Honey looks sweet.. what looks sweet about the chart?
The chart looks like S has moved toward the top of a trading range with resistance at this level and higher at ~9.35.
S is above the 120 and 200 day moving averages
MACD turned bullish a few days ago
ADX is negative
Overhead resistance at multiple levels
Not even close to a 'double top' let alone a breakout to new highs (someone is smoking something funny)
Bearish deviation in the accumulate/distribution indicator
Upper bollinger band channel
The overall TA looks short term mixed, mid-term bearish for a move back into the recent range. Long term remains dependent on S establishing a financial turnaround and at least achieving the forecast growth numbers which are sub-par of the competition.
Sorry about that last post.. I thought the post was to the Sprint board.. but it does apply to T-Mobile and other operators as well.
The extreme of free enterprise, Darwinian economics, is to take all of the public spectrum back from the licensed operators to allow it to be used as unlicensed, licensed-light public access spectrum that is exploited on a free and open basis for the public benefit. Since our ICT telecommunications industry sucks (by the numbers) compared to the rest of the developed world and much of the '3rd world', it might be argued that what is evangelized as the most democratic, free enterprise country should open spectrum up to the forces of technological revolution. The miracle of Wi-Fi is that by putting advances of wireless into the hands of users who know best where they need it, it gets 'deployed' cheaply and effectively to yield, by far, the most intensive use of the spectrum and capital resources available. Why not rip out the spectrum from incalcitrant beggar companies like Sprint and make it available alongside 2.4GHz spectrum but with the aim of using it at higher power and longer range? If Sprint refuses to use it properly, take it back should be the public cry.. use it or lose it should be revisited.
Or.. Sprint can 'get off your duffs and do some stuff'.. innovate in the 'network-to-market' fellow fools!'
How is it "..hurting everybody in the long run"?
That is a fabrication based on your perspective.
The rule of technological evolution and also of free market capitalism is that of Darwinistic devouring of weaker, less evolved technologies and use of capital by the newer/more efficient and capable. In addition to the text book explanation of mechanisms involved are the multiplicative benefits that communications has on the broader economy and ability of a nation's people to seek the pursuits of freedom and 'happiness' as they wish to define it within the bounds of the law.
The wireless industry exists both for its own benefit and that of investors who wish to place bets on the fortunes of particular horses in the race, but also for the benefit of the society at large. This extends beyond any country's borders as does any internationally traded commodity... made more so because telecommunications must be build on standards and benefits the rapidly accelerated exchange of ideas.
Wireless is also built upon a common resource that is leased for their use for the public good. No operator owns a single hertz of spectrum.. they own networks and services built on top of their leased/licensed spectrum which the FCC can theoretically take back if they fail to make most or, at least, more efficient use of it.
Prices for wireless services should be expected to follow the ability for technology and access to more public spectrum to deliver more for less. Prices should naturally move down. With 4G prices should move down on a $/bit/hertz basis because technology is producing "Moore's Law" and also wireless domain technology gains that are amplified by exploitation of the spatial domain using MIMO-AAS and smallcell densification.
The USA has among the world's highest prices and lowest bandwidth and video penetration on mobile networks. We suck at it.
On first glance, this patent appears to have merit... however, the only way to understand that is to study the surrounding patents which takes hours. It deals with a routing mechanism used SIP, session initiation protocol. What makes that potentially more important (again that is not determined) is that SIP is a low-level communication protocol that works within the wireless network to the subscriber device level.
One has to study the details of the patent and those surrounding it to determine whether it is important. Many patents in wireless are made part of blanket licensing agreements with little or no net payout or income. Operators hold far fewer patents than the suppliers of equipment, devices, multi-mode chipsets and other components, OS, interface and applications software, etc. Many of the patents held by operators are naturally more specific to how their own networks function and may not be adopted by other operators. That is because the standards spell out the framework for implementing 2G, 3G, 4G+ but they leave details for how to implement the standards up to the discretion and innovation of the various segments of the supply and operator ecosystem. So long as the device, equipment supplier or operator is in compliance with the standards, and regulatory compliance certifications and consensus practices, they can take advantage of their own knowhow.
This patent application appears to be a follow on to a previous patent held by Sprint, US 8325605. How important it is? Is it covered under license agreements in place between suppliers or other operators? That has to be researched. However, individual patents seldom are very important to operators who make the vast bulk of revenues selling services, not licensing tech. Patent litigation has never caused a service disruption or imposed limits on users.
Small news... it is interest on debt for a few days.. peanuts to investors.
Sprint's glory days were over a decade ago. When was the last major pioneering effort by Sprint? It goes back about 30 years or something.. to communications and digital days when Sprint was led by people who took risks based on use of technology that had, for them in those simpler times, a clear path to new markets.
Sprint squandered on Nextel when they might have kept their powder dry and spent the money on 700MHz and AWS and then deployed into that greenfield spectrum as the industry is now capable.. using multiple carrier LTE.
WiMAX was a 'use it or loose it' which was the best (almost the only) choice at the time. However, the way Sprint went about deploying was wrong from the start... castrating themselves and then New Clearwire to a costly, inadequate BB solution. 2.6GHz needed to have the emphasis on smallcell network-to-market deployment from the very start. It still doesn't. The guys are brain deadened. Wonder what the old glory days Sprint leaders would have done?
Short interest tends to move up near peaks, down near lows with 1/3 to 1/2 held longer term or as hedges to bonds, or offsetting long positions in stock or options among portfolios.
Settlement Date Short Interest Avg Daily Share Volume Days To Cover
2/14/2014 49,730,814 28,152,426 1.766484
1/31/2014 65,646,735 17,905,818 3.666224
1/15/2014 73,724,504 20,381,953 3.617146
12/31/2013 60,626,565 26,616,182 2.277808
12/13/2013 97,007,554 17,945,173 5.405774
11/29/2013 98,332,353 22,234,055 4.422601
What does tracking the short interest volume to the ups and downs of the charts on a weekly basis say? Mostly that 'who is playing who?' turns out to be shorts are more astute/at playing the stock than the many sharezombie longs represented here. (Some longs have done quite well.. by not listening to the sharezombies).
Note: short interest is compiled from the short interest and trading volume numbers that is reported every 15 days with another week for it to be compiled and reported by the NASDAQ. So adjust the plot by about 18 days (half of the compilation period.
How so? How is Sprint using the spectrum (and how did Clearlywired use it)? How that does leverage up to coverage-bandwidth/capex performance in the competitive environment?
"Me don't know.. but if I repeat the same diddly squat hype over the past six years and put in in ALL CAPS, fellow sharezombies will believe it is true."
Clearwire was a business failure.. squatted on 140MHz of spectrum while hardly using it. That resulted in a huge debt that Sprint-SB had to absorb and a network that is being allowed to wither away. Meanwhile, Sprint only uses the vast spectrum for densification of metro zones... with sub 10,000 base stations its hardly being used... does not even cover the sub-licensing fees Sprint is paying. Needed but oh so rudimentary. It is NOT what Softbank Japan or China Mobile are doing. Its not what other operators who are using multiple-carrier networks around the world are doing... Sprint is a supreme laggard in use of 2.6GHz because of lack of innovation.
Sprint deserves the DOJ and FCC kicking them down the road... "Get with it already brain-dead engineering and management in KC.. do some of that Mavericky stuff... innovate you lazy #$%$!!!"
Verizon discussed their capex plans during the recent quarterly CC: they plan to spend about three times as much as Sprint projected over the next five years. Verizon has most of the spectrum they need to form a balanced portfolio of low frequency (for wide coverage & penetration), and PCS-AWS spectrum for mobile broadband. They lack the higher frequency spectrum that Sprint has but, then, S has not used that as a competitive advantage anyway. In about 4 years the 3.5GHz band is planned to be used for small cell, in-building relay and additional Wi-Fi 802.11ac band.
Under the current scenario competitors look to stay ahead. That is why Hesse and Son are so eager to take the easy way out.. growth by acquisition. The FCC and DOJ want Sprint-SB to innovate and make more extensive use of the spectrum they are sitting on. However, the way Sprint is going they will once again become a decrepit competitor needing a handout from Uncle Sam in order to stay in business... that appears to be what Hesse is counting on.
Does not sound like a trick: Hesse was likely meaning that if allowed to merge with T-Mobile then there would be three healthy competitors rather than two duopolists and two weak players, Sprint and T-Mobile.
The stock boards are the Internet 'pumper and dumper zone'...
Sprint and T-Mo are both underdogs in which they must shift the game in their favor one way or the other. One way to do that would be, if allowed, to merge to achieve a similar scale as Verizon and AT&T. Or S could have innovated to reduce costs in the network by letting users take part in deployments.. even AT&T gets that... while brain-dead Sprint-CW has never gotten it. S should not be copying the methods of the rivals, they should have waged war on them.
Let's face it, Softbank is an innovator in tightened down Japan... Sprint is a complaining laggard in the US. Things have been different here which has made innovation far more important than for SB who acquired Vodafone JP at a distress sale price and then rode the wave of 3G and the iPhone before and better than rivals. Ditto the acquisition of 2.5Ghz network player. The acq. of Sprint has Son yelling at Sprint managers... I can imagine the conversations .. and think S deserves being brought up for the waste of opportunity exposed to them.
Son's history is very interesting: he is not native Japanese.. Son is a Korean who was educated in the US, at UC Berkeley of which he is said to retain close ties.
After a brief period as a startup entrepreneur in the US, Son moved to Japan where early business efforts were as a distributor of datacom, networking and PC software.
Son might be characterized as being a collaborator rather than going against the grain of established business. For example, he put together business relationship with Japanese IT and retailers to distribute software. After some of these efforts failed to pan out, many of the companies who had lost money went on to forge new business relationships and support the company financially. Over time Son has grown in power and stature such that he can lash out at regulators (see Japanese edition WSJ for article) and push back against competitive tactics with strong rhetoric.
Son needs to bring out his 'Maverick' side .. not be so collaborative that Sprint's lackluster mediocrity is allowed to remain the status quo.
PV is a loser: never has made a profit, never has sold significant volume of parts, devices, or technology and never has proven that Qualcomm has infringed their patents despite cajoling the jury to to believe in their sob story of being misused by Qualcomm.
The reason why longs must post 4:1 to those they accuse of being short or in the pay of Qualcomm is because the history of Parkervision looks just like a scam company turned Patent Troll as last resort because nothing else had worked out.. not even using their own technology in PV's own products.
Let's keep to the basics: PV did not and cannot prove their technology was infringe by Qualcomm. The ruling aside, the determination will take up to three years for the final results upon which, I am certain, Qualcomm will be proven not to have infringed and will pay PRKR nothing. The 'longs' diversionary tactic mocks that of PV/McKoolaide's court antics, er case theory: shunt facts to the storyline to avoid delivering proof.
This argument has gone on and on.. Its gotten boring. I won't comment much about your misleading, FUD arguments until there is new reason... indication from the court or from PV that changes their position as among the biggest losers in the US tech scene.
"WorldCom model"? How about Sprint/Clearwire long enduring business model? T-Mobile and Sprint look sick compared to the duopolists Verizon and T-Mobile. What does Sprint do with the information about how their fellow runt of the litter is doing? How do they use that to compete or complain to the FCC and DOJ that they are not able to innovate out of the wet paper bag they ran into?
Also, by Maverick I mean that is what the DOJ and FCC have called T-Mobile.. what you and I say its called does not mean squat.
T-Mobile reported marginally positive cash flow.. is doing better lately in financial results, other than refinance of the huge debt carried over from Clearwire, than Sprint.
It doesn't necessarily say it will lead to a competitive market... not for a while. However, as the plight of T-Mobile errodes, the argument improves that without an acquisition the industry will be left with only two strong players and one or 2 on life support, unable to be competitive because of their weakness.
Softbank-Sprint's acquisition of T-Mobile is likely a long term prospect. I agree with other recent posts: it makes sense to wait acquiring T-Mo as the business trajectory may not be sustainable. It also makes sense to wait to let DOJ, FCC and Congress stew on the prospects of the two smaller players becoming less effective competition to Verizon and AT&T. It may be just a matter of time for the regulators to warm up to the deal and for Deutsche Telekom to accept a bid without a large penalty clause and for a reasonable price tag.
Job one is for Sprint to get their own house in order... further cut costs, innovate devices and networks in order to compete more effectively.