That is only the tip of the iceberg - JP had touted sales of alleged revolutionary performance WiFi, licenses, and parts several additional times over the past 15+ years. The conference calls are snake oil cart shows - nobody there to call JP on his past missed promises while acting interested in his new bottle of miracle cure. Selling bogus stock is the biggest legalized form of prostitution of scams in the world today... for which suckers are born every day to fall for it.
JP should write a book: "How to Become a Paten Troll and Make a Fortune... for Idiots" 'Chapter 1. Make Claims of Miracle Advances. Chapter 2. Pay Companies to Look at the Technology and Tell Investors if is the Start of Big Sales. Chapter 3. Ignore Overdue Promises by Presenting Bigger Ones."
Many posts are so pathetic ... Talk about dividends, spectrum valuations, that has no chance of redemption. This is mind phucked. Sssiiiccckkk.
LOL, talk about paying dividends is stupid. That does not enter i into the time frame for the investment.LA LA LA di dinglefart
The FTC seldom issues a trade injunction or other ruling against a supplier for patents that are not proven to infringe or while there are open lawsuits on the claims. It is very highly the FTC will do so in this case. This was done as one of the desperate last ditch efforts to make something stick on the wall.
Having no brains is not a good attribute for an investor... 'no brainer' post.
T-Mobile (TMUS) is a much different company: it was 1/3 smaller than Sprint (S), had a smaller spectrum footprint and depth, and was losing money. However, TM had less debt, had deployed industry standard 2G and 3G which is more easily upgradable to 4G LTE, and had already become fiscally lean. Fresh funding could be put to work to deploy HSDPA and then LTE rather than already having been burned up to become debt with near-term payback needs.
If you were buying a consumer item such as a quadcopter to play with you would probably do a comparison of models. You might read reviews that showed how the models rated and listed features. Then you could weigh the pros and cons compared to the price. Companies stocks are not all the same can of beans so that the lowest price wins.
As the first calendar quarter of 2016 heads into the final days analysts usually do double checks of their prior analysis on companies. Sprint (S) had initiated very aggressive 50% off and other sales incentive campaigns designed to lure subscribers from the competitors. Cost cuts came at the profit/loss imbalance from the other side of the equation. As the quarter draws near, more analysts have come out with notes and reports that have downgraded their forecasts and recommendations. it is not all one-sided: while recommendations and price targets have come down, the forecasts for losses through early next year have actually moderated a bit less in the red. Isn't that something for longs to cheer about?
While Sprint seems to be trimming costs the lack of subscriber growth to the level of over a million postpaid subs per quarter needed is causing financial analysts to recognize that the process of exchanging assets for debt repayment capital is a slide toward eventual bankruptcy. Sprint must have topline growth and margin expansion to survive because cost cuts cannot close the debt gap.
But does the current string of downgrades create a climate for a backlash? Sometimes when a stock gets bad news and the price does not go down much, it is a signal that the bad news has already been factored into the price and it will move up on quarterly results.
That is a lot of wishful thinking. There is a reason why investment books/tutorials do not say to pick bad news bears stocks and hope for the best. Picking depressed stocks is OK if the underlying causes are reversed and fundamentals such as sales, margins, and marketshare turn up. Buying first, confirming the gun isn't loaded after the trigger is pulled is playing Russian roulette. Even if a trader/investor's modus operandi is to trust, the way to do that is to verify before pulling the trigger.
What does that have to do with it? Is this follow the leader over the cliff? Masa Son/Softbank buying of shares of Sprint was a relatively small measure, about 1/35 of overall investment in the stock that was done to prevent it from collapsing from the then price near 3, Other reasons to buy include ensuring SB's position with regulators, courts and the investment community as having done everything that resonably could be expected in order for Sprint to have the financial wherewithal to survive.
I've explained this in past posts, why aren't you keeping up with the grade school lessons?
Your bloviated opinions have been to buy S and that has resulted in losses. You can call my analysis of Sprint bloviated opinions, however, the result of my recommendations to buy near lows and sell or short near highs has been money making for those who like 'bloviating' their trading accounts to a bigger number..
It is time to elect bozo for office. Then Sprint will be free to be acquired, is that the hype storyline?
Gee, I have a broken down '78 Oldsmobile with a hemi-head engine. It has been run into the ground but just needs to be acquired and some money spent to fix it up. You will have to assume the bank loan for twice the salvage value but, trust me, it will be worth it. if your daddy and mommy, Mr. DOJ and Ms. FCC, will allow you to fork over the cash, it will be all yours.
You suckers are born every minute. Thank goodness, the world depends on you to keep oil in the crankcase. Lube up, it is time to ream a new one.
Why? Would you buy Sprint's debt-ridden carcass? Son is buying Sprint's crown jewel assets at a much-deserved discount. If you could walk into a sale of a bankrupt estate and buy up the Monet and Ming dynasty vase for a discount, eventually buying up all that is of lasting value, why would you, instead, buy the title to the entire estate, including its debts that are larger than the dissolution value? You would be insane (or just the average web board wonk) to do so.
The ephemeral shorts do not have to work hard to beat your sorry arsenio. You and those like you are mind pucks.. laughable. You simply do not matter. Stocks do not ride on my or your likes or dislikes. The fortunes of companies ride on their ability to prosper. Sprint sucks bad because they have lost so much their future is limited. Softbank's options are limited to securing a position in Old Sprint's sorry demise.
Old Sprint is a Zombie. It is already dead. It is overdue time to get rid of past debt and shareholders and move on. to a probably bland future.
Business is rigged: For some crazy reason businesses have to make more than they spend or, eventually, big sweet daddy stops loaning it money.
If you do not take the effort to know the legal, regulatory and business environment a company operates, you can become victim to your own lack of awareness.
Mobile operators get license grants of public airwaves. Sprint got some of its 2.5GHz for free decades ago. It was free because the industry did not know what to do with it to make money. The 2.4GHz and above spectrum were either not used or used for point-to-point, satellite, military, home wireless phones, and other types of applications where the poor range and penetration into buildings was not a show stopper.
A large portion of the 2.5-2.6GHz Band 41 was gifted to educational and religious organizations. That is communist... or socialist.. its contrary to free enterprise. The government holds spectrum in the public trust. The FCC is chartered to make the best use of it in the public interest. That, IMO, does not mean to gift it to any religious, educational or private company or group without having hard-nosed expectations for it to be used in a competitive manner. Sprint has debauched their responsibilities and poisoned the water for Softbank/Masa Son to try to make effective use of the band. Shareholders that have hung around since the days of Old Sprint are culpable for going along with the scam.
You complain about a company that received freebies from the government/FCC and then spun mountains of debt instead of gold. You now own it.
Masa Son should be allowed to reorganize Sprint if it fails to pull itself out of the gutter of debt.
It is the responsibility of the FCC and DoJ to assure the best use of public resources and the workings of the free enterprise system. Not handouts that perpetuate misuse. The FCC should take back half of Band 41 and auction it IMO.
Sprint cannot acquire free refreshments for lunch breaks.
The company is technically bankrupt.
If not for selling off of assets considered vital to mobile operation, Sprint would go into default on loan repayments over the next 1-3 years.
T-Mobile's growth has been expected to slow but has beat analysts expectations in the past. Evercore's revised forecast for postpaid adds is lower than some quarters in the past when TM added well over a million subs per quarter. However, it remains on pace to allow the company to continue to mount positive cash flows. The magic of being cash flow positive and having sales momentum is that every new subscriber adds to profits rather than losses.
If TM can add 3-5 million subs through the end of 2016 it will have performed well. That will lead to increased positive cash flow that helps, as the article mentioned, pay down debt. TM was able to attract financing for the auction at reasonable interest rates. However, they will need to start working down debt after the they splurge on 600MHz spectrum. if they do that, then their credit rating will improve, their debt service costs will move down, and they will be in a position to either borrow for a new round of networks or to do an acquisition, if allowed by regulators.
What could be next for mobile operators? Absorbing more of the home broadband and TV/video market. That is technically possible but must be done while maintaining positive cash flows. Thus far mobile operators have found it very difficult to capitalize on mobile video outside of charges for bandwidth. T-M has no announced plan to charge for video services. They have to be very efficient in delivering video... which is why they went down the path of Binge On.
The ability for self-setup is hardly unique to Artemis: SON, Self-Organized Networks is part of LTE/LTE-Advanced.
Keep in mind that what Artemis has developed is part of broader developments. Standards develop through consensus which sometimes makes compromises between what is optimal and what is practical. There can be commercial preferences in the decisions of what gets adopted into the standards. Often the best technology is not the most practical or simply does not win over the majority to get voted into the standards. Yes, these groups are, at least on the surface, democratic... they vote on what is admitted into the standard. LTE is defined by 3GPP standards group.
Example: When the first 802.16 fixed wireless standard was being developed, Nokia (as you noted who is now working with Artemis), proposed adopting their 'RoofTop' multi-hop MESH network technology into the fixed and the following mobile standard. That was about five years before the first LTE was available (2002-3). Even though RoofTop was immature compared to what could be built today, it could have been made part of a different direction for that early wireless broadband development. During the same period, IOSpan proposed V-OFDM. The CTO of Artemis came from IOSpan. V-OFDM was 'cool technology' when I studied it back then. However, I came to the conclusion it was impractical at the time. Now it is no long impractical because chips and software can do it. Chips and devices optimized for pCell or similar tech is now practical.
Sprint II might go on to use pCell type technology. If you could invest in a fresh start of Sprint, the prospects would not be buried under $33.6B in debt and another about $17B in long-term cell site lease obligations. Show me the stock symbol for that new prospect. It does not exist.
I was thinking outside the box when the technology of choice was TDMA. I was outside of the wireless industry when Qualcomm's developed CDMA. I heard them pitch the new technology to AT&T in Bellevue, Washington. Years latter CDMA/WCDMA had gained widespread adoption. I knew its limits and wanted to know what would be next. I studied research & patents, building a patent database using software developed at a leading research institute in Germany. That gave me the ability to search across countries using cross-indexed terms and building searchable references for my own patent database. That database grew to over 20,000 patents. Some were from Japan, China, S. Korea but most were EU, US.
New technology must fit commercial developments. Investors can benefit from the exploitation of new tech so long as the other parts are put in place: 1. Capital. 2. Management team. 3. A competitive position such as necessary critical resources, in this case spectrum. 4. Scale or time to scale operations. Those are ingredients for emerging market development. Sprint now must overtake entrenched markets to take share away from those who have it. That is more difficult and usually more costly.
When Sprint started deploying WiMAX several ago, Forsee talked about having a 4-5 year 'window of opportunity' before competitors would have the spectrum to follow. I advocated deployment of smallcells with a user deployed tier, saying macrocell would prove fatal as it would be too costly in 2.5GHz.
Sprint now has debts with no time left to gain a competitive advantage. All ops can use pCell if it makes sense. Technology is only one piece of the picture.
Via short squeeze site: Short Interest (Shares Short) 200,733,000
Short Interest Ratio (Days To Cover) 10.7
Short Percent of Float 30.81 %
Short % Increase / Decrease +7 %
Short Interest (Shares Short) - Prior 187,340,600
Shares Float 651,440,000
Plot the rise and fall of short interest (SI) against the stock's chart to show the relationship. Short interest is reported twice a month from data gathered from the brokerages and clearing agents. Then it is reported a week later on a schedule (see NASDAQ website for details). Therefore, back off the plot by about 10 days. This shows that historically short interest has risen near peaks in the stock price and gone down when the stock has reached low periods. SI serves as a contrary indicator for long investors. Both shorts and longs should buy low, sell high. The only difference is short sellers borrow stock to sell near the highs and buy it back near the lows.
Sprint (S) is closer to cyclical highs than lows according to the SI level. SI has remained near historical highs over the few months, having shot up to over 224m then backed down to under 200m prior to this move up.
What does pCell have to do with Sprint's immediate situation? You are throwing this out there as if 1) Sprint was working with Artemis to deploy pCell in widescale networks. 2) pCell was a separate technology from LTE. No, pCell or any other microcell vectored coordinated cell technology work in conjunction with the core wireless modulation scheme. pCell does not modify require a change in the core signaling. Instead, it works to enhance the signaling by using multiple cells to communicate with each user device. That fits into the category of coordinated multipoint-multicell signaling that the industry has been pursuing for several years. 3) The cost of deploying ANY small cell architecture is bound by the installation and backhaul/fronthaul costs. The equipment cost depends largely on volume, which is partly why standards are relied on - in order to get worldwide markets to develop that helps drive down the unit costs.
pCell is probably the most complete, end-to-end, development of the coordinated-multipoint technology. However, since this was developed privately rather than adopted within the wireless standards it lacks mass-market acceptance. At this point, there are no commercial deployments of pCell. In the meantime, CoMP/Co-MIMO/Mu-MIMO technologies are progressing through the 3GPP standards and major suppliers. Nokia is working with Artemis on trials for indoor applications.
pCell does not lower cost of deployment. Like every other microcell CoMP technology, it requires spanning an area with large numbers of cells. Let's assume the cost of the smoke detector-size units is cheap - $300/unit. And assume these are primarily self-backhauled to the wide area network. The cost of engineering, provisioning, labor, macrocell work will be ten to 40x the equipment cost.
Outdoor deployment case looks a bit different.
How do operators deploy that on a large scale? They either spend $30-$80 billion nationwide or get the site owner to absorb the cost.
The latest RM report shows AT&T jumping ahead of Verizon (VZ) in the overall performance score. This is due to a jump in network speed category. I suspect that is due to a cycle of deployment of higher speed backhaul combined with new antenna systems and base station upgrades that accrues from billions spent on backhaul and other areas over the past four years. T gained a 4.3 point lead over Verizon, 4.6 over TMUS and 8.2 points over Sprint. That relatively large number probably is more telling of what is going on than the smaller differences elsewhere in the report.. differences that may be due to data collection errors and anomalies than actually differences in performance.
What also leads more credence to reported numbers is consistency: if a report changes up and down from quarter to quarter the numbers either become less meaningful due to their temporary nature or they indicate possible vagaries in the data gathering and reporting methodology. Sprint has been at the bottom in Network Speed category despite improvements in their network. That is due to improvements in competitor's networks. It also shows, IMO, the 'lumpy gravy' aspect of Sprint's reliance on the higher frequency 2.5GHz network to deliver the higher speeds - high speed tends to be experienced closer to the Band 41 base stations than is the case for lower frequencies where range and building penetration is better.
Increased attention is being paid to RootMetrics and other network performance and user satisfaction surveys in recent months-years. That is due to the fact that these reports have improved dramatically and have taken advantage of the proliferation of SmartPhones and the ability for users to install phone apps that provide the analysis companies with many thousands of points of data. It is also due to the higher degree of emphasis on network quality as operators have grown closer together in coverage and use of similar LTE voice-data networks.
What stands out from these reports is a) Changes from one-quarter to the next probably shows an error factor of 2%-4% in the ratings. Why think that? Because the rankings often flip-flop in categories where there are close ratings. The performance rankings have become closer, just a point or three, sometimes just fractions of a point can determine the difference in rankings. The public more easily understands rankings.. 'So and so comes in number one!' means more to consumers (and often to middle management) than the actual numbers. If we look at the latest, 1ast Quarter 2016 RootMetrics RootScore report, overall ratings between 2nd ranked Verizon and 4th ranked Sprint varied by only 0.4 points out of 100. AT&T took over the top spot with a score 1.2 points above VZ. b.) Firm trends must be gleaned carefully from the data and considered against the backdrop of delivering services. Even if these scores were 100% accurate in showing overall network performance, which they are not, how much does it matter to buyers of mobile services? If these ratings alone determined success, then the top four operators would have nearly equal marketshare. That obviously is far from the case. Its doubtful that the small differences mean much in buying decisions, if at all aware of the reports.