So, Masa Son is Santa Claus? He wants to build the largest company in the world.. a lofty goal. And he wants that to be a company that provides benefits to mankind.. a very lofty goal. However, Son/Softbank have never played the role of Santa Claus for acquired companies: yes SB/Son will invest capital, talents and connections to them but they have never gifted their investors with billions in capital without the normal requirements for equity or payment on loans plus interest.
If you own Sprint (S) shares, you own a statutory piece of the company. If Masa Son pumps billion$ into Sprint, what will you give him in return?
S has to turn around and make money instead of losses or your piece of the pie goes down in value. Or has Masa Son changed from being a good businessman to being Santa Claus?
A look at the longer term 3-5 year charts show S near the level of Softbank's initial acquisition price and pre-acquisition long term trading range.
What Softbank/Masa Son seem to be brewing up, while fitting well with broad industry and technology trends, will take a few years before Sprint becomes profitable unless a major change in deployments and user involvement in networks occurs. Prospects for near term growth, major improvement in margins and bottom line results remain basically unchanged unless results show otherwise. Again, S needs a dramatic upward momentum in sales or a lower capex threshold to achieve success. A joint network arrangement that would go well beyond the current MVNO deal with Google could be the or a good step toward 'the answer', but that is mere speculation at this point. A further JV with DISH could also be a speculative answer to Sprint's capex crunch that would prevent equity dilution. Roll all these up in a little ball and we can play marbles for speculative amusement.
The trend remains within the channel bound by resistance near 5.35 with 1st support ~4.70 and lower level support ~4.30. There has been no break to the upside outside of this channel or cup and handle formation to occur yet. The degree of price movement is within norms of volatility for S.
I doubt you will hear much if anything about DISH. The trial apparently won't start until around July and very few details have been discussed. That's either because it is minor or will go well beyond that.
While the situation remains very tough for Sprint, the environment is shaping up to have positive as well as negative aspects: Among positives is that more options are opening up and potential partners will soon be coming under pressure. Google Project Fi is slated to be a limited marketing push, thus far, not open to the full market. However, it could be only the opening thrust that puts Sprint and T-mobile into a network sharing arrangement. That may take a year or more to come forward as it would need to wait until devices are available. To make that a success there would need to be devices much lower in price than G's Nexus 6 at well over $600. Competitive MVNOs have lower end SmartPhones selling for $100-$200 - although lacking in dual-operator capabilities.
Verizon will enter the market with TV and movie services. That might just put pressure on DISH. In addition to their need to start deploying into the converted MSS spectrum, DISH might jump into building networks by the end of the year or early next. The trial with Sprint is interestingly coming (put off) until this summer... the timing itself is suspicious. Of course, reading too much into what these guys are planning can lead to mortal damage to your investment account.
Google is only partly concerned about lowering consumer's bills. If that were the primary motivation, why do they charge around $650 for the Nexus 6 SmartPhone? That is not charity... they will undoubtedly make a profit considering they will be selling them directly to consumers, cutting out much of the various distributor and retail middlemen to keep the profits for themselves. Meanwhile, the service price is competitive, leaving not so much fat on the bone for junkyard dogs Sprint and T-Mobile to salivate over.
What does Google want? Some may think 'world domination'! ; ^). Google faces enough competition around the world, particularly in the fastest growing markets of China. India, Indonesia ie. the 'BRIC countries' and the scrutiny of government regulators, particularly in EU, China etc. So Google wants to be able to enter markets and not be shoved aside either due to government actions or because mobile operators become monopolistic and dominate the ad space and mobile commerce food chains. They want a user controlled environment for their services to sell through.. that is an environment governments and companies must usually oblige.
Yea, I don't know if crystal radio tech applies so much. Much new technology is "built on the shoulders of giants that came before'. However, the specific method cannot be obvious to one versed in the art or simply use different terms to describe what is used elsewhere. When I first studied the patent applications after reading hundreds of RF patents and having worked on a few with an inventor that came out of Tektronix signal acquisition group, I saw a confusing mess that did not clearly show anything new. I wrote way back then that the method of controlling signal aperture might be developed into something valid because I saw areas not fully developed in the prior art. As Rf has been availed for use in highly integrated silicon and other semi process tech, more finite control of sampling has become feasible. Methods to control switching and other noise distortions provide possibilities for aperture control. The stuff I worked on years ago was tech designed to be implemented in low power battery operated signal acquisition for T&M including handheld oscilloscopes and OTDRs, optical time-domain reflectometer.. it was fun working on that. T&M that measures signaling processes must be more sensitive/accurate than the article under test. To do that using low power was among the first.
So when PRKR applications came along they struck me a naively wrong... headed to inevitable invalidation which is exactly what I posted here. I didn't just say prior art anticipated the method, I said it could not work and could not be proven to work, period. Look around the situation now... it is what it is... Parkervision cannot prove it works no matter how many attorneys they have pimping for them.
If Sprint + T-Mobile try to merge they will also face a) 1-2 years of regulatory approvals b) Spectrum rescreening and adjustments, c) disruption of organizations, d) confusion in the marketplace.
The impact would likely be significantly positive but it will not be easy or certain. On the other hand, if the two work on making networks seamless under and beyond the Google Project Fi deal, seak common devices as they must to use both networks, and start marketing with a bit of a slant towards "We fight competitively like junk yard dogs to user's benefit, but we are most interested in working to make users satisfied - we collaborate to deliver common network experience and common devices... something the BORG Empire carriers Verizon and AT&T do not consider in their interests... better to let users struggle with incompatibility in order to lock them down with fewer choices that makes us rich" In other words "We are the ones fighting for you, VZ and T fight against you to pick your pockets!" So long as they are separate companies they will probably continue to fight over scraps like junk yard dogs. Not to say they can't also join the hunt for fresh meat off the hindquarters of Verizon and AT&T.
It take four to tango in the mobile operator acquisition dance: Two companies plus the FCC and DOJ. TM and S may be putting up the wreaths and sign "Welcome to the Senior Ball", but the dance has not started (back). It may be three to four years before a merger is attempted, if ever.
I've long thought that operators might consider that deals short of acquisitions could make more sense in this field due to it being governed under regulations that restrict consolidation and favor, instead, collaboration. There is little technical or practical reasons why much of the benefits of a merger cannot be strategically developed through partnerships. In some respects there is more leeway to remaining separate: The FCC allows T-mobile and Sprint to acquire spectrum under their own 'spectrum screens'. While each can acquire spectrum up to 1/3 of that available in the low, mid or high range bands, if the two merge they would be subject to those same per-entity limitations. A merger would cause Sprint's 2.6GHz spectrum, for example, to be considered for clawback of some of it, probably forcing some to become available to other operators. The two might each acquire more spectrum combined at the 600MHz auction than if bidding as a single company. And the public likes choices... if given a choice of a combined better coverage-bandwidth service from two companies, the success might be better than if sold by Sprint-TM. That is a speculative benefit to staying apart while others are tangible.
What happens if the two merge? They would be able to more directly manage a common network, cut redundancies, cut marketing costs, merge device sourcing to reach higher combined volume efficiencies. However, many of those things can also be accomplished using entities such as Brightstar for device consolidation, third party network management companies, - both S and TM use Ericsson. If they worked at it, they can collaborate in many areas to save money.
The average person probably no longer can agree with you. I don't understand what makes you so confident:
Was it the failure for Parkervision to ever make a profit? Or the about a dozen failed promises of product or technology sales? Or was it the failure to license the technology to the 'many interested parties' Jeffrey Snakeoil Parker often mentioned? Or was it going to trial to present a case based on a story rather than the required proof of actual infringement, resulting in a jury decision that was overturned and now is extremely likely to be upheld on appeal by Parkervision. Or was it the IPR hearings that statistics show results in at least some claims being invalidated?
You obviously think there is reason to be confident in Parkervision's defeat of overwhelming odds. That is not what any book or tutorial on investing teaches.. you obviously think you know better than them all. Good luck. You would have had some fun in Vegas.. this is going to end badly for you imo.
"And a favorable markman as well. " Parkervision lost the MARKMAN imo because it capitalized on the vague teaching of the alleged invention and expanded it to cover much prior art. Patents must describe the invention and claim only those elements that are new ie. not anticipated by prior art. Because the MARKMAN granted gave PV what it wanted in order to win at trial, broad coverage that PV could construe to cover Qualcomm's circuits, it helped to show why the patents are invalid. No, Parkervision only 'won' a short term, catch-22 victory in the MARKMAN that now will come around in the IPR hearings and CAFC to help clinch the dismissal of the appeal and invalidation of patent claims so erroneously interpreted.
No, AT&T is only saying how Google is marketing their product.. which is in a limited way. Did you read what Google announced including what they have said they plan for it?
It makes sense. New Clearwire included investments from Time Warner, Comcast, and Brighthouse cable operators who were given rights to 5MHz of 2.6GHz band in the bargain. There was thinking that they would build a joint network with Clearwire that might have included Sprint as well. The concept was much the same as it would be today... except the WiFi and mobile network (LTE) technologies have evolved to become more capable and more compatible. The concept is for workplaces and homes to use cable (or DSL or fiber) to connect to the premises combo router similar to what is envisioned for G's Project Fi. That vision makes your connection with the network travel with you across screens/devices to stay connected to your number and identity. What it takes advantage of is a 'fan up' from multiple point connections to broadband service that compliments the 'fan out' from macro base stations to multiple users.
There are alternative business models and corresponding network architectures that can be envisioned. The networks can be built from the cable plant out to the mobile network as well as from the mobile network down to the user's space.
What happens if you combine the Project Fi concept with Comcast or other cableco pushing LTE-Fi routers into buildings? The service Project Fi package will start as users BB home/office connection plus one-number/multiple screen/multiple network service. What prevents Comcast from promoting an extended 802.11ac WiFi sling box to work with that? Only business agreements to do so. What if C provided a RoofTop wide-Fi for neighborhood coverage? Then mobile users would get free BB, only paying $10GB outside the range. Cable could graft on mobile capability as they work the coverage out from homes and businesses.
Academic and scientific worlds can imagine theories of the application of technology and government and business methods that are optimal if not perfect. Perfection is a matter of opinion since our ability to implement and make use of one construct or another changes over time. The first cellphone and networks were a leap of faith of the applied sciences and business worlds that a market would develop. It has beyond the wildest dreams of many people.
Theories for how communications networks should be built were around since before there were personal computers and mobile communications. Today's new networks come closer to being able to enable the SDWN, Smart Distributed WBB Network (WBB - wireless broadband). All of the basic elements are in the LTE-Advanced standard and envisioned evolution (5G, xG): virtualization of spectrum access and network management functions from embedded IoT, device and pCells, smallcells, to macro base stations. Networks are becoming smart, integrating coordinated multicell signaling methods and 'network intelligence' that is giving devices the ability to measure, collect and analyse information about its surroundings, connect to other devices, and orchestrate communications with user devices based on criteria communicated from the mobile network.
Blah, blah, blah... the ability to build what 15 years ago looked like a dream has come enough into being to wonder why more isn't being done today.
Sprint is the value it is based on business performance. The spectrum it holds is valued largely on how successfully it is used, not primarily on unfulfilled pipe dreams. The company might hold great promise that could be unleashed if current investor's capital is not required to be diluted to take advantage of it. "In the long run, Sprint is the deepest value purchase." or is it "The industry's textbook case of a company that almost went banko and is now taken over by Softbank for 20c on the dollar"?
The other dynamic is the devices: using both operator's networks requires devices that can work on them. This remains a cart before the horse situation: S and TM have networks built but there is only one device that interoperates. If they see enough advantage to expand the agreement between them, they could co-develop devices. That would lower device development cost otherwise made higher due to having to work on the different bands.
If you had to boil down Google Project Fi to a single work, it would be 'Coverage'. That is an immediate impact of combining Sprint and T-Mobile networks plus WiFi for in-doors coverage. Bloomberg, as flaky as they are at times, has an article that saved me the effort of putting the two coverage maps in a side by side comparison. The author roughly says what I was thinking before finding it: that the S-TM network will still be shy of Verizon's coverage but probably looks 'good enough' to most users and can dispel a chief criticism leveled at the operators separately (see Verizon's website where they hammer on Sprint and T-M coverage).
The longer term impact can be it affords Sprint and T-mobile the ability to expand and densify the combined networks on a similar capital efficiency basis (ignoring that VZ has more sub 1GHz). And it helps fix Sprint's lingering achilles heel problem: lots of high frequency spectrum that goes unused while too little mid-low band to get to a balanced coverage-density competitive position.
Of course, Project Fi charges a lot for Googley's phone, little for the wholesale access portion of the offering. What S and TM's percentage of the $20/mn plus $10 GB will be is not lush by any means.
They would likely not call it a virtual merger. The FCC and DOJ have strongly encouraged co-development of networks and network sharing, so yes, they would allow it so long as the operators do not coordinate pricing to the extent it is considered collusion.
The co-hosting of base stations across each other's spectrum would be a more extensive infrastructure sharing arrangement. However, a major advantage of the deal is it can start out taking advantage of what they already have in place. The device(s) have to be able to work on the full array of co-use spectrum but otherwise software/firmware algorithms are used as part of LTE-A to pick best-connected partner or WiFi. Nothing more is disclosed to what the extent S and TM might go beyond offering up their networks and working to assure seamless interoperability. That makes the accounting and network service straightforward. If they were to get into co-use of spectrum at the other partners base stations, that would require more extensive agreements on how to share network builds, operating costs, revenue, etc. Its not terribly complicated and precedent exists among the tower operators.. so yes, it can be done. I suspect that will take a year or two before it would happen. The Google Project Fi is a testing ground for network-of-networks/operators.. and also for multiple device/single number operation. However, that also exposes a conflict: if only one number is needed to transit networks, does that open up S and TM to pilfering each other's customers? On the surface, no. However, if they expanded this broadly, then customers would grow to know that they could get the same connectivity by shopping for the lowest price.
That is a good ways down the road.. for now there is only the one rather expensive device, Nexus 6, available on a 'request to be a customer' status. The charges and portability are interesting, but it would not appeal to be until there are choices of devices. Too vague to be real appealing imo.
Reminds me a bit about Google Glass... big hype when it was announced... until the $1,500 price and limited software struck home. A consumer version is supposed to come out latter this year that might change that.
As expected, Google's Project Fi emphasizes what was being called 'WiFi First'.. basically making the connection to WiFi a priority over 3G-4G mobile broadband with seamless handoff between the networks. That shifts the coverage equation so long as people have access to WiFi in their home and place of work. What that doesn't do is to try to displace cable, DSL or fiber services. However, what has always been the prospect for wireless broadband is that if high enough usage density is achieved in the network, then higher capacity can be driven out to users. This shows up in the analysis of smallcells, personal cells (pCells) or user device cells... feasibility depends on achieving high numbers of users on a given part of the network. Shared infrastructure has the potential to shift that equation towards affording higher density architectures as the build cost is split roughly in half by combined network-of-network use.
How could the Google deal lower sprint and T-Mobile's cost structure? Under the Google deal devices will connect to S or TM depending on which delivers the best connection and capacity.
Let's do a simple 'what if': What if the Google Nexus 6 service results in users who are more satisfied with the service because they get better connections. This could turn up in RootMetrics and other future surveys so long as the number of tests are adequate and its differentiated in their reports.. they usually don't differentiate MVNO's of individual operators but might either be commissioned or have a curious interest in doing so for the joint service. If the service works out as it probably will, then Sprint and T-Mobile might do studies that analyse what the cost savings could be if they each decided to invest in coverage and capacity where the benefit was greater and not where the other has or plans better coverage. The 'make or buy' decision might have Sprint building for higher capacity using 2.6GHz while T-Mobile builds more for coverage.. doing what they already emphasize due to differences in spectrum etc. but on a judicious basis.
This works from a cost/benefit perspective and, very importantly, works from a low hassle, ease perspective: neither has to make major changes, go out for major funding, change management, change technology platforms, change marketing except, once implemented, be able to claim better service, etc. Sprint and T-Mobile could, on the surface and organizationally, do what they have been doing but with better utilization of capital and better service behind them. No changes in ownership of spectrum, networks or marketshare also means no regulatory hurdles beyond the mundane.