mobile/ICT communications world. Your statements were based on your read of the court documents.. which is great in that its based on something germain to the case and not just typical of sharezombies ... pulling stuff out of their #$%$. However, the quest for an injunction is seen as a joke by those who have followed the industry including similar case law.
One can say that "Judge Dalton can rule anyway he wants".. and in so doing face being overturned. Yes, he could grant an injunction but it would be appealed and 99.5% certain to be overturned.
If you think about it, why is this investment being based on such flaky circumstances as this single issue of a judge in Florida deciding far outside the norms for an injunction? Even if the odds were favorable, one still should be asking why PV has continued to fail to bring home the bacon in product sales or licensing of their patents. What about the great relationship with VIA.. their paid friendly mobile chip compatriot? No revenue yet from any quarter.. no sales of the chips that apparently still use bought-in receivers rather than funky Fairy Dust D2D..
"We will get an injunction because Mr. Fairy Dust David Sorrells will sprinkle his 'nevermore' power transfer over RX capacitor magic and Dalton will grant it in the name of the fiefdom of central Florida.
Verizon has a much better debt rating than Sprint: debt level in the industry is high.. its a high cash flow and reinvestment rate business model environment. Thus how well a company uses their capital to leverage cash flows is critical, not the absolute number. If VZ had a quadrillion dollar debt level it would be OK so long as they get their US industry leading leverage on that capital. Sprint has improved their debt leverage due to being acquired and financing debt at somewhat lower rates. However, no financial analyst worth his salt doubts Sprint is still the rutt of litter among the top 3 service providers... still sucking hind tit.
That's a plug number only: spectrum is a 'fungible commodity'. Its value is only in how it is eventually used to produce cash flows and, then how well the company turns that into profits. If the company goes banko, the spectrum is worthless to investors... I'm not at all suggesting that for S but it shows the relationship of spectrum to an operating company.
Spectrum is fungible because it can be a) replaced by use of other spectrum. The other/alternative spectrum may have different features such as wider channels and more bandwidth to grow into as does the 2.6GHz band or might cover wider areas and penetrate into buildings better, as does the sub-1GHz spectrum bands. And the mid range bands might be viewed as the best 'single band' because its a compromise between signal properties and higher bandwidth capacity due to wider channels and ease of interference mitigation.
b) Spectrum is also fungible by substituting technology that increases capacity on a bit/Hz/unit area basis. Higher order use of MIMO-AAS technology, small cells and tiered networks (use of the spatial domain) are ways that technology is increasingly being used to increase per Hz/area spectrum capacity while increasing quality of service. For example, a 40MHz channel can carry from about 50Mbps to a lab environment limit of over 200Mbps through the use of MIMO-AAS combined with small cells and adequate backhaul. Its a similar type of improvement that has been seen in the shift in Wi-Fi from 802.11b to 802.11n... so long as the 'small cells' (Wi-Fi) is able to operate in areas that are free from interference and co-use congestion of channels, each 'cell' has full practical use of the 40MHz band... to deliver ~150Mbps in real world use. LTE can do much the same so long as the deployments are similar as dense. While that is often impractical, making the use of more bandwidth of overall multiple carrier bands a better alternative, its become a factor in valuation of mobile spectrum.
Verizon is Sprint's largest competitor in terms of subscribers and also market profile that amplifies their marketshare impact beyond that of AT&T. VZW acquired spectrum from Spectrumco, the cable industry consortium that owned spectrum licenses to AWS spectrum. Its been a few years in the making and somewhat a case of 'finally' showing up sentiments, however, Verizon is rolling out service into 40MHz of AWS spectrum.
Why this is important to Sprint-Softbank:
The 'value proposition', 'service profile' or however you want to describe why customers come to and stick with specific operators is fundamentally based on the range and quality of service vs. how much it costs. Variance in marketing can shift the perception of what is offered and what it costs, but in the longer run the networks operators build and devices that populate them must equate to quality and range for the greenback dollar.
Sprint's definition of the 'value proposition' is oriented on flexible and higher broadband.. while Verizon's has been over towards the coverage and reliability of access (penetration into buildings). Both are fundamentally based on the spectrum these two companies own. Verizon had pushed out ahead of Sprint with early LTE. Now they threaten to also offer higher bandwidth as they roll out AWS service. Its been expected but may come as a shock to some sharezombies.
What we are dealing with in the PV vs. QCOM case, while it must adhere to the laws of physics, is not in the vague area of business methods, Internet extension, or mobile methods that have been prone to abuse by loose USPTO examination and definitions. The area is bound by simple stuff... the specific circuits and control mechanisms such as how samples are taken. Thus, this issue of how patents are being hemmed in by the courts 'colors' the PV vs. QCOM and potential surrounding cases but only in terms of the broad environment.
Could judges or trade tribunals be impacted by the broad currents in how patents are treated? As with all other tertiary issues, sure, if some fellow idiot judge, as esteemed as they may be, weighs this partially into their decisions, then it could become a factor... probably a very late and minor factor.