You are good at keeping score on web posts? Why so flabbergastingly lousy at keeping score on PRKR's critical lifeline issues of sales, licensing, completing tasks, fulfilling promises and odds of winning in the legal battle?
Its fun posting here because you provide so much entertainment.
Trying to deflect? Your posts are juvenile meaningless garbage... there is nothing at all worth responding to. Post something more like you have a brain in your head and I will be glad to counter it.
There is no D2D if it is anticipated by prior art, therefore it does not work. I think I know what Mike meant, ie a statement that the patents are covered by prior art, however, it is easily interpreted to mean D2D fundamentally works as a distinct technology, which has never been the case.
Masa Son is a straight shooter: He laid out expectations for turning around Sprint after being acquired based on gilded assumptions of what could be achieved in US networks and competitor's positions. On the competitive front, T-mobile has been a fly in the ointment - becoming the flag bearer for low prices... but more than that. Rather than creating the image as 'we cut prices in half until WE bleed', T-M has captured the flag as the 'Un-Carrier' rebel... a motif that beacons back to Apple's sledgehammer against the glass wall of 1994 Big Brotherism and the broader ethos of the individual against the oppressor that has been handed down through antiquity. That has cache with the 'young, restless, and disenchanted' and also sways older crumpled spirits to consider breaking away from their carrier... we all have an elemental need to be 'hip' or not so cemented in our ways that we miss out on better alternatives.
Who's Hip? T-Mobile or Sprint? You know the answer to that question ... its a fungible asset but T-M retains the flag.
Read what Masa Son has said.. the guy pulls few punches.
Human nature: Lazy greed. Understanding enough about technology and business to make money at it as an investor in common stocks is hard work. All the while, listening/reading big promises about stuff that seems as magically full of wonder and promise for the future as your mother read to you at bedtime and clicking a button on a computer screen to whisk away a portion of money in your account to the cloud realm of those selling you the dreams is easy-peasy.
802.11ac WiFi has adopted several of the technologies used in 4G networks to help provide more reliable connectivity. While the MAC uses collision based access, a combination of lower latency, better error correction, longer range and more consistent connections from improved MIMO-beamforming, more robust signal measurement and channel adjustment, and coordination between devices and WiFi routers, SONs and other technologies result in better user experience. The best 4G-5G network is multiple carrier and multiple mode that is made more seamless to the user. The WiFi communications is gaining somewhat in range and wall penetration even though it primarily uses a congested frequency band (2.4GHz), low power, and resonates with H2O. This #$%$ band spins gold because it is open.. open to evolution of technology and users who can use their hands and grey matter to deploy it for nearly free compared to BORG determined architectures.
Lover/holders of stocks think a lot in black and white terms. BOOOOM!!! Sprint network is improved in Denver.. therefore the conclusion is what? BOOOOM!!! Sprint is improved across the board? The degree of BOOOM for the buck is trending Sprint towards profits?
If this were six years ago or Sprint's finances had more capital and less debt, leaving ability to borrow $10-$20 billion to invest in capex improvements and spectrum, then investors would not have to be so concerned about Sprint needed to show large growth in subscribers and profitability. Then BOOM in network performance in select locations would measure up as being additive to a positive scenario instead of filling up holes.
"Currently the 2.5 GHz spectrum is being carried on Sprint's Balance sheet at about 20 Billion dollars...." Which is a high value compared to valuations given to the spectrum six-8 years ago before the half-fix WiMAX experiment. At that time the spectrum was valued at around $8-$12 B and was speculated to be worth more as it went into use. According to the plan, 2.6GHz would have turned profitable with around 12 million subscribers using it directly, 12 million more combined with 3G.
According to your thinking, spectrum is valued according to future use even while the company itself and independent analysts consider it to be worth a more reasonable figure or around $20 billion. Investors have seen the value of S's spectrum almost double. Its too bad that incurred debt and deterioration in brand, and competitive positions have driven the total valuation lower. Yes, too bad some fellow idiots think that the entire business determines value rather than a financial firm's guess - which is highly suspect since they stand to gain if the stock were to go up. And its too bad that this has failed to result in the stock moving up.. too many idiots like myself don't buy that ridiculous valuation and ignorance about the rest of the story.
Take away the euphorics and idol worship attitude and the basic take on floorspace in 1400 Radio Shack stores is additional market presence that will result in growth in subscribers. The speed with which this was set into motion was exceptional.. something Claure should be complimented. How well this combines with spottyfied network improvements remains the question.
All the Grade A 'bashers' are proud to be of service to investors. Taking the liberty to speak for them, our work to debunk Parkervision as a worthless attempt to exploit grants of patents that were unenforceable as invalid and the business as a pack of lies has saved some from believing your sales pitch.
Proud to be labeled a basher by some dweeb novices who have wrecked their 'friends' bank accounts.
Being labeled a 'basher' for something that is a bad investment is what?.. a bad thing? If you are brain dead maybe.
The remaining long shysters come out of the woodwork like roaches when something shakes up PRKR. The recent downturn has been on 2-8X higher than normal volume and may be close to the last hurrah before PRKR gets wrapped up.
Don't be foolish: there will not be enough assets left for PRKR to remain a viable stock held company by the end of this year. PRKR will likely be dissolved if the IPR or CAFC rules against the company imo.
The method is good but who is to say at this point. I think 5 is too high, however, until some figures come in its unknown.
The total number of store locations will be similar to VZ and T. However, they are not gaining that number per store. Your assumption seems to be that because Sprint is new on the block they will attract more customers than the established competition. However, that is not how retail typically works. In any case, its a wait and see on the results.
My guess is that Sprint will attract new subs in markets where networks are beefed up to be tied with first place in performance. While that remains behind competitors, Sprint has been showing the most gains in interim survey results.
"As I've said over a year ago companies that have ever met with Jeff Parker do not like him. He rubs people the wrong way and they want to see him fail at any cost. That is the real problem here. Te spread has narrowed because it is heading lower."
That is not the problem with PRKR: Jeff Parker is a very likeable person... he comes across in a folksy, personable way that has allowed, almost miraculously, to get by jaunting from one failed promise to the next over the past 15 years. That shows a remarkable personality trait in itself. The basic problem is that the technology patents are vague and has been fashioned so broadly that it is covered by prior art... and it does not work as promised. Despite that JP has been able to sell the promise of it eventually working and being used.
The reason why no company has licensed the technology, used it or paid Parkervision always comes back to the fact it does not work. Look at the company history: How many times has Jeffery said 'We are working closely with VIA (XYZ) for high volume applications.. expect commercial revenues next quarter'. He gets away with it because JP is able to charm his audience. Many companies have been charmed well enough to evaluate the technology to the point that they unearth that it does not work. That has kept being the case year after year. Critics like Mike F. and myself have felt confident that in the end the fact the core patents are invalid and the technology does not work as promised would result in collapse of the company. Frankly, I am a bit surprised PRKR has not found some companies to license D2D/D2P because 'token' licensees might have been gotten to help build the fantasy.. surely JP could have paid a few small firms to license the patents with details kept secret.
There is a fallacy in thinking that either Claure or Legere can have turned around their respective companies - the plans and efforts to turn T-Mobile around were started several years ago and started coming to fruition before Legere took over the top spot. Claure is doing well on realigning sales, cutting costs, and directing improvements in networks. However, Sprint remains far from turning the ship around. A big difference between Sprint and competitors, including T-Mobile, that must be up is going from losses and depletion of borrowing capacity to profits and greater financial flexibility. Big gains in subscribers are required 'just to get even' because of that.
Those considering buying Sprint (S) should be looking for solid positive momentum .. not rumors and speculation at this point.
McDonald's revolutionizes the hamburger by putting two pickles on every bun!!!
So how does this add up? According to this, Sprint is revolutionizing how phones are purchased? Delivered? Or how the user experiences the purchase?
Delivering phones to the consumer is common practice.. buy a phone from an operator or at Amazon or a number of other online retailers and it can be sent out as soon as for next day delivery. The revolution appears to be mostly in branding this as Sprint home delivery. That can be either a same-same experience to the user or can be experienced as easier, more personal/more in-touch, or a worse shopping experience. Claure knows how to do direct retail so let's throw out the chance it will be worse than current phone delivery. How much better?
What is different is hiring of the outside drivers to make the deliveries. That could be made more personal and might even include some hands-on to show the customer how to get the thing up and running and use new features. That would be an extension of current retail that is creative. Which is to say, not a revolution unless its made so. Sprint has a long history of half-measures that fail to pan out as promised... this is a set up for another Coulda, woulda shoulda to make something 'revolutionary'. Claure seems to be the guy who has retail customer service running through his veins.. but there are many examples of where past successes have not panned out.
As with other incremental changes, results are pending calling it even a net positive let alone another in a series of 'revolutionizes networks, devices, customer service, service plans, etc. Does this steamroll the competition? Certainly not in itself.
How will results turn up this quarter will be of keen interest to get some solid evidence for how momentum is (or is not) developing. Sprint needs to hit the cover off the ball to get on a steep uphill recovery. A pitch, a hit, where is it going?
Yes, time for OB and others to load up. The volume has shot up so there should be no problem buying shares. Its the least they should do.. follow through as they have begged others to do. In the next world the shares in PRKR may be worth something... the religious believers will get the right to sit next to JP in the promised land.
That's right, PRKR is up over 50% from its all time lows. Longs who bought the stock near 40c can cheer their wisdom in stock picking. Fortunately, there may be a chance to buy the stock even lower.
How can short sellers be shorting at this level? The only shares likely available to short would be those held by institution/funds of which I doubt there would be willingness to lend shares. Few major broker lends shares under $5 and none I've heard of do so under $1.
I'll bet that the CAFC and IPR processes are providing some early feedback on how these rulings may go. I look at these as confirmation of the inevitable result. Parkervision/McKools et al appeal and IPR briefs show clutching at straws that will prove fruitless. Those skilled in these matters see the odds of the decisions going against PV are mounting. 1.75% odds of overall success? That now looks high imo.