Twitter has a large, discrete audience to go after. Why not use the social media this way? Mom and pop Kettle probably will never read the jabs Claure and Legere spew at each other's company or CEO directly. The primary message may be lost on the broader audience but it is picked up by the financial media gadflies and then broadened out to talk about the theme of the two underdogs taking on the BORG like dominance of Verizon and AT&T.
These guys are not going at each other completely on their own. Each has PR and marketing departments and hire 5th Avenue ad agencies to help craft the overall image. These days that includes social media specialists.. for all we know that is where the inspiration for this tit-for-tat started. The objective of social media is like most advertising - 1st capture 'share of mind' and then shape that further into a marketing/brand image. So, as juvenile as it may seem it is on target.. to the often juvenile crowd (or juvy in emotional spirit) that twitters/messages 30 times per hour. A tweet that costs the CEOs a minute of time otherwise spent being irritated with their rivals latest jaunts, they can create up to 100s of thousands worth of advertising. The lasting image may be "these two are fighters.. for the little guy like me" which is on target for the coming decades.
The 25% duty cycle thingy is a ruse: sample and hold circuits sample. Use of a specific duty cycle is not patentable as prolific in the prior art. PV had to show the complete steps, not just what they/tamap considers telltale evidence of a grand conspiracy. Jeff, FD Sorrells must have been spending time around the Orlando campus famous for magic mushroom imbibing by students. .. they have paranoid delusions of flying fairies that sprinkle magic dust on circuits comprised of mystical powers to be transformed from mere mortal mixers to whatever their hallucinations suggest. If it can be imagined, it must exist, and, therefore, Qualcomm must infringe.
It is a major news event as far as infrastructure plans are concerned. This is the stock market where financial results and the measureable precursors such as subscriber counts, churn and those of competitors matter most. The market might place some value in AT&T or Verizon announcement of spending $8 billion on backhaul-fronthaul segment of their networks... but it won't likely make major headlines. The fact is that Sprint's smallcell announcement comes after the subscribers have slumped compared to rivals and after previous attempts at network deployments has resulted in projections for increased losses. Why should financial analyst now drop Sprint's history, including the recent history, to conclude that this new plan will produce the long awaited turn around? There are some new reasons to believe the impact can be greater, I for one have been advocating use of smallcells by Sprint for over eight years so saying otherwise would slam my own advice. However, the situation has changed from first mover advantage to chasing after improvements that have grown more difficult to see the resulting impacts in sub numbers, revenue and profits.
Networks and markets have always been moving targets... getting the timing right is one heck of a big part of it.
Updates? The plan provided is very sketchy but enough has leaked out including the information in your recent post about the likely winner of the site work. That article mentions 70,000 locations. Prior to that it has been mentioned that Sprint may deploy 30-40,000 sites in the initial phase and another ~20,000 latter. If factual, then it looks like the plans has expanded by about 10,000 sites.
Smallcells and C-RAN smallcells fit the need to deploy 1.5-3 times the number of network base station nodes than at lower frequencies. The cost of deployment of many small sites increases the overall cost but by not as much. A large reason for that is these are small physical units that can be mounted on utility poles, sides and roofs of buildings, signage or other places where there is power and ability to either directly connect to broadband fronthaul service to C-RAN or backhaul to conventional smallcells. Wireless FH/BH can often be used to reduce costs of individual fiber, GigE, or gig cable runs.
What is the result? The result of higher cell counts given adequate spectrum bandwidth is available is better building penetration, shadow area coverage, and better signal quality that results in higher bandwidth and reliability of connections and better call quality.
The caveat is that this is not free. It has been an unfulfilled promise for nearly a decade. The promise is exciting.. maybe too exciting.. because it never seems to arrive. But then, Sprint had been negligent by not pursuing smallcell in the past... now that they are it becomes a new game plan .. that investors should wait and see if the ROI pays out for them. If you own Nokia stock it might have more immediate impact than on S.
As redundant as this has become, Fud. fighter continues to paint Tampa further into a corner.
PV admits that Q's circuit looks like a conventional mixer other than for values of components, control (of switches/sampling aperture) that defines how the circuit operates. This not just a potential problem for PV, it is the unavoidable problem. CAFC must rule in favor of Qualcomm by rule of laws the appeals court helped establish.
DISH is not a Sprint competitor.. just a mobile market wannabe. Weakness in DISH makes little difference unless Softbank wanted to acquire DISH which has not been indicated as the direction Son and Nikesh Arora have said they wish to expand the company.
The FCC appears to be doing what makes sense: even though Ergen argues that the spectrum bids were in keeping with the letter of the rules, they were obviously not in line with the intent. Ergen was given concessions by the FCC in reorganizing the MSS spectrum to be used for mobile. Now that he already has a large portion of vacant spectrum to be put to use, he no longer deserves to be handled with kid gloves by the FCC or DOJ imo. While it is in the public interest to foster robust competition among broadband and media service providers, there is a basic requirement to play fair.
Another aspect of improvements Claure has instigated is the simplification of the device lineup and the way the devices and service plans are presented to users. This might be thought of as another of the steps that gets washed out in the overall picture. However, I think its an important aspect of gaining competitiveness. And, perhaps more important, this is something Claure said he would do soon after taking the helm.. its important to monitor what CEOs, CFO.s, CTO.s etc. say against how well they follow through. On this count, Claure comes through well imo. The service plans look much more straight forward than when he took over. The devices are always in flux.. but look competitive and offer easy to understand purchase options.
The impact of this has to register with the market. T-Mobile started a similar process, spurred by acquisition of metroPCS which led in device and plan simplification. I doubt S can gain share against rival T-Mo so, like them, must start eating into the larger, fatter, Verizon and AT&T.
The yardsticks to measure how well a company is doing under a CEO are the usual things like the financial metrics. Because mobile operators leverage high degrees of debt, long term profitability is highly dependent on marketshare and streamlining of operations. Sprint carries such a large amount of debt that interest on the debt is also important. However, all operators are debt leveraged and, as T-mobile's results show, the impact of large debt can be swept aside by gains in revenue from subscriber growth.
Sprint is dependent on competing for networks as are all carriers. However, this is not a isolated metric. The cost side must be considered as well. Any operator is capable of achieving number 1 status in given markets if they are willing to spend heavily. The challenge is to spend wisely and competitively... to spend in a way that delivers a positive ROI in each market that aggregates in the total market to a profit. Sprint's challenge is not simply to turn positive in subscriber counts but to turn positive in ROI. Since that is difficult for investors to measure themselves, they rely on financial analysts to do the info gathering and number crunching for them to come up with financial forecasts and reports.
Sprint/Claure's turnaround yardsticks imo:
1. One million plus core sub gains each quarter
2. Consensus Profit/Loss forecasts turning around to positive by 2017 (now -51c, -67c 2018)
Under Claure Sprint has been reorganized and costs have been cut substantially. Unfortunately the "price war" has resulted in lower revenue while the push to improve networks is contributing to an increase in forecasts for net losses. For a turnaround to be meaningful for investors, that has to be reversed.
Sprint's financial results and forecasts make the details of network improvements, devices, and all else secondary because S faces financial restructuring of some sort. Financial analysts aren't just making this stuff up .. don't be a sucker.
That puts too much worship/faith in the CEO doing things. These behemoth companies cannot be turned around so easily. The type of change needed at Sprint will take a long time. Some actions, like changes in marketing happen quickly but results may not show up for 2-3 quarters. The judgement is still out on Claure: at least he is trying some new things, many are in marketing but he is pursuing smallcell HetNet including C-RAN as well. The main thing is not to invest before you can see results or know enough about the business to tell, with good odds, that they are coming. The hypsters buy then blast boards for others to buy. Better to wait for Claure or any CEO to prove he can walk the talk first.
Don't act so petulantly dumb, deaf, and blind. Parkervision/Prucnal was asked blankly and admitted that Qualcomm's circuit does look just like a conventional mixer. There is no fairy dust hidden in this subject for you to continue to lie about. And when the appeal oral arguments are viewed, we see that Parkervision's attorney had to admit, because he could not lie about it as can you on this stock board, that Qualcomm's circuit looks identical to a conventional mixer except that PV claims undocumented and unproven values are used that allow it to work as an infringing circuit.
You cannot be this brain dead.. so the only excuse for your false posts is you are a lying stock cheat.
Don't forget, Mary Popins flies using an umbrella... that and other fairy tales like your post about Google or NetFlix buying a telecom company to compete with their customers are just what investors should use to make investments.,, if you live on Bizarro world.
The case is not at all as uncertain as tampa et al like to paint it. Judge Dalton looked at the evidence, saw the admissions that the baseband is generated by the mixer, then asked McKool/PV for proof it was generated by the capacitors and how the integration of energy to constitute the bB was shown in evidence. That paints a black and white picture that the jury was obliged to see through the story that poor mistreated little Parkervision had created revolutionary technology that every circuit now uses.. even those that look just like conventional RF circuits except for values and orchestrated chain of events clocked/switched to occur precisely per PV's mysterious ETS/D2D technology. PV's technology remains mysterious because it is said to apply in situations where a circuits sold in the hundreds of millions have worked without it and where the only proof of it being used is kept in the imaginations of the company's co-founder, FD Sorrells, and their paid expert Prucnal.
Judge Dalton was obligated to ask for a showing of evidence that could support the jury's finding for Parkervision. He knew darn well that once the case got to CAFC they would, as they always have done, look keenly at the actual evidence while putting the story as extemporaneous. Dalton knew that if he could not find it or PV could not offer it when questioned that he had to overturn the jury as having decided unreasonably.
This is very black and white: no ticky, no laundry. PV does not have part of the proof needed: PV did not provide waveforms that purported to show the energy integration generation of BB signal that might have led to differences of opinion. PV didn't have an example circuit. That could have led to opinions about how it operates. PV had no form of acceptable evidence that they could argue when asked by J. D. or CAFC was the proof needed. Look at the transcripts - the lawyers punt when asked... saying the jury has the power to decide without such evidence. No.
Being laser focused begs the question "on what?". The task of rebuilding a mobile operation is like a major battle in a war: it requires having enough pieces in place that can overcome the competition. The way Sprint often talks about their efforts is as if they are operating in isolation devoid of competitors and the bigger picture. The WiFi efforts, for example, should be made an integrated piece of a strategy to redefine how networks are built. If every aspect of that is not about empowering the user to gain greater control of their local access and quality of their network, then it fails. Although its something that is never given up entirely, the motif of local cell/WiFi is to cede the closest portion of the network to the user... the customer should respond with 'My family (or employees) connect to my WiFi network which has great coverage'. More than that, WiFi should be the model used to connect homes and business as the first tier of the network. If the thinking is that its the lowest layer or '4th tier', its whacked thinking because it puts the interests of the company above that of the user. The emerging world of wireless is already displacing the top down mentality in a brutal fashion... Sprint has been getting killed because they have been 'brain dead for all these years'.
Good post: these message boards are good for pooling of information.. sort of a screened search and sharing of ideas. What ruins it is if one side tries to take over the conversation by swamping the board with posts aimed at one-sided opinions. Then the board becomes a PR hype board... part of a media campaign. It's been a long time since these boards had enough influence to sway markets by enough to matter.
Each person has their own reason for posting and reading. Common goals should be, imo, to figure out the relative health trend for the industry, ie. whether this is a good time to buy/sell sector stocks in general, and relative merits of each company. The tendency for those holding shares to become cheerleaders can degrade the value for others.
Yea they are calculating joint marijuana corporate tag-ins based on the net yield of sushi futures.
The remaining longs are on a different brane universe... they refuse to answer questions about proof and concoct their own justifications based on aspects of the case that have already been processed into the court's decision. Yes, there is a disconnect from reality because they do not know how to answer these questions any better than the expert witness and lawyers when they were asked by Dalton and the CAFC panel.
What new understanding can we learn from this case? Probably not much until new documents such as transcripts of depositions that aren't sealed become available ... or a ruling come out. Some other things worth knowing is how the IPR process is shaping up ... what statistics, procedures and interaction with the courts is developing. And how the recent SCOTUS rulings are impacting patent case decisions.
Going over the details of a case that is in the hands of CAFC and IPR judges again and again is a waste of time. About the only remaining value of PRKR is how it reflects upon the current legal process. The stock is not worthwhile for either longs or shorts... its a penny anti wasteland already.
Denial gets you nowhere. Who do you think you are fooling? You must think people are real idiots to keep up with the lying posture. Answer the questions that the court requires or slime off to the sidelines.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Any claim that the operation of the circuit deviates from that conventional understanding must have proof in one of the forms prescribed by Judge Dalton. That proof was asked for by the judges repeatedly. No ticky, no laundry.
Yes I know Nadine, she works for Sprint and wrote an article for Maravedis. The article describes Sprint's nascent efforts in WiFi. So, what are your points?
Whether Legere/T-Mobile's campaign to get the FCC to set aside more spectrum and other favorable terms for the 600MHz incentive auction is a net success depends much on how the DOJ, the agency in charge of assuring fair and open markets, weighs in. On the same day that this requoted article came out last month, the DOJ sent a letter to the FCC advising the agency that the auction is of critical importance to competition and the rules should help align industry participation to assure a more even playing field.
You love to post articles... you must work in Sprint PR department or for a hired agency ... certainly doing your job to blast this site.
The DOJ letter provides Legere/T-Mo with additional ammunition to press with the FCC and beat down those who might criticise the campaign. Lobbying regulators can occur in musty back rooms.. or it can be a slap in the face public forum. How it registers depends a lot on the muscle behind it.. DOJ has the biggest muscles in regards to antitrust issues including how the public grant of spectrum is dealt with by the FCC. So while Legere may rile up many in the industry, he can be the little mouse that rides on the shoulder of the elephant... his screeching is not be as important as what he rides in on.