Sprint needs 600MHz but is nearly too broke to join the bidding.
"Claure admitted that owning more low-band spectrum would be nice. But he said that depending on how the auction is structured, the company could be priced out of the auction."
Owning more low band spectrum looks difficult unless Sprint can somehow turn around the financial position. Sprint needs it more than their competitors who have more low and mid band spectrum. S needs 600MHz to balance out their lopsided amount of high band.
This portrays how financially weak Sprint has become.
Something is getting lost in the discussion of saturation: Most people have already become subscribers connected to from a simple voice-messaging phone to multiple SmartPhones, pads and automobile service. The overall market is growing, but the low churn rate of the major operators means that a relatively low number of subs are not tied to competitors. Unlike when basic saturation had not occurred, the growth is occurring has become captive. Sprint is now trying to capture just in the scant millions of new subs, each million representing about 0.40% of the overall market.
ther factors include that automobile and much of the enterprise market, IoT, Internet of Things automotive applications are dominated by AT&T and Verizon.
Sorry, the market has become saturated to the extent it is more difficult to gain new subscribers.. otherwise, Sprint is worse off of a competitor than already considered,
Wrong.. how dumb is it to not get the facts basically correct? Real dumberarse. DISH does not own much of the spectrum often called 'DISH spectrum' by the media and other dumfarts.
You got it right about Charlie wanting control might be the game killer... same as with Sprint or other's: several deals to put together greater scale and the combination of mobile plus satellite/media and more spectrum make sense on paper.. but what stands in the way is the fact that these companies are not just paper/spreadsheet entities but are headed by guys with egos like Vikings.. they all want to be in charge of the next conquest. The question is as much whether logic will trump egomania as it is about what makes sense from a business standpoint.
I think that the only way 'out' for Sprint is either to get a new $15-20 staunch of capital to buy spectrum upon which to build more competitive networks or to finally opt for a tiered network approach that use usercell deployments. Over the next 2+ years Sprint will be struggling. The most likely outcome is to hold onto or lose subscribers at a slower pace or gain a few.. move sideways to slightly down in total marketshare regardless of price cuts and marketing's best effort to sugar coat Sprint's position.
Masa Son/Sprint will either come to the correct conclusion or suffer the continued consequences.
Bullshisa. Wireless broadband connectivity has reached within about 6% of being totally saturated. SmartPhones have grown in recent years and the turnover rate of quickly improving smartphones has been a phenomenal growth factor. Broadband capacity has been a enormous growth factor. For a while the ability to satisfy the growth in BB demand was very challenging. Then operators got more spectrum and deployed LTE/LTE-Advanced which delivers about 22X improvement in capacity over 3G so that you no longer hear much about AT&T or Verizon's networks bogging down in a systematic way.
The market is much more saturated such that if Sprint expands capacity in a scattering of metro areas it is not a major event.. because Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are providing a competitive level of WBB service already... Sprintsy pooh is no longer stepping into a virgin 4G market.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. No, my view hasn't changed. However, neither, apparently, has Sprint's basic view on how networks can be cost effectively built in the spectrum. My view was to make competitive use of higher frequencies required turning it into more than marginally better or better for just the fixed-to-nomadic market. There are two ways to do that then as there is now despite the ~13 years of evolution since the first WiMAX networks were deployed: Either make use of a portion of users to deploy a smallcell tier of the network or obtain wideband sub 1GHz spectrum to deploy WiMAX evolved to LTE. Softbank built the most extensive TD-OFDMA system for its time based on Japan's standard called AXGP. AXGP was called 'Super WiFi' a recognition of the role the technology can play in multiple-mode/carrier networks. Softbank started with just 20,000 base stations. Since then, Japan's AXGP standard has been migrated to LTE-Advanced. Japan/Softbank provided leadership in developing TDD-OFDM ie. TD-LTE.
The potential to build networks in 2.5-2.6GHz is 'better than ever' from a technical perspective due to the evolution and maturity of the commercially available network and user devices using the new set of technologies. That is offset, however, by the evolution in competition that makes it necessary to compete on a lower cost/user/bit than can be done using conventional deployment methods.
So, the answer to 'has your view changed'. No on the use of technology making exploitation of 2.6GHz posible. But yes because the way that the spectrum must be exploited is hexed with drained internal capital resources, and beset with competition that forces broader coverage as a foundation building requirement. The situation makes building for national coverage using 2.6 needed while the operator only deployment method drives up the cost of 'network densification'.
Some combo of Sprint+TMUS+DISH+Google might solve that - which is wild speculation.
"No current flows through the mixer without the load and cap so nothing happens. Again, Neal and team was crafty with layman's terms and understanding but didn't stump the jury that had an EE on board." Why does no current flow through the mixer? The generation of baseband in the mixer is a step in resolving the encoded modulated signal. The BB signal proceeds to LNAs, A/D conversion and baseband signal processing. The load is not the TX filter. In fact, the TX filter's purpose is to maintain the BB signal by trapping/filtering out unwanted carrier wave, harmonics, switching transients, etc. so that the signal to noise ratio upon reaching low noise amplifiers and analog to digital conversion is as high as possible.
One outcome of regulation of broadband communications under title 1 is that it puts it into the realm of national interest protections as core title 1 telecommunications. The implications of that goes beyond what Verizon or AT&T might evolve into as commercial entities and puts it into the protective scheme of vital utilities infrastructure... a move that among the most conservative think tanks have advocated.
No major US telecom infrastructure company has been allowed to be acquired 100% by foreign companies. However, there is no law against it per se. It is a regulatory matter of protecting natural interests. That makes the governing issues whether natural interests would be harmed by foreign ownership. In US judgement, Japanese ownership of Sprint would not threaten US interests imo. That is because Sprint's importance and influence are limited by more successful competitors. Sprint remains a small and declining share of the US consumer market and a very small part of critical government and enterprise.
Why don't you ask with the same rigor why Sprint wasn't allowed to acquire T-Mobile from the perspective of national interests? A majority foreign ownership of almost 1/3 of the US market would loom as much more of a national security risk. That may seem arcane but ask yourself "does not seem to pass a political threshold ?". Can you imagine the news media on both right and left questioning such a move? While conservative ethos is 'free enterprise' (even if it is on the government payroll or grant of monopoly), do you think that applies to foreign ownership of 1/3 of a lifeblood industry?
Ok, I was harsh. You bring up questions... why can't Sprintsy wintsy use the 2.6GHz band more creatively? Is it the technology? Not anymore.
Others are trying to extend WiFi to be the first staging of connectivity. Sprint has spectrum but has used limited pieces of it with too little impact on the broad market to make it profitable.
Why are so few people using 2.6GHz after 15 years? Is it the technology? Did the engineers, mathematicians, and network scientists all get it wrong? Smallcells and tiered networks were becoming practical dreams 15 years ago that might have been approached in a step-wise evolution of markets. Instead, Clearwire and Sprint approach the network as static, top down. Softbank is a vanguard technology company but coming to the party this late, what does that matter if they do not innovate in the network-to-market? Where?
You make the determining rules abundantly clear. Parkervision failed to provide evidence that the patented technology was actually used despite the well crafted story that convinced patent examiners and the jury, both bodies burdened by the short time they have to become schooled in what they determine.
Parkervision obtained patents but that was only a first step that was crafted at a time when industries rose from basement startups or offshoot fantasies of large companies to become dominant of all fields of electronics and permeate through every other human endeavor from the menial tasks of coordinating family schedules to aiding the most difficult field surgeries to guarding our national security. What an enticing target for clever lawyers to pursue.
The problem is that the legal system is bound by federal and international laws and treaties that require that patent law be based on evidentiary procedures divorced of 'storylines'. While sympathy of a fair hearing may derive from prior negotiations, the burden remains on evidence to sway the final outcome.
Parkervision would be laughed off the International stage of patent jurisprudence just as they have off the commercial stage through utter failure to gain licensing, products, or collaborative partnerships that would have come if the technology were nearly as fantastically beneficial as Parker et al have made it to be.
The steps of proof in the Parkervision vs. Qualcomm case are convincing but so too is the broader set of proofs. Do you no reasonably conclude that oOnly fools fail to admit this? Honestly
The value of spectrum is always gated by the ability to put it to use cost effectively. Anyone who states value of all bands as the same is a complete idiot or, worse, a lying #$%$ idiot.
That is a correct understanding.
What technologies would go into 4G networks and devices were being considered about 15 years ago. I did research on the technology and patents, giving talks around the world about what I thought was necessary to deliver the "wireless broadband everywhere" experience. one of the goals set out by ITU and 3GPP was for 4G to work across a range of spectrum from about 400MHz to over 6GHz. Mobile frequencies had up to then been considered up to 2.2Ghz with 2.3-2.6GHz considered too high for full mobile. In theory, MIMO-AAS, MIMO+beamforming technology, used with OFDMA downlink and SC-FDMA uplink modulation can overcome and compensate for how signals propagate at these higher frequencies. Opinions on how to fashion networks settled into two camps: Use low frequency bands as the 'beachfront' for first era of deployments of the new technology or use higher frequencies to exploit the higher bandwidth capacity. The 1st considered that device chip and networks would evolve to use multiple carriers so that a combination of low to high bands could be used (where we are at today). The 2nd approach that bandwidth would drive demand well enough to afford dense deployments, which has not worked out as some forecast. I advocated two ways to get around that for WiMAX and then LTE: Design WiMAX "user cells" - small cells users would deploy similar to WiFi... which would include WiFi, WiMAX and optionally 3G. And make use of 1-3 hop MESH type routing and SONs methods. My suggestion was that enough businesses and home users would opt to mount routers on their roofs with high gain directional or MIMO-AAS antennas to provide a tiered service. The other, complementary, way was to have pursued 700MHz starting about 3 years before Verizon had LTE available. Aloha/Townsend had 12MHz begging to be used. It would have taken guts but it was doable imo.
Why is smallcell expensive? Site and labor costs. WiFi costs 1/30th due to user's brains & brawn
LOL!. You do not have the theoretical background to understand the subject and lack the work ethic to do the research into either the field of technology or legal framework that governs PV's patents and the legal pursuits. You will find out that you have been mislead or developed errant understandings.
As it ever was.. this sick story is taking too long and wasteful expense to resolve to its inevitable conclusion. The patents have never defined a valid working hypothesis.
The number depends on who is doing the design and who the build. Smartphones made today primarily use chips from Qualcomm, Samsung, or Mediatek who all either primarily build their own devices (Samsung) or build complete development kits that include all basic software drivers, lists of sub-component suppliers such as antennas and sensors, sample board layout schematics (ED files), etc. The manufacturers then refine and modify the designs. In the case of Apple's use of Foxconn, Apple maintains tight control over all parts and processes. The development costs of designing a wireless chip includes costs of working with multiple suppliers for parts external to the chip. That includes component part and software suppliers.
The quantity that makes sense? There are development design and tooling costs that must be amortized. That means a small production lot like 1000-25k is out of the question. As a ballpark, it takes 2-3 million units to reach break even - and that is based on s phone/device that is only one of a series of evolving products. The typical industry quantities are much higher.
Charlie's recent interviews provided no new information about what, when or how DISH would either build networks or partner to use the spectrum Ergen has amassed. Keep in mind that much of the spectrum is held outside of DISH in Ergen's holding companies. That spectrum might get used by DISH, sold or run into a partnership outside of DISH. While its not very conceivable that Ergen would compete with his own company for wireless broadband and media, its possible that he might sell off a portion of the spectrum to a competitor to his own benefit. If he sold spectrum to Verizon, as has been speculated, VZ would have more to go after wireless broadband and video services to homes and businesses more directly in competition with cable, DSL and satellite operators.
Ergen sounds like he does not know what to do and has no firm targets. While it's often good for a company to 'keep our options open', DISH has to start using the AWS/MSS spectrum soon.
On one point Charlie made sense: Events are causing consolidation to occur.. or maybe its better to say 'rippen'. Sprint is in a hard spot: losing money and forced to cut prices in order to try to hold onto subscribers. Sprint needs to acquire spectrum, particularly low band which DISH also needs. Perhaps Sprint-Softbank will get pressured into doing a deal out of financial troubles. T-Mobile is doing relatively well. However, if they have to fight with DISH and Sprint over upcoming 600MHz auction, they may exhaust their financial strength making them vulnerable longer term. That somewhat pressures TM to try to build 'critical mass' through acquisition or partnering.
Google will become an MVNO making use of both Sprint and T-M networks. That makes these networks easier to roam through common devices and 'wifi first' connectivity. That could help lay the ground for a facilities based partnership between DISH, Sprint and T-Mobile. That may seem strange but it is what all need.
The claims are broadly construed to cover S&H. Besides that, patents must clearly teach the method they claim, PV's patents fail to do so. The method the patents allege to teach is not workable. Attempts to clear up the vagueness result in outrageous claims for how the circuit functions... such as the case with Qualcomm in which PV attempts to argue out of two sides of missing gulf of untaught/unclear angles for BB signal resolution.
There is no sense arguing with you. The truth will finally come out, probably by this summer.