% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Dish Network Corp. Message Board

teamrep 595 posts  |  Last Activity: 10 hours ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Bashers can't have it both ways

    by ant_rnan Aug 14, 2015 11:27 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 15, 2015 9:48 PM Flag

    Boring, juvenile waste of everyone's time. If you have a specific goal, entry point, or other advice that helps readers form an opinion and take action, post it. Otherwise, this ti-for-tat name calling can go back to the playground.

    What is your advice, price targets, investment strategy other than "me long, you basher'?

  • Reply to

    Compay lied apparently

    by statesrip Aug 14, 2015 10:45 AM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 15, 2015 5:05 PM Flag

    It is customary to give away chips for evaluation to qualified potential customers and to sell them evaluation boards or production like sample circuits. This is particularly the case with RF circuits because how the chip is laid out on the board, placement of, shielding/isolation, and coupling of other components/sections of the board can have significant impact on the function and performance.. much more so than for typical digital ICs.

    In highly integrated wireless designs where the function of RF or other sections of the overall design are highly interdependent, it is not uncommon for SOC suppliers, including Qualcomm, Samsung, and Mediatek to provide complete phone or tablet/phablet assemblies, software driver packages, lists of components such as sensors, memory, antennas that are qualified to work in the overall design. The suppliers want to sell chips to lots of companies. They do that by making it easier to verify and design the devices based on example kits that have tested and documented performance characteristics.

    Check out Parkervision's website: over the years is has not been made easy to buy their parts or evaluation kits. While its not that unusual to request details before the evaluation units are offered, PV has no price or availability information. An evaluation/component engineer has fits with that from the get go. PV is the one trying to break into designs.. the outsider always has to make life easier, not harder than entrenched competitors. My observations has always been that PV's website and sales was designed to sell to investors, not companies who might use the products.

    Recently PV made it look like they have actually sold parts to companies using them. Apparently they sold evaluation boards and got no orders. Why is that?

  • Reply to


    by brent5634 Aug 14, 2015 2:10 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 15, 2015 11:13 AM Flag

    I congratulated Mike here and directly. He deserves credit for thoroughly debunking PV's technologies including in the IPRs. However, Mike has millions of congratulatory messages sitting in his bank account.. nothing says congrats like a fat bank account.

  • Reply to

    generate revenue

    by brent5634 Aug 10, 2015 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 15, 2015 11:10 AM Flag

    The up-conversion patents are worthless without the core technology of using energy transfer. Parkervision built a pyramid (Ponzi Scheme) based on a core technology. The subsequent patents were granted based on that core technology.. whether that was done as part of the patents or as an understanding what was cultivated between the conspiring attorneys, PV, and the malleable patent examiners. Without the unprovable Fairy Dust core energy transfer patent claims, the whole basket of patents will fall by the wayside. The courts may be antiquated in how it operates but they are not fools. They will take a harsher look at PV's remaining patents and will rule many of them invalid due to their dependency on prior patents. I am not going to spend time to point out why each patent will prove invalid or worthless... I read them, made my conclusions, and that judgement has proven out. There are patents and developments that take my interest that makes this a now totally worthless exercise. Trust me, there is not enough worthwhile patents for PV to pursue a lawsuit strategy... not in PV's current form if at all.

    PV will get blasted out of the water in PV2 and the IPRs .. the second lawsuit was farcical .. now it has become monumentally pathetic

  • teamrep teamrep Aug 15, 2015 11:05 AM Flag

    Short interest is the number of shares held short as tallied for a two-week period and reported a few days latter. Short interest ratio is the ratio of short interest to float. Days to cover is the multiple of days calculated as SI/average daily trade volume.

    A stock could theoretically have 100% SI ratio. Having over about 15% is moderate to high, over 25% is a high ratio. Since 85% of retail investors do not short stocks, there are numerically far more buyers than short sellers which tends to make SI ratios lower.

    Since most retail investors do not short stocks, who does? It tends to be either active traders, professional investors, or institutions such as hedge funds, or as a hedge against debt instruments or other investments. Because those entities often are involved with larger amounts of capital, the smaller number compared to retail investors has a disproportionate impact.

    A common assumption of web stock boards is that short sellers read the boards. Most do not and do not care what retail investors think about the value of shorting stocks.

    Why not short if you think a stock is trending down, has been bid too high such that it is more likely to move down than up? So long as your timing is good, short selling is a perfectly valid/legal form of investing. Regardless of what you think, it has and will take place in most stocks you might buy.

    Take cues from SI even if you never short: Short sellers tend to be right most of the time #$%$hown by historical data. Saying otherwise is lying. However, sometimes they are wrong: I advised selling S prior to the downturn a few weeks ago, then advised buying as it hit the 4.12 level and, always, placing protective stop-loss orders. I again advised buying #$%$ hit new lows and to consider selling as it hit resistance. Each of those moves down and up are in the money. I pointed out that short interest rose during the recent period but did not change the buy recommendation because it is counter-trend.

  • Reply to

    What is the short float?

    by greatdane4444 Aug 14, 2015 3:54 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 14, 2015 6:35 PM Flag

    Softbank may have initiated the share buy back partly to put a crimp on short selling in the financial underdog. Short selling uncharacteristically went up even while the stock had gone down. That might have been an effort to force Softbank to dilute shares as the borrowing capacity of Sprint was tanking with the share price. Softbank stepped in to show support for Sprint by taking multiple measures that have the outward appearance of improving the debt and operations structure but may also have been an effort to thwart an aggressive attempt to devalue the company.

    Anyway, Softbank has the ability to shore up Sprint short term and even turn it around to an extent they bail out their investment. I think its feasible S will hit the $8 target set for Claure within a few years if appropriate development steps are taken that go beyond what has been disclosed.

  • Reply to

    What is the short float?

    by greatdane4444 Aug 14, 2015 3:54 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 14, 2015 6:26 PM Flag

    No: shares can only be borrowed if they are made available to be loaned. Someone/organization owns shares of a stock, they can contact their broker, inform them they do not wish their shares to be loaned for short sale and the broker is obligated by law/SEC rules to comply. Softbank owns most of the shares of Sprint, now probably around 81%. They most likely don't allow those to be shorted.. the only way that makes sense for them to do so is for some round-about hedging to be taking place, which is abstract speculation.

  • Reply to

    generate revenue

    by brent5634 Aug 10, 2015 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 14, 2015 10:06 AM Flag

    Parkervision has become a liability for investors, management and its various lawyers. There is nothing but hassle in the prospect of trying to keep the corporate entity alive. PRKR will/is being wound down because there are no viable options to move forward.

    The patents are either invalid or worthless. If PRKR were a $1-$3 million/year operation, as are many small patent/technology firms similarly with no tangible sales, then having a few minor league patents left might remain a viable pursuit as a licensing company. PV has too much in play to wind down to near that small scale imo.

    Parkervision/JP gave the clear impression that they had sales in the bag for their MUX/DMUX. The quarterly results had to tell the truth: they have no sales worthy of reporting, only loading of a distributor's shelves. The pictures of GPS and other applications appear as nothing more than more Fairy Dust imagineering by Parkervision.. the types of products they have targeted but have failed to achieve sales.

    Parkervision would need parts sales of $30-$50 million just to keep the doors open and partially fund highly speculative litigation. As mentioned yesterday, PV's patent are on the way to being thoroughly gutted and I doubt there are patents that could justify a much scaled down operation. McKool, probably Sterne will desert the sinking ship in due course. PV's chances of sinking into a low profile operation that goes after parts sales and low profile lawsuits looks very unlikely. And if that were pursued as a way out for the company, shareholders would not have a dime left. Most likely that would require that the currently structured company declare bankruptcy... with whatever is left being restructured into a private company. I doubt that will occur.. the most likely course is that Parkervision will declare bankruptcy within six months.

  • Reply to

    generate revenue

    by brent5634 Aug 10, 2015 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 14, 2015 9:46 AM Flag

    Financial firepower of that size usually makes good financial decisions more often than not. That means kicking PRKR to the ditch as road kill. So what if they lost money.. a manager or two at Wellington gets a cut in pay or fired. End of story.

  • Reply to

    Top 30 holders of the public float

    by greekmonster101 Aug 13, 2015 4:30 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 14, 2015 9:42 AM Flag

    Why does the buy-back indicate further dilution? Dilution has been speculated as a way to fund Sprint given the previous statements by Masa Son to Softbank shareholders that the company would not be willing to fund Sprint for unprofitable capex requirements. That has changed: Masa came to the US to work with Sprint to craft a way out of the non-competitive capex crunch and devise a profitable way forward. Now Son says that his confidence in Sprint has been revived and Softbank will support Sprint through measures that will help shore up finances. These measures are not altogether satisfactory to financial analysts because they do not amount to Sprint, once again, being bailed out of bad ROI history by gifts of capital or dilution. Instead, Sprint is factoring receivables for leases through a yet to be established third party company, taking loans from suppliers in the form of delayed payments, and other measures that amount to accelerating cash flows tied up in devices and network expansion and improvements. That does not please financial analysts because in itself it simply shifts how cash flows are arranged. It might cut costs marginally.. or might as easily increase them. There is usually a cost to the use of capital in higher prices for acquired goods and factoring costs (amounts to interest and bad debt discounts).

    The buy-back combined with these measures put off a financial reckoning that would cause dilution of the common stock. That further leverages Sprint. Financial analysts might either surmise that leverage is pushed 'to the breaking point' or that it is part of the recrafting of Sprint that will lead to a more competitive and flexible financial structure and ground-up customer/device-to-network rebuild.

    Sprint is at a major crossroads in their business: pushed to the extremes of financial limits, the company has no realistic choice but to transform the business operations and financial fundamentals. Desperation is the mother of invention.

  • Reply to

    Bashers seem more testy than usual....

    by greekmonster101 Aug 13, 2015 8:34 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 8:46 PM Flag

    By the only rules that matter in stock investing, losing money is being clueless, making money is having more clues lined up that results in both short term and long term gains. Your record is that you are a loser. If you wish to redeem that, then start proving it, otherwise your posts are less than worthless because they are leading others to lose their money and join you in the bench warmer losers column.

    The fact are the facts, you can continue to be a obvious liar and will fool nobody but a few imbeciles, many who are less knowledgeable and wise than yourself.

    The only counter is to post advice that puts solid advice, buy/sell signals in other words, both sides of the story. You have failed to do so in the past which is why you lost people money. If you have any morality higher than making your own self money at the expense of readers of the board, then start showing it.

    Until then, you remain on ignore.

  • teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 7:43 PM Flag

    You do not seem to even know what you write about: Sprint has an undervalued brand name? Are you in high school and think Sprint is a team you can cheer at the pep rally called Yahoo stock boards? It is not. You must be a juvenile, a deep in the red long holder that presents a very self-serving bias, or are in the employ of Sprint's PR department.

  • Reply to

    Why wall street hates S?

    by sameas55 Aug 13, 2015 6:46 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 6:49 PM Flag

    Why you are a loser? Because you have immature thinking.

  • teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 5:57 PM Flag

    Short sellers have kicked long investors time and time again and traded the ups and downs in such a way to make not just the long slide down over the years to this level but several extended swings up and back down again. That same acumen will be used in the future in this and otehr stocks. If you want to pick on short sellers as losers, you are a proven liar.

  • Shows it has pushed through the 3.80 resistance level which now serves as a class 2 support level. However, that push, which I could not forecast in last and early this week charts, is a temporary external influence from 'the market' of open stock trading and investing. It may have been undertaking partly for defensive reasons: as mentioned, short interest appears to have risen as an anomaly to prior S and typical trading trends.

    The 4.0 level will likely hold because Softbank's intent to purchase up to 5% of additional stock. The reduction from roughly 19% remaining open float and the 15% goal provides sufficient deterrent to continued short selling but it also discloses how deep Sprint's problem have cut.

  • Reply to

    generate revenue

    by brent5634 Aug 10, 2015 7:22 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 5:13 PM Flag

    At this point, if Parkervision were to sue on patents that can reasonably be expected to be declared invalid in the near future will be open to a charge that they are pursuing harassing litigation. Motions might be entered to delay any such litigation until further invalidation proceedings and litigation is resolved. The rationale is that if the alleged patent claims used in the infringement lawsuit are declared invalid, there would be no grounds for the trial, thus he courts should defer to CAFC PV2 and IPR decisions now underway.

  • Reply to

    Continuation - Right here OB

    by longprkr Aug 11, 2015 1:05 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 2:30 PM Flag

    Furthermore, we are already able to see the ramifications of the CAFC ruling on invalidity: Dr. Mike Farmwald and RPX are now able to reference the CAFc ruling of invalidity in the IPRs. This lends the highest level of authority short of a SCOTUS ruling. The IPR panel was very likely to rule the contested patents invalid prior to the CAFC ruling. Now that has become inevitable beyond a shadow of doubt.

    The rulings will cascade downhill against Parkervision for each and every patent it has put up to in PV 2. The claims must be litigated ... however, that has become a sheer matter of course. Only a dufus like Jeffrey Parker or Mr. Fairy Dust Sorrells would claim otherwise. They have shown to be incompetent in these matters such that any reasonable person would not trust their judgement and position of advocacy that favors continuing to recruit investors capital.

    You have to be mentally deficient to suggest that PV has any chance of winning anything in PV2 or continuing as a public company further than the current funds allow. Who would be so insanely stupid to invest more in this company to keep it afloat? McKool will be forced to drop out by the invalidation of patents. There are no fumes left in the tank.

  • Reply to

    Continuation - Right here OB

    by longprkr Aug 11, 2015 1:05 PM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 1:36 PM Flag

    You conveniently forget that PV's core technology patents used in PV 1 were declared invalid. That core concept is used in follow-on and D2P patents so that once they are challenged in court, as is happening in PV 2, they will be declared invalid as well.

    It is rumored that Qualcomm and perhaps Samsung and HTC will challenge multiple patents in their own PTAB IPR's. This, if not short circuited by bankruptcy, dropping of the lawsuit or other reasons that removes it from being a concern to the defendants, will lead to Parkervision's patents being gutted of all but rudimentary legal authority with which to sue in PV 2 or any other lawsuit.

    Status: Parkervision lost the case against Qualcomm (PV 1), had all but 1 claim of core patents invalidated (a bone-throw mistake by CAFC imo), and now faces further invalidation of patents that follows as a matter of course. Meanwhile, the company has nearly run out of money, has, once again, failed to live up to their lies about sales of products ($20k sale of conditional inventory to a disty is NOT what was touted in the PR or website), and has no prospects for receiving a new staunch of investment. Parkervision will cease operations as a public company within months. Parkervision 2 lawsuit has been dead on arrival since it was brought... even before the invalidation of core technology patents. Its beyond dead now. There is zero chance it will result in $1 of revenue for PRKR.

  • teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 12:07 PM Flag

    There are good reasons for Softbank/Son/Sprint BOD to give Claure a long-term contract: 1. It sends a message to Wall Street that management is being given a vote of confidence and the authority to make long term decisions. 2. It signals the nature of the commitment and objectives - transformational from more of a ground-up perspective... which I very much like to see. The types of changes Sprint has needed take time because the approach is different than just changing out cards in a base station to add in a new band or 8x8 MIMO or even the C-RAN approach. Those individual things are not transformational... the approach has to be made from the lowest common denominator of cost and usage up to the banding schemes. That can happen sooner for parts of the network and devices but has to be approached synergistically. That takes work to put the pieces of the puzzle together so that the result is harmonious operation of the network that happens at a cost, despite the use of the higher frequency, that is as low or lower than competitors.

    There has been a big gulf between what Sprint has said it was and what is has been: Sprint has said it was (someday over the rainbow) going to use 2.5GHz to deliver lower cost, higher speed service including competitive coverage (no joking). Sprint delivers (today) lowest bandwidth-to-coverage to the average user/location of the big 4. 'Transformation' can take place but Sprint still has to face a period of competitive underdog growing pains.

  • Reply to

    Value of Spectrum Formula

    by greekmonster101 Jun 26, 2015 10:00 AM
    teamrep teamrep Aug 13, 2015 11:33 AM Flag

    I think you are making too broad of an assumption about what Google will launch versus what Google will help operators launch. Google's primary role, as they have repeatedly and emphatically said, is to serve as an innovative catalyst that helps set the course that mainstream wireless takes. You might consider that two streams of wireless ICT is already forming: one stream is based on the open Internet and communications technologies that are present on all devices and, by virtue of common Internet Protocols, IP, on all forms of networks, interconnect and IoT including industrial, and public safety applications and medical, etc. However, a stream that rides alongside that is proprietary content, broadcast and unicast video (Verizon's use of LTE eMBMS), walled off portions of mobile payments and advertising .. things Google and others cannot compete on an open basis. So, in one aspect, Google Project Fi/Wi-Fi 1st/Super WiFi/LTE-Fi (however the various components are fashioned into a viable network-to-market strategy), are to prevent operators from gaining such dominance that they can wall off the revenue generating and most consumer attractive means of network access.

    The basic question that must be asked is simple: How can we give the market more for less that is also easier/more accommodative? A portion of that answer is a tier of network device-service that is similar to 802.11ac in terms of user hassle but provides previously described advantages.

    How do you know that can work? Ask people and look at what works now. T-Mobile has given away 802.11ac (moded Asus units) to ~11 million subs. Better WiFi coverage and indoor mobile phone service for free? I would take it, wouldn't you?

59.27-0.35(-0.59%)Aug 31 4:00 PMEDT