The mobile centered telecommunications industry has witnessed a relatively modest decline in stock prices over the past year, with the average of the stocks, (DISH, S, T, TMUS & VZ) down about 5%. DISH, a mobile telecom wannabe, has seen a rise over the past 1, 2, 5, and 10 year periods. Sprint (S) has been the worst performer among the group, having moved down in each period.
This is how they stack up over a five and 10 year period:
DISH 303% 140%
TMUS 156% 34%
VZ 71% 42%
T 29% -46
S 28% -82%
Sprint actually turned in a gain over the five year period, an anomaly of timing because a couple months difference in timing would have erased the gains. With Yahoo comparison chart set on MAX, DISH shows an outstanding gain of 3,662%, T and VZ come in very closely matched at about 410%, and S and TMUS come in matched with losses near 46%.
These figures do not take into account dividends, which increases the gap between the have and have nots stocks, VZ and T vs. S and TMUS.
The major trend reflects the growth in the industry: stock prices in telecom rose. Another trend is the strongest companies have gained strength while the dogs, namely Sprint and T-Mobile have declined. The blue sky speculative acquisition company of satellite biz and mobile spectrum, DISH, has been the space explorer among the group.
Mobile network and device generation trends are also reflected in the charts: Stocks tend to move higher as each new generation of technology opens up new spectrum and markets. The overall industry has seen early services revenue mature and then decline, displaced with the nextgen services. The general rule is stocks rise a few months before the nextgen capex starts generating revenue.
The point is: figure out which trends the industry and stock are in and try to swim with rather than against the major, longer term, currents. Sprint has the macro current against them imo with bullish micro current, a low stock price & initiation of Google deal
" I believe that if you go short, you are responsible to pay the dividend to the owner of the shares you borrowed." Yes, the SEC requires the short seller, ie borrower of the shares to pay the dividend, usually through their broker, to the stock owner. The loaner of shares still holds the shares on their books and for tax and other legal purposes.
TMUS has likely crossed to number 3 spot. I haven't seen an official count and I would not call it until TMUS exceeds S's postpaid count by at least 100,000... like when a prize fighter is vying for the champion belt - they must win by a clear count, not just slightly. Likely by the end of this quarter TMUS, despite all of Sprint's efforts, will have taken the #3 spot. I think that they will hold onto that: while S may see a recovery due to pre-paid and wholesale sub growth, the postpaid sub spot, which is where the gravy is made, continues to flow in T-mobile's direction.
This is one of the fill in the blanks things that should make this quarter more interesting than usual.. has there been a pick up due to the recently more aggressive moves? Last quarter Claure said Sprint was seeing a late-quarter pickup. Then the recent report on subs showed that to have been only a weak turn around from losses. Meanwhile, T-Mobile has shown continued momentum that was set to overtake Sprint last quarter if not for that mild recovery. Now it looks like the pricing and other sales efforts will have simply delayed the inevitable of which I said last Spring would happen: Sprint will slip into the number 4 slot.. its a 98% odds bet imo.
Apple has gained a much better position that is somewhat 'future proof' if they keep up the pace of device innovation and ease of use leadership. Google's similar efforts in phones and devices are a utter flop in comparison despite some high points. Google has not been able to leverage their dominance in Android software, holding over 75% device marketshare worldwide, into Internet TV, TV boxes, or their own SmartPhones. The much touted efforts in Google fiber optic has resulted in nice headlines but not very meaningful number of subscribers. While its cool to have these things to talk about around the water cooler or party, Google's efforts to expand outside of their core business has not netted great results in sales and has modestly eaten into their bottom line.
Apple, on the other hand, has seen a drop in marketshare but that has come from rapid expansion of the SmartPhones and other devices. They are the premium brand that attracts the most loyal customers and higher prices/fatter margins. They do that by dotting the i and crossing the t 's in delivering a better user experience. Google tends to take the ball to the middle of the court, drop it and say "Now you guys complete the run into the end zone.. the rest is easy". Sorry, but the hard part is putting the whole package together so that when a customer opens the box and turns stuff on he shouts "this just feaken' works!"
For Google+Sprint+TM to be a BIG impact on the market they must produce products that are more completely integrated out of the box.
Besides that, thus far, the big deal has not even lined up for the kickoff yet. How does it impact Apple? We have to see if Googlely's match up with Sprintsy and TMUSH results in taking the ball(s) into the end zone. before we can measure up the score.
You posted before about TMUS short interest going up.. but what help does that provide to anyone? The point seems to be that its going up and, therefore, its time to short, sell TMUS? If that is the case, then you appear off the mark: TMUS short interest varies as does that for Sprint (S) - both are closer to their low than high water marks. TMUS has moved up recently.. but it has been near 6-7 for SI to signal a move down is more likely. S has moved down which is a bullish signal. And with the Google deal I'd bet SI will show a move down inn the next reported figure. However, S and TMUS, as scrappily as they go after each other, are 'birds of a feather' that are both going to work with Google.
The real adversaries are Verizon and AT&T. It is false bravado for these two to pick on each other to the degree that they go at it.. as if they can succeed by damaging the others business. They do that because VZ and T are less assailable... they have it harder to dent their business, although TMUS has had a good go at it.
"We are kicking TM's rump ... ouch! that hurts" says Sprint each time they do it..
Sprint has gained a bit of ground recently... the qtr results should be interesting.
What is needed is not just better technology but appropriate approaches to deployments. The major reason the bulk of 2.6GHz spectrum has gone unused and used at low saturation density has not been the fault of the technology nor can it be fixed by technology alone.
Turn the question around: If 2.4GHz were considered as a blank slate and we jumped forward to this day in which we have 802.11ac with multi-channel bonding and advanced MIMO capability or we used LTE-Advanced smallcells with arguably better 'user cell' capabilities (see Qualcomm white papers), and instead of users deploying them we constrained that to only having operators deploy. What could be expected to be achieved? To start with, easily 10X the cost. A typical Wi-Fi installation in the hands of a managed network operator costs $10,000-$25,000. If it were toilet seats, they would, no doubt, be gold plated! ; ^)
Google adds in a potential competitive force but its not a fourth mobile operator.. because they are not a mobile operator. This helps to make the argument that combining Sprint and T-Mobile would not reduce competition but could enhance it. However, the deal has not been officially announced yet, let alone acted upon to offer service, devices, and compete to gain marketshare. DOJ and FCC would need to see that G+S+TM was a competitive new structure rather than 'just another MVNO' with fractional marketshare.
Google is not a holder of regulate spectrum, the raw resource that gives operators a restricted monopoly to build networks and offer the core wireless service capability. The FCC has pretty much bent over backwards to accommodate DISH Networks/Charlie Ergen's accumulation of spectrum for use in mobile/hybrid networks. They would hope to see Ergen do more with it than flip it for a tidy profit. If Charlie moves ahead with deployments or partners with TM or S to do so, that would provide a potential 4th player. Ergen has not punched ahead with that fight because he knows building networks and then competing to take away market share is almost attune to Pepsi taking share away from Coke... sounds easy but does not happen. There is a chance for success as the underdog.. both for DISH and Sprint, they have to build service that is better. Offering service on 'poopy' networks as rival Legere puts it, won't cut it.
So, that does not make it so: Sprint is not 'first to 5G'. The most advanced networks are in South Korea, Japan, parts of Europe. Here in the US, Verizon has, imo, the most advanced networks. Sprint has, perhaps, led in the area of high order MIMO macro base station technology and is doing a good job in cor networks and is proceeding apace in multiple carrier aggregation. Otherwise, Sprint is not the leader in networks because they failed the challenge of using the higher frequency 2.6GHz creatively. That is almost certainly going to change over the next few years ... too late for Sprint to take advantage of an exclusive window of availability of wideband spectrum.
5G is even more of a marketing slogan than when 802.16e IMT-2000 version of WiMAX was pegged 4G. The embarkation point for 5G is subjective because it is not a new generation standard per se. If you wish to put a label on it, that would be for when an operator makes breakthrough use of spectrum through spatial technologies that delivers the leap forward in capacity and service quality. By that measure, Sprintsy is not even close. They must show improvement in more than isolated locations such that they are seen to have a lead on competitors before the marketing hype of calling what they are doing 5G means squat.
Its unrealistic to think Softbank-Sprint has the power, even with Google's self-interested help, to 'ruin' VZ or T. That is a basic misunderstanding of the industry - anyone who thinks that should think twice about investing in the sector.
So called 5G infrastructure is not a new generation in the conventional sense.. it will use the same core technologies as LTE but will extend them and make more thorough use of them. The main thrust of B4G, beyond 4G or 5G is to shift networks into the multi-dimensional 'spatial domain'.
One of the reasons the industry shifted from CDMA, code division multiple access, modulation technology or a version of that overlaid with frequency domain access was to gain the ability to use spectrum more selectively and efficiently. OFDMA/SC-FMDA used in LTE for the downlink/uplink communications breaks each channel of spectrum into up to a few thousand sub-channels. That way the parts of the spectrum band that communicates best through interference can be used between each user and base station or smallcell node. This also makes smart use of spectrum easier and more efficient. LTE-Advanced has capabilities that are now starting into widespread use.. Spark can use multiple-carrier signal aggregation. Its posible to use a low frequency on the uplink uplink from the user to improve range and quality: because the user's device is often battery powered the signal levels sent to the base station are at low power, making it the weakest link. Then a higher frequency band, say 2.6GHz band 41 can be used more often for the downlink where signals sent from the base station are at higher power. That's just the beggining.
Networks can be built increasingly as multiple architectural tiers: local and lower to the ground tiers using various range smallcells from personal or user cell level, to the home smallcell, to city block size, up vertically into higher floor levels and typical macrocell scale augmented by high-order MIMO and beamforming technology. Each tier of the network can make use of different frequencies. As this progresses, the network nodes will gain more frequency bands so that use of bands is changed to suit conditions. Its back to the future.
No. Subscribers to mobile services from the large mobile operators are made up of various needs. What's called 'Price elasticity' is a measure of how much the market for a particular item is based on price. This is normally part of a complex variable that determines the overall 'value proposition' and other factors that determine decisions. A decision of which carrier a person, company branch or company that is engaged in consulting or other close relationships to customers may depend more on other factors than price. The impact of price is often on a sliding scale: a little bit of price difference impacts decisions of the most value conscious. The next tier of customers requires a more substantial difference to offset what they perceive as benefits found in other features and quality. And yet other tiers of customers require a higher price differential. The top tiers of customers may never shift based on price... they buy because the parent company or their customers buy the service and require the common cloud or collaboration aspects of the service to be used. Others may be based on long term government or enterprise contracts that involve training, co-development of computing and communications services.
The traits of customers in the mobile market are among the most documented and analysed in the history of mankind: while the relative importance varies across tiers of customers, general rules apply. Customers want overall 'best value' determined by 1) Coverage, 2) Quality (which relates closely to coverage), 3) price, and 4) what other's in the sphere of influence of the customer is using. If your company's prime customers are using, for example, AT&T or Verizon, or your family and friends are using Sprint, your decision may hinge on theirs to the point you are difficult to budge away to save money.
This is why its so hard to take share away from the leaders. Google+Sprint+TM may address issues of coverage and quality better than S or TM alone
Google's MVNO business is dependent on several factors and results happening: 1) Low wholesale cost of network service from Sprint and T-Mobile. 2) Delivering more value than just low price because that is not ALL the market wants in order to shift from the ~70% marketshare leaders VZ and T. 3) Infusing the service model with new revenue generators including greater participation in online content, ePayments/eCommerce, mobile advertising, and cloud services. 4) Making use of multiple devices that deliver the broadband experience more effortlessly to consumers wherever they are located. 5) Doing 'all the above' while not driving Sprint and T-Mobile into a unsustainable financial position due to the low price paid to them as 'mobile infrastructure utility companies'.
Google has almost no chance of overtaking the duopolists at their own game. Its not clear that is their goal. What is clear is that Google does not want to see the emerging ICT industry shape up into domains governed by the duopolists and similar monopolists/duopolists around the world, that have such control over markets and the political environment that they can prevent Google from participating in services that are fashioned within and run on top of the combined mobile-fixed networks. If Google's MVNO effort gets Verizon and AT&T to agree to reserve a seat at the table for them to participate as a fairly, but not completely 'open Internet' platform, Google will likely, as they have done in the past, accept the compromise. What Google does not want to do is to leave themselves vulnerable.. out of the game as VZ and T enter the next stage/generation of industry evolution.. engulfing media, broadband everywhere as the monopolist king makers.
Both T-Mobile and Sprint's growth strategies are unsustainable IF they do not achieve something like 5X to 10X the shift in subscribers from the duopolists Verizon and AT&T and Verizon... which looks extremely unlikely. Thus Hoettges is speaking like a true Germain - matter of factly.. in other words without the typical bullshisa of many American CEOs.
The odds in your head are that you will ignore the odds and blame people on your mishap rather than face up to facts. FUD, Fear, uncertainty and doubt is what you try to spread. Fear that 'shorts' are what undermine an otherwise sellable story-stock. Uncertainty by dredging up irrelevant or what should be limited to 'supporting evidence' rather than focus on the core issues that patent cases in general and this case in particular revolve around, and doubt that the situation is as dreadful as the underlying facts should lead any 'reasonable jury' of Yahoo! board members to conclude.
FUD.fighter keeps pounding the points of proof needed in the case and perpetual long religious converts (or PRKR employed spammers) keep in denial. As it ever was: "A sucker is born every minute" .. "step right up folks, Parkervision miracle elixir is now on sale for only $1.03 a bottle. Despite what critics say, this does not kill your investment account. Just trust us.. it is a miracle cure for all the ails you."
Your perception of Sprint's ability to harm Verizon and AT&T is highly inflated. Sprintsy is hardly able to gain subscribers, the lifeblood of this industry. T-Mobile is doing more, but even their much ballyhooed rise to stardom has only led to a gain of a couple percent of overall industry marketshare.
What is important is building a position in networks and services to gain an overall market position. Retail junkies think only about the surface of the business they see and experience... and know or discard what goes on behind the scenes in the government, enterprise, vertical, MtM/IoT and other markets that add to overall dominance. "If Sprintsy kills pricing, VZ and T will bleed to death" goes the false logic. This is more like spreading influenza: if Sprintsy and T-Mobile spread their cold bug (price war strategy) VZ and T get the sniffles, S and TMUS catch near pneumonia.. and if they do not have fortitude of lower cost of doing business than their chief rivals, they just might slump into death. Although real death in this industry is 'unheard of', they could end up as Sprintsy had before being bailed out by Softbank: on the auction block (again) for a dime on the dollar.
That is more nonsensical speculation about how Google might spend, or rather, exhaust their resources acquiring a wireless infrastructure company.
The assumption is that owning an infrastructure company is necessary in order for Google to have access to a larger capacity of wireless broadband in the USA. What is the reasoning behind that? Is it really necessary for Google to own the networks their services need to run over? Or is it only necessary for Google to work with the competitive companies (forces) within the industry that push for open IP access?
What prevents Google from continuing to drive their business forward like they have in the past? G has not owned the Internet have they? Google does not own cable, DSL or wireless or the majority of fiber optic broadband infrastructure. On a global basis, G owns only a small fraction of 1% of of broadband yet the company is the largest search and Internet ad company in the world.
Yet Walter jumps, like so many others over the past six years, to the conclusion that Google wants to buy the companies they have ridden on, much of the time for free. That logic concludes it is necessary for G to acquire infrastructure companies to survive and grow.. otherwise the huge cost would make no sense at all. If that is the case, then Google would have to acquire similar companies in other parts of the world. That blows the logic out of the realms of possibility.
Google does not need to acquire the world's Internet infrastructure companies. To succeed G must do what all competitive companies must: find ways to compete most effectively. That does not include acquiring T-Mobile, DISH, Sprint or any combination of US operators. Or operators in India, Indonesia or elsewhere.
Google + S + TM using/developing a more comprehensive set of devices and services and coordinated use of networks can achieve much of what Google could want without most of the burdensome expense.
Sorry, that speculation leads nowhere. Zero
What is your point? You divert the conversation of a web board that is here for investors to exchange information, links and ideas/analysis to something other than the goals of investing. Investing is about knowing the odds. You do not want me to mention them because they show you as a flaming idiot. What is it you would rather inguiring minds to know? Some concocted story that lost in court? That the prospects do not matter so long as investors 'believe in' your side?
The basic truth about PRKR are found in the stock price and the odds.. not your story. Stop being a lying falsetard trying to steer people from the facts.
Fact: PRKR is down and the odds are mounted against investing long the stock. Unless you live on Bizarro World where up is down, black is white, red ink is black ink, the odds are the odds.
Sham way to divert attention from the losses long snakeoil salesmen have incurred on those who took their advice. Those advocating PRKR have cost investors money over 90% of the time. If that is the result of 'paid bashers' then those who took that advice, nonetheless for your childish bashing of posts adverse to PRKR, have saved themselves from losses.
Keep it up... "Come on and join us in our misguided effort to pump up a worthless company stock." "Ignore that our advice has lost past investors most of their money... everything is cool now... invest with us and you will surely beat the odds!"
The score still remains: PRKR has about a 1.75% chance of both surviving PTAB IPR review of patent claims and reversal of Judge Dalton's ruling and a retrial 'final win' of the case. PV's stock price has shot up a whopping ten cents... now its down to a gain of 6c following the filing of PV's brief and an Supreme Court ruling some erroneously construed as favorable to the company.
PRKR stock pumpers score looks even worse than PRKR's chances: By the statistics for PRKR, 98% of those who purchased the stock over the past 15 years have lost money. Conversely, those who shorted the stock, unless they did so at under about $1, which is difficult to do since most brokers do not lend stock to short under $5, have made, on average, over a gain of over 90% (gain from the mean average over 10.50).
Pump harder snakeoil salesmen in training. Zip boom bah, tear 'em, tear 'em up harder, harder!!!
PV's Prucnal failed to use the documentation you describe as so complete that "I'm confident I could reproduce Qualcomms chips with these documents alone." to produce a demonstration circuit, simulation or provide measurements that it uses Parkervision's technology. If Q's documentation is so easy to confirm use of PV's patents, why hasn't this multi-million dollar ponzi scheme company ever produced such a circuit or just a simulated circuit? Wouldn't that have helped them to sell the technology to somebody? If it is so easy-peasy to go from design documents to commercial device, why don't you produce some killer circuits to sell into the market? PV has zero sales, zeropaid licenses, zero proof their 'easier, cheaper, simpler/fewer circuits' technology works or is used by anybody.
You keep putting your foot in your mouth: Yea sure, Qualcomm produced voluminous documents, measurements and they do exhaustive simulation to prove that it will work under the crossfire of internal reviews. They do that and they produce test articles to check out how the circuits work in actual silicon and devices... before they go into full production. PV has not done that. They have not even taken what you describe as being easy to render documents to produce proof that their technology is being used. Instead, Prucnal et al just repeat PV's 'trust us' Fairy Dust hocus-pocus that 'its so easy to see we do not need to take the step to prove it will work... that is so easy its a given'.
OK, I will agree for the sake of argument that Q's documents make it easy for even a web board fellow idiot to build the circuit. Given that Parkervision has not done so leads to a conclusion that either they can't or they refused to do so because it would prove that Qualcomm does NOT use the technology. The only conclusion one can come to is that they decided not to take this easy as sin step because it would show that D2D is not being used.