The wireless operators should only be one media of communications transport. There should be balance between short, mid and long range unlicensed and licensed networks. Then if the organized operators are too lazy or dumb to make good business out of it, let them fail.
Sprint is a brand name but that is not something that props up inferior overall service for long. Markets flee to other suppliers, other countries in free markets. Sprint's customers have fled which is the basic reason Sprint is down. Subscribers and measures of profitability determine long term success for all free enterprises.
Your assumption that PV will present a compelling appeal brief is astoundingly prejudiced. It can be a work of art destined to be enshrined for its literary elegance and the best argued legal brief in recent history.. and that will not matter because Parkervision.Sterne.McKool have no new theory of operation that is admissible or proof of the current theory or, for that matter, of the revised 'second BB signal theory'.
What you tilt at is illogical - odds are so far out there its ridiculous as a premise for any investor. Why not take your money and put it all into lottery tickets if you are so compelled to bet against the odds?
"Wah, wah, wah... I own PRKR and will not give up! I am not wrong, I can ignore the odds, I can say PV can defeat the odds, I can argue proof where there is none, I can argue conspiracy theories. I can say the judge has been bought out. I can say negative posts are paid by Qualcomm (as if they thought this dweeb board mattered), I can continue to pound my fist on the table like Nakita until there is no board for PRKR.... and I will do just that."
What are the advantages of doing work with small operators and other players? a) It helps Sprint's image. b) It helps Sprint politically and with regulators. c) Every incremental bit of business that uses the same equipment and devices helps develop overall buying power and suasion with suppliers. Because its a positive net effort and close to the ground, it should be pursued.
Its been a real bad mistake to imagine what Sprint could do... in the past that has gotten me into trouble. Even though I always say 'look for action and results and warned that Sprint had problems, what seemed obvious to happen hasn't .. time and time again. Claure is no rocket scientist.. even though he has played with cellphones, he has not headed a company that built them or led product efforts. He hasn't run a mobile network company. So, he may not have much of a clue about what to do next despite his past success.
IF Sprint were to pursue a business remake from the ground up that went after the high cost of deploying smallcells by having users do the 'usercell' part of the network of deploying 2-5 million home and SOHO based LTE-A/.11ac home eNodeB routers then having a few thousand refashioned Radio Shack locations could make sense. Putting up a RoofTop antenna-router is not different than putting up a satellite dish or old fashioned TV antenna. The equipment available shows the user how to aim it and incorporates 2-4 MIMO with some beamforming capability to make that easier. Nokia-Airspan, ALU, Ericsson, Samsung and others can do the technology part if requirements for a portfolio of products is put out for RFPs/RFQs. If point-to-point or NLOS, near line of sight, can be gotten to 1 out of 3-6 domiciles/SOHO locations, let users build the network in exchange for discounts and personal satisfaction. It is doable.. as it has been. Softbank had to get the thousands of smallcell sites. read up on it... they did it (Wilcomm extended). They built it. Sprint can - if not BD.
Sprint has established a partnership with small players already. The problem is that small players control only about 6% of the overall business. In other words, if Sprint does business with each and every small player out there it will be a small piece of a small piece of mobile enterprise. And small players do not do deals with GM, Ford, Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Honda, etc. or with other major vertical market segments that are experience growth. Small players are a 'flanking effort' that cannot win battles in itself.
Technical chart and indicators for Sprint (S) have become more bullish as the stock price has consolidated within the recent range. Some indicators including MACD and accumulate/distribution have diverged from the stock price which shows some building of upward pressure.. or decline in downward pressures.
Sprint continues to struggle amidst troubling circumstances.. so how is that new? S has been a basket case struggling with incongruous networks, half-hearted venture into WiMAX and, then, clinging on to it and iDEN long after the goals faltered and competitors started picking the bones clean (pilfering subscribers). What has changed is Sprint hit near rock bottom and was acquired. New management has cut costs.. blah, blah, blah. At least they are trying: even if Claure has his hands financially tied behind his back, he may eventually be able to avert the decline in competitiveness, gather some financial strength and leap tall buildings in a single bound... or at least lead Sprint to a modest recovery and a new, even realistic set of hopes. I see it being at least a year away before Sprint, on its own, could solidly show improvements that lead to a sustainable future.
There can always be hope even if it looks too much like wishful thinking at this point: Sprint has entered into agreements with independent small operators. And with DISH for commercial trials of a combined network using LTE. Even though that is a very small and limited effort thus far, both sides say the goals have been met for showing that a combined service package can work... and joint network build is feasible.. even using smallcells by golly -although that is sacrilegious to Sprint's engrained mindset. What if, what if, what if? Hold a seance and resurrect Steve Jobs as new co-CEO and see what... first reaction , says Steve reincarnate, "This is crapola!!!"
What about buying defunct Radio Shack? At first blush that looks like losers on parade but could be a how-to school usercells.
Whigglee is right: there are volumes of information available on the subject. Search on keywords: smallcells, HetNet, Co-MIMO & comp, MU-MIMO, virtual WRAN. Among what you should find are white papers by Qualcomm, ALU, Huawei and others. 3GPP, ITU and other industry organizations and blogs describe smallcells and advanced wireless network architectures. The Smallcell Forum is an excellent resource.
One of the hurdles in understanding 'small cells' is that the industry focuses on network technologies like this as, well, network technologies. You can find very thorough explanation of small cells and surrounding technologies with which to build a fair understanding of how the technology works, its technical advantages and limitations, however, much less on how that technology shifts a given competitive situation or impacts costs relative to conventional macrocell or networks that are simply peppered with small numbers of smallcells.
What is not well groked is how to strategically capitalize on smallcells.
On the surface, as Sprint engineering management once tried to convince me, smallcells appear to burden the cost of the network so much that they are out of the question. That is how Clearlywired thinking went and how Sprint has always been. If dedicated to that thinking, computer models and other evidence can convincingly show it to be right.
"Steve Job's, you are nuts to think Apple can come into the mobile industry from the PC/software world and gain a foothold. We know the business, you don't. You will go away after dooming Apple to the scrap heap." was the conventional pre-iPhone thinking. Sprint remains mired in 'can't do it' attitude that dooms the company.
Score so far on PTAB IPR IPX/Farmwald: 3, Parkervision 0.1
Score on Parkervision vs. Qualcomm: QCOM 1+3 PRKR 0.0175
PRKR stock price score:
Parkervision stock price reflects consensus market opinion: 0.975 is down
- from median 15 year average of 10.50 = down 91%
- from all time high of 55.54 = down 98.24%
- from lawsuit high of 15.84 = down 93.83%
- from all time low of 0.43 = up 104% Whoopie!!! for Sharezombies!!!
You are hyping up irrelevant issues as always. So what if I sold reports to Qualcomm in the past? This is like other issues: you are trying to blow up the importance of inconsequential and irrelevant points to a level of importance. Your arguments is as dead as Parkervision/McKoolaide's legal campaign and PV's sales and marketing of irrelevant and unproven technology.
Keep at it.. the long sharezombies efforts to eeek out a 20c higher price have about 15c to go. Good luck.
You never support your information.. it is unbelievable .. then when someone calls you on the fanciful posts, you label them bashers.
Serious investors ask the tough questions. If the reaction is name calling and shying away from exploring the minuses as well as the positives, it reflects poorly on the investment.. that is if the reader has half of a brain.
You or anyone can place any value you want on the spectrum, networks, etc. Whatever you say has to be substantiated. The market reacts to direction and momentum a company is on as well as what might be thought to be fixed values. 'Fixed' valuations can deteriorate just as well as move up in value. Lose enough money or just stand still while competitors move faster or more adroitly and the subjective measure of value can evaporate. If you don't think so, ask yourself what the 'value' of Sprint was 15, 10, 5, and 2 years ago. It was higher. Sprint's spectrum has been part of the equation all along and was long ago touted as having great value and being put to use years before any competitor had wideband spectrum with which to compete. Sprint lost the time to market advantage and since has failed to deliver on the glory of owning 2.5Ghz spectrum.
Reality sucks for perpetual gadfly longs and those who followed their advice on this board. Serious investors know this and are not afraid to hear from so called 'bashers'. So what? If someone says something negative that can be corroborated, it should be part of the consideration for investing shouldn't it? And if anyone issues general statemetns about 'bashers' as often and freely as greekidiot101, they should be ignored.
Supplier financing of equipment is common in the industry.. particularly by those who are strapped for capital to expand. From a vendor's perspective, it can either be a way to gain an advantage over rivals or, if it becomes too common a practice, adds to competitive pressures that cut into their bottom lines.
From an operator's perspective, vendor financing is a way to borrow without having to go out for another round of financing directly. It can show up as a deferred expense which possibly distorts the cash flow analysis favorably.
Vendor financing is not necessarily a sign of financial weakness. It can be among the cheapest forms of financing and helps assure that vendors provide good products and support because they put their up-front capital expense to provide equipment and support behind the deal. However, when the company being analysed looks weak already, the move can be a further sign of how desperate a predicament they are in.
Calling the deployment Network Vision or Spark is not bad so long as the outcome fits what management leads Wall Street and investors are led to believe will be the outcome. Sprint has gone through a major shift in networks from iDEN and CDMA to LTE and multiple-mode operation networks. That has caused dust.
What was/is wrong is to pose the needed shift to 3GPP standard networks as a) Unique to Sprint and, therefore, b) offers hope of getting a leg up on competitors. Sprint has created a 'distortion field' around what are primarily efforts to come into alignment with international standards for communications and, therefore, take advantage of the latest technologies.
What is wrong is promising more than the core alignment of networks is capable of delivering. Spark was supposed to propel Sprint to be at the top in networks and, thus, prepared to gain marketshare without giving service away for a lower price than it cost to deliver it to customers... Sprint was supposed to have reached an inflection point with a targeted completion of Spark last summer. After that date came and went, the story changed. No wonder investors are bewildered and financial analysts felt let down... not that the majority did not understand Spark was more a marketing gimmick than a technical masterstroke. Nonetheless, many analysts lowered forecasts and targets as results continued to show Sprint lags in networks and subscribers.
I imagine that the moniker 'Spark' originated in the marketing department, perhaps as a reaction to focus groups that showed low retention for Network Vision. "We need something that sticks with people... how about 'Spark'?" ..."OK, lets rename our capex plans Spark and say this is a new technology that Sprint has that will put us out in front.. Spark sounds much better than Network Vision... even though nothing else has changed. We have changed around vendors... if analysts pry, spit out some stuff about smallcells and SDR."
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Sprint's half-way measures are things that makes sense but do not go far enough. Using some of the band 41 spectrum for backhaul makes sense because S has a surplus and the technology to implement it is available. However, that does not give Sprintsy a 'huge cost and performance advantage'. Competitors are far out ahead of Sprint in capex spending and cash flow generated from new networks and services that can support additional capex spending to continue expansion and move into more video delivery. Backhaul is a needed piece that everyone else solves in their own way.
Sprint is famous for naming steps needed to build networks as if they are the only ones doing it or are first. Network Vision was a name for the same LTE/multi-mode multiple carrier band networks that competitors were already pursuing. Spark was a further naming of that general approach... a marketing gimmick. Again, Spark is nothing exceptional.. competitors use multiple carrier band using their own unique mix of available spectrum. The only difference is the competitors had not been driven by marketing departments who gave what they were doing cute names. Sprint must think that the competitive race is about giving names to parts of the network. Verizon, AT&T and TMUS are the ones who don't get it according to Sprintsy. Vark, Tark, and Mark... the race has been run and Spark comes in last place.
The term smallcells/small cells is a simple way to describe what Sprint should have been pursuing over the years. The full explanation is more complex and takes a shift in understanding about 'networks' should be designed and integrate users as part of the solution.
In concept this is similar to when Apple's Steve Jobs pursued development of the iPhone: when asked what the impact would be, the mobile product groups, chip and equipment companies all dismissed it saying "our industry is already highly competitive. Steve Jobs can't do anything that Feature Phones (what was available at the time) from Motorola, Samsung, Nokia etc. are already offering." Every department manager, sales person, and engineer working at leading industry firms gave Apple little chance of doing more than gaining a few percent of mobile business.
Why did they get that so wrong? Because they thought what they offered the public worked well enough and could be extended as 3G was introduced with its higher bandwidth. Of course they were wrong. They failed to understand that a complete package could be offered. Basically, the industry failed to think from the user's perspective in a holistic way. rather than finite pieces of technology and features. Feature Phones were available that offered most of the features found in SmartPhones today. What they lacked was: User applications available through an online 'store'. Ease of use - many features were hidden behind multiple level menuing interfaces.
Sprint needed to think differently about how to build the network from the 'first mile' up rather than look at users being the 'last mile' to be handled by placing better antennas at macro base stations. But its not just about using smallcells. Someone among US operators can similarly re-write the book by more tightly integrating carrier grade Wi-Fi, LTE-A unlicensed (LTE-Fi), sling type routers equipped with LTE-Fi and 802.11ac, and fine tuning the user experience.
You are posting false information. Buyers beware of greekmonster101... put on ignore as few posts are correct. All major suppliers use SDR, software defined radio designs.
There is unlimited spectrum capacity. Competitors can pursue and are pursuing strategies beyond those of Sprint in taking advantage of multiple use factors and multiplicative spectrum reuse and coordination... including between media and markets.
Sprint is going to either get crushed by better competition or become an innovator in networks and services. That has to enlist, engage and compel users to use portions of the band 41 or else. For the most part, Sprint's failure looks more assured than chances for success.
Dumbfartiis sets in. Only cure is to cut it out.
Spectrum is a commodity for sure. So is innovation, particularly in the hands of those who understand it beyond rudimentary constructs as wielded by brainless automatons.
We have been entering the evolution of wireless into an age of multidimensional and multi-coordinated layering of technology and social constructs. The Internet is both something to be wielded for individuals and by individuals. A top down approach to network architectures is short sighted and limited.
Once you understand that, which should have been over 20 years ago, its understood how to fashion wireless and network technologies into combined user and network space.. ie into coordinated tiers. The LTE-Advanced and beyond 4G network shifts from fixed macrocell topologies to software driven virtualized platforms that comprise both distributed and centralized functions and redundancies.
Maybe the Japanese are too structured to understand what is needed... if so, they seem to fit Sprint rather well. However, if so, Softbank JP will not usher in the more open, dynamic networks or business structures needed. Sprint's past efforts have come from top down because even when FreedomPop and other efforts seemed 'grass roots' they have been mired in the same pathological shortfalls - inability to stretch the user device level into a near to far organizational paradigm that is most needed in the marketplace today and most affordable form of network.
Spectrum is a fungible commodity. It has huge capacity elasticity if exploited in a layered approach. Qualcomm and others Sprint is supposed to be working with get this. Sprint-Softbank apparently do not. Sprint needs Claure to be Jobsian in pursuit of innovation that works at all levels, particularly to solve Sprint's problems in exploiting their troubled spectrum. Otherwise, continuation of current strategies fails as it does currently.