The patent system makes it relatively easy and cheap to file. The 'system' is cast in the adversarial context of our legal system: it sets standards that must be met in order for grant of a patent which, then, find their way through commercial adoption, licensing, or legal prosecution.
The rigors of being granted a patent are lower than the tests put to patents in, usually, the commercial world or to obtain validation in the courts. Those skilled in patent law have found ways to overburden or otherwise get patent claims granted. Then comes the difficult task of either using the patents in products or licensing them.
As an individual vs. corporately sponsored inventor myself, I understand deeply how the cards appeared to be stacked against 'the little guy'. The difficulty of pursuing patents is a real but very necessary obstacle.
Parkervision has not had a problem with having the financial means to pursue patents. Quite the contrary: Parker got patent law shysters to maneuver patents through the PTO. Then they concocted a string of stories about commercializing the claimed inventions or license them. This was done despite the fact the claims could never be proven to work because the core claims violate rules of physics - blatantly bogus from the start.
Parkervision has been all along, a carefully crafted scam operation to exploit a vulnerable system. Investors who did not have the knowledge to know this were gambling based on hunches and pleading of the very crafty snake oil salesman, Jeff Parker. That is how I said it would be some 15 years ago... it is how it is despite continued denials.
These filings appear to show activity, that while above the norm, do not change the situation - in fact, that is what the FCC is their initial finding. That is because the transactions are a balancing of the spectrum which does not trigger what is called an "FCC spectrum screen" that would be required if the transactions caused either of the operator;s spectrum holdings to exceed the limits, usually 1/3 of the available band or is an outright transfer. On a quick read, these transactions, (including others not mentioned involve AT&T and T-Mobile), appear to be more than what may be considered average/routine but might have been expected considering the recent spate of spectrum licensing and network builds that have occurred. That is because operators acquire spectrum based on how they think demand will develop. After they deploy, usage and the ability of the spectrum may be found to no longer be the best fit, making adjustments necessary. The FCC encourages operators to cooperate to make the best use of spectrum. Thus, they can, after hearings take place, be expected to approve these filings. The reason why a number of such filings appear near the same date is likely due to how negotiations occur - "I'll trade you Board Walk for Pike Place and two hotels" causes multiple transactions.
I did find a similar filing for Verizon & Sprint:
"Sprint Corporation (Sprint), and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless,
and together with Sprint, the Applicants), have filed applications pursuant to Section 310(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
1 seeking the simultaneous assignments and exchanges of full
and partitioned Personal Communications Service (PCS) licenses and a full Advanced Wireless Services
(AWS-1) license by and among Verizon Wireless and certain subsidiaries of Sprint and Verizon
2 The subject licenses cover geographic areas scattered throughout the country. The proposed
transactions involve the transfer of spectrum; no customers or networks would be transferred.
According to the Applicants, in many of the markets involved in the proposed transaction, equal
amounts of spectrum would be exchanged and therefore the attributable spectrum holdings of Sprint and
Verizon Wireless would be unchanged. The Applicants assert that the proposed spectrum exchanges
would allow for holding larger blocks of contiguous spectrum, which in turn should permit more robust
operations. In those markets where either Sprint or Verizon Wireless gains additional spectrum, the
Applicants maintain that the proposed transaction would help meet the demands of their customers for
broadband wireless services.
Our preliminary review of the applications indicates that the spectrum implicated by the proposed
transaction covers 145 counties in all or parts of 59 Cellular Market Areas (CMAs), covering
approximately five percent of the population of the United States, in parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Pre-transaction, across all the CMAs involved in these transactions, Sprint holds 41 megahertz to
225.5 megahertz of spectrum in total; post-transaction, Sprint would hold 41 megahertz to 230.5 ..."
I found no recent filings of transfer of licenses between Sprint and Verizon. However, there is a recent filing titled: "SPRINT CORPORATION AND T-MOBILE USA, INC., SEEK FCC CONSENT
TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE LICENSES"
The filing can be found on the FCC dot gov website
I will cut and paste part of the doc in a following post
Hmmm what? What are the details? Operators file exchanges and sale of spectrum on a routine basis. Posting that Sprint and VZ filed with the FCC means nothing... are you trying to be misleading? The best use of these boards is to exchange information, not hide it and hope people will let their imaginations get the better of them. I see no reason other than to mislead for not providing the details, or a link.
Sprint buying TMUS? What Fairy Godmother do you see gifting Sprint with ~$40B to acquire T-Mobile US? Softbank is not Sprint's nifty Fantasy Fairy Godmother: Masa Son is not nearly so idiotic to gift Sprint with capital. The parent company has been willing to acquire core assets in exchange for money but no 'Free Money' has turned up under Claure's pillow.
Sprint (S) technical analysis , TA:
S moved up ahead of earnings and since pulled back. Since late March, S has been setting higher lows and highs in a consolidation pattern - swings up and down have narrowed. The stock has been unable to breach the 120 moving average to break higher to test the early March high at 4.19.
This sets up a pivot point. Short term indicators and chart pattern have turned bullish but only modestly. That is because Sprint (S) is sitting on a support level that has held up for about two months. I am not so sure about this: while some indicators look (mildly) bullish, MACD and others look bearish or reflect a pivot point - they conform with consolidation before a move either up or down.
What to do now: Set orders to buy on a move through 3.50 and/or a sell/sell short order upon moving down past 3.32. In all cases, place stop-loss price following orders to exit positions if the position moves against you.
Sprint's overall position has not changed for several months (or years): S has been a long-term bear/sell short with worsening competitive position. Longs hoping otherwise should either trade the stock or wait on the sidelines until Sprint's performance improves beyond painting red lipstick on piglet results IMO.
Overall, sell bias as a higher beta trading stock
Ask, "how the $200 million hedge fund short bet figures into the overall capitalization of DISH?" Why would Ergen do anything in particular about it? He is not going to make a hasty move based on the short position. The hedge fund obviously has publicized their move in a way that makes it clear they hope to cause selling, thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Other reasons for DISH doing phone repairs:
a) To see how well they can integrate phone servicing into their current operations, ie. without the help of a major mobile operator partner or merger.
b) To prepare their customer base for sales of phone service. That could be as an MVNO or build of their own mobile networks.
c) To goad mobile operators into doing a deal with DISH. That has been very difficult because 1) Mobile operators have acquired spectrum and engaged in densification to the extent they can envision a future without acquiring or otherwise using DISH's spectrum.
Ergen's move to service phones can be judged based on what it does and its scale: It only puts a toe in the water for mobile services... it does not cost much and can be disengaged at low cost and without damage to DISH's mainstream satellite TV service. It could enable DISH to train and gain experience in among the messiest aspects of the business, one that is in the closest touch with users of mobile devices. The service and use of phones are the most common pain point. As all well saturated marketers know, you go after pain points.
So what? Call quality, low latency, highest spot data speeds do not matter enough in a highly saturated market. Sprint came late to the understanding that their brains were dead and needed to be refilled with smallcells. That charges up the network but the market has responded with So Freaken what?... everybody is about the same." The race Sprint is running is the race of the past decade.. still brain dead crazy after all these years.
The ONLY way out for Sprint is to 'innovate from the user to the network up".. and the blowhards still do not get that after failure after failure after failure until it has become too late to grow brains or needed capital to even try.
Sprint is the walking dead Zombie company. That is why Masa Son is genius enough to do what I suggested, restructure financially ahead of BK... or grinding down of operations.
The course Sprint is on is for Softbank to siphon off assets and cash flows while Sprint becomes a right-sized shell operation. Until a miracle happens to show otherwise, investors should trade this piglet or watch for results to justify Claure's bloated rhetoric.
.. Or the most notable fate acompli failure. Claure, Sprint CPP, has announced a turn around three times before.. it happens like clockwork every quarter such that it has become only a joke. First turn around, then announce it fellow idiot.
Two currents: SFTBY is recovering from the January worldwide high-yield credit meltdown fears and stock market sell-off and, secondly, SB has created a buffer between it and Sprint by setting up special interest entities that exchange capital for bankruptcy survivable asset and cash flow companies.
I disagree with your assessment of Softbank as " which is a horrible investment compared to other companies you could invest in". I can think of many companies that are in a worse position than SB. The negative impact of Sprint is becoming manageable while SB holds stakes in the largest online wholesale and retail operation in the world today, Alibaba. The company does have problems but it also has opportunities to increase growth and margins over the current level. The easy days of growth are probably behind Softbank. The targeted expansion into India and other BRIC countries will not be the early-entry opportunity Softbank found with Yahoo! Japan and Alibaba. However, the company contributed to those success stories and has a decent chance of repeating that to a lesser degree in the high growth regions of the globe.
The main avenue to a higher price for SFTBY is reducing the risk of owning 84+% of Sprint. The recent actions taken by SB-S shows that Masa is doing just that, carving out sustainable assets and cash flows to the benefit of Softbank while reducing costs at Sprint and paying down their debt. If Sprint sales and margins do not go downhill from here, over time Softbank will have reduced their liabilities of owning Sprint while having borne much of the expense by the device and network lease-back companies.
That makes the near-mid term prospect for appreciation of SFTBY more due to a reduction of risk of owning Sprint than having a large improvement in conglomerate performance. I don't suggest investors buy any single stock exclusively. However, the growth problems SB faces are similar to those faced by Google and many others. I also think those enamored of owning Sprint might consider owning SB instead.
Competition has been heating up over the past decade as Sprint came from being the only US operator to have the wide-band spectrum to all of the top four having what is classed as wideband (in addition to the narrow-band spectrum the industry grew voice and messaging service). The industry has gone from being the highest growth consumer industry that has ever occurred to a marginal growth industry. The growth in dollar terms is still substantial simply because the wireless industry has grown to be a monster. However, the bulk of the growth phase is over because the primary US market for voice plus messaging and data is almost completely saturated.
That means the only way that Sprint can grow revenues substantially is to take marketshare away from competitors. As discussed many times, there is a BIG Problem: While the cost to consumers for mobile broadband is among the highest in the world, there are fundamental reasons why a portion of that cost is not conventionally gotten around.
When Masa Son/SB acquired Vodafone JP, Japan had very high priced phone service. The cost to supply that service were lower than in the USA because the cost situation is very much different: Japan is an island country the size of California with most of the population located along the coasts in large metro areas. And Japan and many Asian countries foresaw the need for high-speed fiber optic to interconnect stuff like base stations. In the US we treat fiber optic as the wild west.. still living with local dirt roads mentality with toll booths along the way. There is no nationwide grid with simple, fair to all ability to connect to it. What if America had no power grid to local communities - let them all do their own thing? That is what we have in fiber optic. The cost and difficulty of building 5G are multiple times higher than in advanced countries like Uganda (having fun poking the Pope of US policies).
There is a wide gap between the broad statements that Sprint will do a quick recovery, a V-shaped turnaround and the financial statements and guidance. Sprint's financial guidance is what analysts base their financial models upon, not the fluff statements of CEOs that are intended 'for public consumption'. Everyone understands that the public is the fellow idiots needed to sell stock in order to capitalize most large businesses in today's economy. Going public is a necessary evil in order to provide additional capital that can then be leveraged further through debt. And it is needed to have stock to give as incentives and rewards to acquire and retain employees. Therefore, management naturally treats public statements about the stock as a bit of a dance.. tell the public what it needs to hear.. so long as it does not fall out of bounds of what is considered legal and normal. For many companies, particularly those that have consistently lost money, gilding the lily is the norm, not the exception.
Masa Son has to please investors in Softbank. SB is a very successful operation despite a few mistakes here and there. The company is currently undervalued when compared to other companies in the same ilk and to its component parts. As articles have pointed out, the holdings in Alibaba alone account for most if not all the current valuation of Softbank (SFTBY). Yahoo! Japan is among the most successful Internet+ businesses in the world. Alone it is worth most of the value of all of the troubled Yahoo! - and that is largely due to Softbank's participation.
Sprint is the biggest weakness - a cash sinkhole that never fails to disappoint. Masa is restructuring Sprint by serving as the buyer of last resort for blocks of assets and cash flow that can be made into survivable entities. That is not a the best outcome but is the best course of action available.
The V-recovery is only true for Softbank, not Sprint. Buy SFTBY is more prudent than S IMO.
Sprint = Sprint asset holdings, the assets sold by Sprint, and Bagholder Sprint, the public company you own shares in.
Bagholder Sprint (S), is forecast to have losses through 2018. Softbank's other companies including BriaghtStar and Network LeaseCo, when combined with Sprint, may show a combined profit. A 'V type turnaround' sounds like hogwash... because the trajectory for overall sales will not be high rate of growth. The combined P/L figure may look V shaped... any profit going from steep losses is something over zero = infinity.
The scenario, as it is described by Softbank and Sprint and then interpreted by some ANALysts, the money for words media, looks like it was dreamed up on Bizzaro World - down is up.
What Masa Son is doing with Sprint is 100% within the rights of Softbank, proper and correct IMO. How it is being presented and interpreted through the pay-per-opinion media and piggie painting Sprint executives and PR department is craporino.
The financial analyst(s) reporting on PRKR have been off-Wall Street firms that do not often have the wall between financial analysis/reporting and the brokerage... for speculative, penny type stocks the opposite if often true - the financial forecasts and reports are extremely biased to the firms position in the stock. This ca go to a further extreme in which the company is in cahoots with the broker-analyst firm in a concerted effort to pump and dump the stock and sell tranches to funds and certified investors. The involvement is usually hidden by working through intermediaries such as VC/seed funders. I know of this from first-hand experience. I was once asked to join a broker-analyst firm where I would get stock and options and chance to buy stock prior to the pump phase. The company is held at arms length.. but it just mysteriously happens that I would issue favorable reports and other PR at the right time to pump the stock up.. after the broker and others loaded up. The pump can go into reverse: I have talked with folks, it is too old of info for the SEC to pursue, as if they would, who informed me that they were pushing out sales or pulling int expenses to get bad news exposed during the current quarter, grab shares and then pump up the next quarter through expected events or sales flux. Of course, you have to have actual sales to do that sort of gross manipulation.
Public companies are loosely regulated pimping of gilded ladies... let the buyer beware. Most firms ar legitimate but even the best and biggest can play games with their numbers occasionally... or as an SOP.
Based on the delusions of a stock owner or Sprint employee IMO.
Zack's shows (see NASDAQ website) that financial analysts, by a wide margin, have lowered estimates for Sprint (S) Profits/Losses for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 (2019 unchanged), and for quarters through March 2017.
The Juggling the numbers done by companies can be confusing to investors:
Reading over Softbank's results, the company/Masa Son, pose Sprint as turning around and provide some numbers that do not jive with the number Sprint (S) reported. What is a poor fellow idiot public investor to make of this? First, keep in mind that Softbank holds parts of "Sprint" in other companies it now owns. These include the company that Claure sold to Softbank, Brightstar, that takes part in the device lease deal and handles wholesale distribution, refurbishment, and resale of devices. As more leases are sold by Sprint, the cash flow and profits shift to Brightstar. Similarly, the Network-Spectrum lease companies buy assets from Sprint in return for capital. The business cash flow and P/L goes on the books of these 3rd party 'special situation' companies and, then, as part of Softbank's conglomerated books.
That leads to a harried mess for Sprint investors. If you read multiple articles on Sprint and Softbank's quarterly results, no doubt you will find that not all of the numbers jive. What's up with this jive? The numbers don't jive because there is lose fitting of terms. In the field of scientific research community, this is called P-HACKING - the limitation of research pools or selection of specific results to cause erroneous conclusions, usually slanted to the bias of the person/group doing the reporting.
Always keep in mind that every company's own situation is in a state of flux and so are the strategic alternatives with respect to collaboration/partnerships including MVNO, shared access to spectrum and networks, content and other assets, and mergers/acquisitions. The prices, debts, market position, user and network field of technology can change, most often within bounds of trends, to make what was wanted/needed in the past more or less so an option now or going forward.
The is a good article because it takes an even-handed viewpoint and exposes what DISH is up to. What is DISH up to? Charlie Ergen has accumulated about 77MHz of mid-band spectrum. He has acknowledged that he needs a mobile operator to work with or acquire or be acquired by in order to get it into the mobile marketplace effectively. However, DISH has not been able to find a buyer of the spectrum near the price Ergen would like to sell it or a partner to work with or a company he could acquire or be acquired by. The mobile operators are not fools (or complete fools): they do not want to get into bed with Charlie in a way that makes him a fierce competitor to mobile services. That includes paying a high price for parts of his spectrum - the capital then being used to build his own competitive network.
Both DISH/satellite operator and cable companies have the possibility of shifting into mobile services by extending the reach of wireless from the home and business premises up to the wider network coverage footprint. Local, now WiFi based, networks have become more reliable, easier to connect to and wider coverage. Yet WiFi has nowhere near the range needed to provide wide area coverage similar to mobile networks. DISH would have to do something similar to Comcast: gain an MVNO agreement (C's with Verizon) to provide the wide area coverage. Then DISH could extend home BB that included satellite content. That is flawed by lack of a local BB connection similar to cablecos.
DISH's spectrum: "Dish Network has amassed some 77 MHz of radio spectrum, spending some $15 billion in the process, according to Citigroup. Dish, however, lacks a wireless partner to deliver mobile video services."
The market holds a much higher valuation on the spectrum than DISH/Ergen paid for it. Much of the valuation is justified based on it being in the same general mid-band as holdings of Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile and the fact that it has nationwide coverage. Even though in the internationally recognized LTE band allocations, only about 1/4th of Sprint's spectrum has nationwide coverage and it is a band that is not shared by other major US operators.
DISH's valuation is based on the premise that operators will need more spectrum than is currently available. The counter to that premise is the network densification has no foreseeable upper limit to increasing bandwidth density per hertz of spectrum and that more spectrum is still waiting to be deployed with about 450MHz yet to become available through auction and freeing up and licensing by the FCC. The judgement of how the availability of spectrum and increased utilized capacity will come about depends on how thorough and complete the analysis including how well it corresponds to the actions operators are likely to take to either get more spectrum outside of DISH and cost effectively densify (or Sprint if that is the subject of the speculation).
Many in the media and investment community have steered their ships onto the rocks due to the siren calls of the industry that much more spectrum is needed. Yes, more is needed. However, the industry advocates on their behalf partly out of needs and partly because they have a stick to shake - so long as they can get their greedy hands on more spectrum they will push for more to be freed up from government and public use including unlicensed WiFi, the densest and economical use of spectrum by a factor of 10X-30x over managed networks.