Wed, Mar 4, 2015, 6:42 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


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

Dish Network Corp. Message Board

teamrep 567 posts  |  Last Activity: 4 hours ago Member since: Dec 4, 1997
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    hoping to make a quick buck

    by b0n312 Dec 16, 2014 4:50 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 16, 2014 7:26 PM Flag

    Sprint (S) is now technically extremely short-term oversold and is likely to bounce. Most investors should wait to buy after a stock forms a bottom or begins a move up, and not while it is falling.. 'catch falling knife'.
    What helps to make S a probable good short term buy is that the awareness of investors has been spurred by a lot of unfavorable press for Sprint while its closest rival, T-Mobile has become a media darling, mostly of their own doing.

    Strong buy.. however, try to buy as a bottom forms and on the way up and set stop-loss protective orders.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • As if TM was not already rubbing Sprint's misfortunes in their faces, the company has come out with a fresh taunt - unlimited individual and group data plans.

    Why is T-mobile doing this and what are the consequences in operation of the network and marketing likely to be?

    T-mobile has come up in network coverage and capacity, touting wide-band LTE using newly deployed mid-band spectrum supplemented by limited wider coverage 700Mhz. This has given TM higher capacity to expand its customer base and combine the feature-phone operator metroPCS with the struggling once laggard T-Mobile to become a more energetic competitor.

    But how can T-Mobile offer unlimited plans when all other operators, including Sprint, have shifted away to data bucket plans? Because T-M has enough capacity to push unlimited even though that might cause capacity constraints. TM is pushing the envelop on Wi-Fi-to-4G/3G routers and has plans for small cells that contribute to network capacity via cable and other broadband available to the consumer. And it prepares the way for LTE smallcells. Its the sort of thing I have long criticized Sprintsy wintsy for not having pursued.

    TM is pushing unlimited because it will keep them looking apart from Sprint in marketing, because they can (have the capacity), and because they will soon have acquired more AWS spectrum that they want to exploit with pent-up demand as soon as it is deployed. "Rolling, rolling, rolling.. keep them doggies rollin Rawhide." .. theme from old situation western TV series. TM wants to ride the momentum and drive a wedge between their image and that of 'carriers' including Sprintsy.

  • Reply to

    Then and Now

    by greekmonster101 Dec 5, 2014 5:59 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 5, 2014 11:11 PM Flag

    Things Sprint still needs to do now:
    Build a whole national network that is competitive in bandwidth-coverage
    Do something more than build silos of fair to good quality in major cities, tied with 1-2 competitors
    Make use of the spectrum S acquired from CW to competitive advantage instead of tagging along from behind
    Adding wideband low frequency band spectrum to match competitors better engineered portfolios and then densify.. oh, and Sprint needs to have done that starting yesterday.
    Start paying for itself so that the parent company does not decide to cut losses and let Sprint dangling.

    Its shure a good thing smart investors didn't fall in love with S and made money on the way down as well as up.. or at least kept from losing on the way down which has been the overall trend for years.

  • Reply to


    by overbrook10 Dec 8, 2014 7:19 AM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 8, 2014 9:16 AM Flag

    Your post does not answer basic questions posed to you. You are supposedly an attorney.. that buys you very little credibility. All who read back posts over the past two years can see the flaw: Your posts advised that PRKR would be granted a higher jury award - two to 3+ times what was awarded. Then that the award would increase with JMOL or with the second lawsuit. Readers cannot tell what the 2nd lawsuit will do but the 1st was turned down. The amount of the award was contested but that was made mute by the ruling of non-infringement.

    This is an investment board, not a sport pep rally board on FaceBook. The objective is to understand risks vs. rewards of stocks and make correct decisions which net money. The talk about being an attorney as if that grants special consideration for your posts is bullshisa. The tally is that those who have followed your posts have lost money, those that have stayed out or shorted PRKR have broken even or better.

    As far as knowing what we are talking about: we do, you obviously do not. The record is clear for anyone to read.

    Its been interesting to watch PRKR over these many years: its a prime example of how companies and the legal profession has taken advantage of the frailty in the USPTO grant of patents to sell stock to suckers like yourself.

  • Odds wrap-up:

    Odds for overturn of Judge Dalton/District Court decision - 17% (source: CAFC report and multiple blogs that have compiled the data into reports/graphics).

    Odds for at least one claim being determined invalid by PTAB IPR: 92%. (source: PTAB reported statistics and multiple blog sites that have compiled the data).

    If any claim is declared invalid, the District Court jury verdict on infringement is thrown out regardless of the merits of the remaining claims. Parkervision could then pursue a retrial based on a new court determined claims construction. If all the petitioned claims are invalidated, despite what J.P. says, the legal campaign waged by PRKR is effectively dead forever.

    The combined odds for PV success through PTAB IPR and CAFC appeal based on the reported statistics (without consideration of the merits of the PRKR vs. QCOM case) are 1.38%.

  • teamrep teamrep Dec 9, 2014 12:11 PM Flag

    Its more 'complicated' than that. Sprint has 120-160Mhz of spectrum under direct or sub-licenses. Only about 1/3 of the spectrum is directly licensed similar to AWS and other bands used for wireless broadband overlay of the wider band coverage .

    Using 4x2, 8x2, 4-8x4 or other high order MIMO configuration can be used in many frequency bands. It has advantages and disadvantages when used in the higher frequency bands/2.6GHz LTE band 41. The advantage is that signals do not travel as far or through things which makes it possible to put smallcells closer together without interference. The disadvantage is signals do not travel as far or through things making it necessary to pack in more base stations/smallcells/routers than at lower frequencies. That makes deploying into 2.6GHz up to five times as expensive as into 700MHz and 1.5-3 times as much as 1.9-2.2GHz AWS spectrum bands. Sprint is in a worse cash flow position so funding use of 2.6GHz deployments as the general solution (problem fix) does not make sense. To achieve coverage and penetration, Sprint must either combine LTE band 41 with lower frequency bands or deploy into 2.6GHz in a fundamentally different way. Otherwise, Sprint is stuck, forever if that is the case, with a mis-match of high spectrum and too little low. This is the quandary Sprint has not faced up to over the past 15 years. Until there is a sign of intelligent life at Sprint that innovates in the way networks are deployed, the company will suck hind tit waiting for 600MHz.. hoping that the competition has not moved the playing field to a new staging ground (such as eMBMS and more efficient multi-carrier aggregation and densification) in which Sprint, once again, finds it hard to compete as the trend lagging operator.

  • Reply to

    Feb 5th Earnings Call

    by delsoca Jan 30, 2015 11:51 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jan 30, 2015 1:08 PM Flag

    Claure is likely to be questioned about the deal with Google. Its uncertain if Sprint will discuss that during the call. Thus far all companies involved have been mum about the deal, choosing to filter information primarily through the Wall Street Journal. I suspect that is being orchestrated and that Sprint will not be in a position to dicsuss details during the call. However, this deal presents a new opportunity to shift the focus away from less attractive areas of discussion and more towards what can be done in the future... the lack of details can be replaced with broad picture painting.

    Its always good to have a path forward. The more that changes up the situation a company is stuck in, often the better that works out for the stock price. Before reality came to roost, for example, Network Vision/Spark gave investors something to look forward to that promised to turn around the decline in subscribers and revenue and lead to profits due to higher efficiencies. Sprint has gone down, deservedly so imo, since. Now there is a chance that the Google deal can be one of the anchors for a new vision to emerge .. a new 'blue sky' scenario to rally around. While it will be quite awhile to see if whatever that emerging vision fleshes out to become delivers meaningful competitive results, the fact is that markets love 'blue sky above'... the tide in investor sentiment may be more inclined to turn up in anticipation of whatever comes into the offing. I hope its not so full of hype it makes me sick of Sprintsy wintsy... we shall have to see.

  • Reply to

    Typical Jeff Parker bull

    by statesrip Dec 23, 2014 6:28 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 25, 2014 5:34 PM Flag

    1. The care with which patent applications have been prepared is important only in that they convey clearly the invention. Parkervision's patents use vague terms, lack sufficient rigor in mathematical derivative substantiation as has been determined by the Florida District Court. Therefore, that patents have been ruled to be rather shabby examples rather than "quality" patents. The fundamental innovations alleged, have thus far been rebuffed as being imprecise, confusing, and, most important, anticipated by multiple prior at citations.
    2. The bar for filing of an IPR is fairly low... as it is intended. The bar for filing a patent is also very low, also as intended. However, the process of IPR consideration is rather high: while it is easy to file for IPR, the determination to hear the petition is made by a seasoned, extremely well experienced panel of patent judges.

    PTAB issued a preliminary ruling that IPX/Farmwald's IPR has presented prior art that is reasonably certain to anticipate Parkerscamavision's flacky jack patents. They did not rule PRKR's patents invalid and wil lgive the company and McKoolaide a chance to vindicate their sloppy patents and charlatan style of patent case prosecution. PTAB wants to give PRKR every chance to pull a rabbit out of their hat... the long lacking proof that Dud2Dud technology can and does work in QCOMs circuit and the prior art does not predate PRKR's patents.

    Parkervision has the overwhelming burden of proof. Jeff Parker et al continue to shunt the requirement for proof and need to show how Dud2Dud is different with lies about sustaining claims and conditional funding arrangements that give the long shot gains to a strange LLC that has been known to fund other FLA wireless crazies.

    JP is a lying scoundrel trying to bide time. This is a zombie stock .. dead but still sucking brains.

  • Reply to

    Sprint news causing today's uptick?

    by mr_whigglee Feb 25, 2015 1:53 PM
    teamrep teamrep Feb 25, 2015 3:02 PM Flag

    The S4GRU site shows some details of Sprint's plans for bolstering and expanding coverage of networks, particularly filling in gaps in LTE 2.6GHz coverage. It mentions that funding for full deployments is not fully lined up and might come over the next 2 quarters. This plan shows that Sprint is working on improving coverage, capacity and filling in gaps and in-building penetration for 2.6GHz coverage. That should help Sprint continue to improve network performance, coverage and reliability.

    Sprint uses Samsung, Nokia/NSN and ALU (Alcatel-Lucent). The new/modified line up of suppliers is an improvement imo, notably the addition of NSN. Take a look at Nokia's Flexi Multiradio 10 Base Station. This is a refinement of Nokia's historical SDR, software defined radio, modular multiple-radio platform that shows a basic change that has taken place in base station designs. Old 1G-3G base stations required large trailer-sized equipment sheds in which power supplies, equipment racks air conditioning equipment etc. were located at the base of the tower. NSN and similar 2G-4G BS are air-cooled and can mount near the tower antenna or on a roof, exterior wall water tower, signage, and similar locations. Network router, etc. may be housed in cabinets. An alternative SOftbank has used extensively in Japan is centralized B. station servers connected via fiber optic to RF headends located at the site of the antennas.

    Sprint is making progress. That has to translate to higher customer satisfaction and growth at a competitive cost. A surprise to the upside might only require a continued show of improvements that creates some momentum in subscriber growth matched to lower costs.

  • Reply to


    by overbrook10 Dec 8, 2014 5:39 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 8, 2014 7:35 PM Flag

    You misguiding fox. This is a radio frequency circuit. It operates as a tuned system to receive and process the weak signals that reach a mobile device and even weaker signals that transmit back for battery powered handsets. A signal that appears at once juncture of the circuit is not the same in distance/phase, or harmonics that often occur in switch sampling circuits as supplicated by PRKR.

    You level of literacy on this subject is that of a person wiring his home.. yes, the shock of 120v AC is the same at 60Hz.. the signal is 60Hz flow of electrons down course wire connections inhospitable for powerline communications over any distance.

    PRKR should have physics modeling of D2D that is compelling to trot into court. That is how you show whether it works. You excuse it with backyard 120v 'wisdom'.

  • Reply to

    Hey Marcelo.... Nice work on this...

    by mr_whigglee Dec 8, 2014 4:47 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 8, 2014 5:05 PM Flag

    That is a favorable signal from Claure that subscriber growth will turn.

    I think the recent shift in marketing to target VZ and T using the 'bring us your bill' strategy is a an improvement. In a simple way its similar to how Claure got started in the used phone resale business: "Bring me your phone and we will tell you what we will give/exchange you for it". Asking the customers of the 68% marketshare leaders to bring in their bills automatically brings in the more serious prospect. It also puts the relationship on a different footing where the lower price strikes closer to the customer as a benefit ... removing the difficulty of the hodge-podge of plans in determining what the real savings would be.

    Sprint has needed to get away from chiefly going after T-Mobile and direct their focus in advertising and plans more directly at VZ and T.

    A quick survey of Verizon advertising shows no reaction to this move thus far. VZ's ads mostly reflect their strength in coverage, quality, etc. and not much a focus on price. That is as I would expect... a metered response. Chances are VZ will continue to stress devices, breath of service, coverage... the premium brand image rather than get into an aggressive price war with S or TM. They do not have to fight on their competitor's terms.

  • teamrep by teamrep Dec 31, 2014 8:21 AM Flag

    A look at the five and ten and maximum year charts shows a lot about zombie stock PRKR:

    Parkervision has seen peak 'value' when the company has embarked on new 'gambit' from selling products to pursuing chips (yea really... despite never having sales), to pursuing litigation to force firms to license its technology (sic).

    The five year chart shows PRKR was at 42c and rose to over 5, a whopping 10x during the height of the latest scam, er company redirection towards litigation against Qualcomm. The stock has since dropped under 1 as court and PTAB rulings have taken their toll on misinformation promulgated by Parkervision and willing accomplices on web stock promotion boards.

    Longer term charts reveal a history of sharp rises and collapses as Parker shifted the company following the collapse of the prior gambit. PRKR once reached over 50 only to fall after no product sales developed and no patent licenses or paying development agreements were signed.

    This latest gambit is the last: PRKR has depended on the overall story of having developed unique, transferable technology that delivers a leap forward in communications. The reality is that nobody uses the technology as it delivers no benefits. That is shown in the inability of Parkervision to sell any products that include D2D or D2P alleged inventions.

    The US PTO PTAB preliminary ruling and upset in the district court case against Qualcomm result in Parkervision having run out of options. Capital is drying up. The recent deal for $7 mil is a last ditch effort that sells potential litigation gains, stock options and debt repayment for money that will be burnt in a vain attempt at resuscitating and already dead patient. What are the odds? Zero imo.. give them your own assessment.. the odds of reversing the legal outcome is daunting. PRKR still has no sales prospects, no licensing prospects, and no prospect for reviving the court defeat and it faces being gutted of core patent claims.

  • Reply to

    T-mobile still hope of merger :) with S

    by arroz_33 Jan 20, 2015 3:14 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jan 20, 2015 4:01 PM Flag

    Bobby Burch
    Kansas City Business Journal
    Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn
    A merger between Sprint Corp. and T-Mobile US Inc. may have fizzled months ago.
    But top brass at the companies are still hoping regulators may someday warm up to the idea of the No. 3 and No. 4 U.S. carriers combining.
    Tim Hoettges, CEO of T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom AG, said that the two would have created a compelling team, offering scale to compete with industry leaders, according to a re/code report.
    See Also

    Sprint's Claure reviews failed T-Mobile merger, what's next
    Flying Solo: Sprint's future hinges on finding fresh message
    Sprint/T-Mobile merger in KC: 7 answers to one big question
    "I was intrigued by the idea of having a combination with Sprint and being the super-maverick in the market," Hoettges said in the report. "I hope that the political environment will change at one point in time."
    T-Mobile (NYSE: TMUS) and Sprint (NYSE: S) tried for months to sway regulators that a merger would benefit the marketplace through a more competitive No. 3 carrier. Sprint parent SoftBank Corp. joined its U.S. company in a PR campaign to persuade regulators, with CEO Masayoshi Son leading the way. Each party involved, however, only hinted at the merger, for which there was never a formal bid placed.
    Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure confirmed the merger attempt in September, only about a month after becoming Sprint's new top executive.
    "We wanted to do the acquisition that I call the most publicized, never announced transaction," Claure said previously. "We tried our best. Masa (Son) was determined, but it got to a point where the government said 'it ain't going to happen.' .... "We're believers in consolidation. This is a scale game. When your competitors are twice the size and it costs you the same to run the network, scale does matter. However, you can't complain anymore about that. ... You have to compete with what you have."

  • Reply to

    Dish and Netflix news.....

    by mr_whigglee Dec 17, 2014 2:13 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 17, 2014 2:39 PM Flag

    The offering is good...What Charlie is lacking is a national broadband and mobile network.

    The challenge for DISH is to partner or build the national broadband network needed to support the Hopper/TiVo type devices. Satellite combined with hopper helps extend the capacity and user appeal of the service but fails to deliver the broadband or mobile service to compete long term. Charlie has much of the spectrum he needs to build a competitive nationwide network. If he gets 10-20MHz of 600MHz spectrum in 2016's auction he will have a good compliment of bands. However, it requires 20-30 billion to build that out and provide the backhaul and server capacity for a nationwide network.

    The alternative is to do what DISH has done with small operators - partner for the mobile and much of the backhaul facilities. The writing should be on the wall for all of the operators that it is possible to build a tiered network using 802.11ac and LTE smallcell HetNet architecture as discussed many times. Its getting to be insanely easy to conceive of a network that combines localized coverage the benefits from user-installed 'homecell' neighborhood coverage, smart Hopper local store-and-forward/share network appliances... but we are still waiting for brain-dead Sprintsy to grow back some brain cells.

  • Reply to


    by teamrep Dec 31, 2014 8:21 AM
    teamrep teamrep Jan 1, 2015 11:49 AM Flag

    Let's help Jeffrey Snake-oil Parker out:

    New Ideas for Company Direction:

    ---Sell stock on KickStarter for BitCoins - advantage is that this these are in vogue now... new suckers to reel in.

    ---Target patents at 'business concepts' area which is easier to show novel approach: For example, a patent on the method of developing patents: Claim 1 "A method of filing for patents that clouds examination in a sea of irrelevant references, named D2C, direct to confusion. Claim 2. A D2C method as in claim 1 that further leaves out references to common practice of patent system manipulation. Claim 3: A further method as in claim 2 that uses vague terms in multiple contexts so as to broaden the possible scope of the patent(s) to embrace 'everything under the sun'. Claim 4: A further method as in claim 3 which comprises creating a story to sell to juries. The method includes early sales meetings that offers bold promises for business results using D2C technology. Ingredients include keeping details of the workings of the method of the invention under cloak and dagger secrecy and creating a myth of the benefits of D2C that cannot be confirmed or denied due to lack of proof points.

    Parkervsion may yet rise up as the master of business method patents of what they have developed. They have conclusive proof that D2C works.. it has allowed PRKR to secure many millions in funding already. The new course for the company should allow sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of additional stock. Money is, after all, the ultimate proof of a new business process patent company.

  • Reply to

    Tampa, labels are not evidence of function

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 12, 2014 5:25 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 14, 2014 3:57 PM Flag

    You are one lousy lawyer. Not opinion, fact.

  • Reply to

    Holiday Hooey

    by longprkr Dec 20, 2014 8:08 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 21, 2014 6:36 PM Flag

    The goal of investing is to make money. What I have advised for stocks has made money for those who followed the suggestions. My interest in PRKR was about the patents and legal process and I did not rate the stock as an investment with buy or sell recommendations as I normally would do. However, the conviction that PRKR's technology was invalid, the company would not sell technology licenses or products based on it was the foundation for short selling.

  • Reply to

    Negative implications for PRKR re IPR rulings

    by statesrip Dec 21, 2014 4:03 PM
    teamrep teamrep Dec 21, 2014 5:01 PM Flag

    ...Easy Street.

    Or so it has been for JP and many others including Sterne. Way to play the game.. Jolly Rogers and hip and ho to you bloody swaggards!!!

  • teamrep teamrep Jan 16, 2015 7:29 PM Flag

    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.

  • Reply to


    by longprkr Dec 31, 2014 12:16 PM
    teamrep teamrep Jan 1, 2015 11:22 AM Flag

    You confirm your lack of understanding with every post.

    Qualcomm had pioneered commercial use of CDMA/WCDMA technologies... their patent portfolio was built upon key patents that solved problems of adoption of CDMA for wide area cellular network and handset applications. This approach had to overcome TDMA and other wireless. With about the same amount of capital as gifted to Parkerscamavision, Q developed chipsets, base stations, and worked with handset suppliers and test instrument companies to prove that their technology was superior to prior tech. It was hard to convince equipment and phone suppliers, and operators, but the technology gained support, including by 3GPP, because Q went the full way to prove its benefits. PRKR, on the other hand, never got off the ground with a single chip, device, or equipment or with CAD or emulation in software that showed the tech to work. The differences between what has become the most successful wireless device technology company and PRKR are day and night.. success and failure.

    Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE among them, participated in development of OFDM based 4G LTE and B4G tech and have among the world's most extensive patent portfolios. The Chinese ministry of technology pushed 3G & 4G+ technology development.

    China set a goal, about 15 years ago, of becoming a world power in wireless communications. They have accomplished that.

    That has made it a matter of time, IPR, intellectual property rights, and economics before there would be a clash between major companies of the West and Chinese government and companies. That 'battle' is typically fought over patents and international trade rules/anti-monopoly issues. . I, among others, had seen this coming many years ago and recent 'news' comes as no surprise.. except to noob idiots like those found here.

75.60-0.25(-0.33%)Mar 4 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.