well, I can't say where.
Chief snake oil salesman Jeffrey Parker has done what he knows best - kick the can to yet another play yard. While the D2D patent lawsuit against Qualcomm has been rebuffed by the court and the patents are being contested in the IPR, the only viable course open to PRKR was to pursue a different lawsuit. Its likely the only way that Parker can make a new appeal to investors to plug down more coin in exchange to go after a payoff that is large enough to justify the paid-in capital, legal expenses, and keeping the doors open.
I had read the earlier patents and think the chance of PV prevailing was slim. I doubt the new patents will change that opinion. The patent case is, imo, much weaker than the lawsuit against Qualcomm, which was very weak due to the patents being weak and not infringed.
What now strikes me about adding Samsung to the picture is the attempt to paint the case for the jury: PV won a jury verdict based on the ability to create a story of a company that had presented its technology to Qualcomm. The early correspondence was used out of context with Qualcomm's circuit claimed to infringe. Prior to inclusion of Samsung, PV's second lawsuit did not have a similar story building potential.
This is not going to work imo. Even though Samsung's legal defense against Apple appeared inept imo, there is little chance either the patents will hold up as being infringed or negotiations with S as moldable to picture painting for the jury.
Jeffrey will likely use the lawsuit to drum up another round of investment. Watch how it works out this time. After the defeat in the 1st case, its unlikely investors will be had without significant dilution imo.
PRKR is dragging out the inevitable... for how much this time around?
Parkervision has touted their technology could be used for each new generation of wireless and sphere of application that happens into the limelight. The 'Internet of Things' is the use of LTE technology, since that is the worldwide wide area network standard, to connect up sensors, telemetering, and machine to machine types of applications using the mobile communications platform. RF wireless technologies are a sub-component part of the overall circuit.
Parkervision has avoided the normal route to getting their alleged technology adopted: the typical route is to work within the engineering establish such as filing technical white papers for peer review and attending conferences to present new approaches and answer questions in open forums. I've attended perhaps 100 such events and participated in IEEE and other technical groups. Several years ago Jeff Parker was asked why PV didn't present such papers or attend events. His response was that Parkervision was afraid of having the technology ripped off and the company would probably do so once patents were issued. They never did.. except one time I am aware of .. in which case the presentation was panned by those who attended and told me their account.
I know of two small companies that developed technologies that went into LTE that licensed it to Samsung: One got a license and consulting agreement. The other worked with Samsung and then sued them over OFDMA technology. The lawsuit was primarily over how much S should pay... they settled for undisclosed amount. In both cases the amounts were much lower than PV has been seeking... for what I think are patents that will prove worthless. Even if valid and used, PV's RF is a small alternative part of the overall wireless modem chipset.
What Sprint and T-Mobile should hope for is that Verizon and AT&T do not respond so much that it prevents the two from gaining some marketshare. Marketshare has continued to migrate toward the two dominant players such that they have become a duopoly... each having a market position that appears protected against an assault based on any single factor such as low price or peak bandwidth. The public is not so well educated in technology to understand if operators marketing departments are spinning the truth when new things appear on the market. Wireless broadband and SmartPhones are no longer so new that the public remain rubes. That is primarily because the average of the majority of people in the populace is on their 3rd or fourth SmartPhone device and 2nd or third service provider experience. They, or through their friends and family have heard what works and what doesn't well enough to call the BS when marketing steps over the line of believably.
Sprint and T-Mobile can hope that their fight becomes recognized as something that is a shake up of the maturing service... that it really is worth trying despite Verizon and AT&T's reputation for quality and coverage. Lower price and more freedom of choice can sway people so long as other things they want are not compromised beyond their tolerance level.
Bending the spoon in mobile has to do with building good networks and, also, perception of who is rucking who... who is willing to work hard for their money. T-Mobile has established the in-your-face fighter for the user, a role that Sprint never fully bought into imo. What is Sprint's image today? Not so clear... not the innovator. Not the champion of the people, not so much the un-BORG/uncarrier as T-Mobile. The new CEO has come out with pricing that opens up the chance of recapturing a co-position with T-Mobile... not 'We try harder' so much as 'the un-BORG/uncarriers have to work harder to deliver what the public wants.
Bend the spoon:
How does the 'spoon' get bent in the ICT wireless business? You have to do something that is enough different in the basic ways people connect to either drive far ahead of competitors in capabilities or drive down costs. Gee wiz technology alone does not cut it. Spectrum is not uniform so the way to use it has to fit it or it does not work: either the service is poor or the costs are high or its too slow to deploy so that other operators get there first.
Original Sprint created a business by being honest to goodness innovators in the use of fiber optics and digital wireless. Maybe the company got fat on that success and complacent... or it was a matter of the employees and managers who followed tried to fill a mold as technologies pioneers to an extreme without building a clear understanding of how the technologies and markets would evolve. Sprint has been a text book B-school case of company culture and management that had failed. Students will probably come to be scored on how well they interpret what S did and how it may have best been avoided.
After trying to use Roof Top methods using technology that could never work, Sprint pursued the dream of WiMAX becoming a mobile standard... ignoring basically flawed thinking that went into its development. WiMAX got the modulation scheme right: MIMO-OFDMA, with FEC, TDD and FDD access support etc., but failed to understand that it needed to do multiple carrier aggregation and that the group had to gain access to low as well as vacant high frequency bands. Sprint adopted the mechanisms to fail unless they, through Clearwire, recognized how the technology had to be used more determinedly than the group-grope consensus of the IEEE-802.16/WiMAX Forum generalized efforts. The failure was otherwise written on the wall at the time the first draft of the 802.16e mobile version of WiMAX was issued and the group or individual companies failed to strike deals with Aloha Partners or auction for 700MHz.
There are 170 million people paying more according to the latest figures, drawing Sprint's dwindled share of the market. You do not have to like their decisions.. .they will not likely call you up first to ask what you think.
I disagree. Financial analysts won't likely change their rating upward until they see cost cutting measures and impact of the new pricing program and competitors responses in early results. Sprint has the best paper value in data which is largely meaningless: average usage is now over 1.5 Gb/month ( Sharma was quoted at 1.2Gb/mn which I think is a figure that applies to a year ago). That means the average family will fall into T-Mo's 10Gb/mn cap and not use up all of Sprint's 20Gb/mn. Legere points out that Sprint has the slowest (average) network speed so that users may not subs can't take advantage of the higher marketing cap. Another point he makes is that while TMUS imposes speed reduction (not mentioned), they do not charge $15 per Gb for going over the monthly cap. Surveys of users show they prefer plans that have less end of the month sticker shock from overages, roaming, premium content or other extra changes. That is particularly true for families where young family members tend the be the highest bandwidth (ad)users for which the parents are liable.
This is a perception game both for each of the operators and between the two groups of operators: the Junk Yard Dogs vs. the BORG carriers. What will spell success or failure for Sprint and T-Mobile will not be how much they chew each other to threads, but how well the public warms to the overall fight and shift from the higher priced, 68% marketshare dominant VZ and T to the lower cost, more open side of the slate.
" on America’s fastest nationwide 4G LTE network ", OK that's some BS. T-Mobile has risen in average speed during the past year to hold onto a position well above Sprint. T-Mobile's network actually can be the fastest in markets where they are now using wide channel LTE. That isn't rocket science... use a lower frequency band in wide channels provides wider coverage and, thus, beats out similar or even higher bandwidth channels using 2.6GHz.. every junior class EE knows that much.
Another factor of bandwidth is how much the network becomes loaded during peak usage periods...operator's new networks take time to fill up... particularly for T-Mobile and Sprint who have fewer subs. The truth in advertising statement might go like this, "We have the highest speed for now until we add more subs to pack the network and usage per sub increases over time." That's true for all operators who deploy new or expanded networks.
From Tmobile PR: " When families exceed their cap – assuming that’s even possible on the nation’s slowest LTE network – families are hit with overages to the tune of $15 per gigabyte.
-Legere slaps Claure's face hard.
In stark contrast, T-Mobile’s Simple Choice plan comes with unlimited data, talk and text − and with no overages and no annual service contracts − on America’s fastest nationwide 4G LTE network.
“When we saw how Sprint’s dissing its own customers and dropping unlimited LTE plans for families, we knew we had an opportunity to help these people out,” said Mike Sievert, Chief Marketing Officer for T-Mobile. “Only a ‘carrier’ would be arrogant enough to make an offer limited only to new prospects, while forgetting their existing customers. The Un-carrier way is to give the best offers to your loyal customers – and that’s what we’re doing again today.” "
T-Mobile presses it wide-channel LTE network using robust low and mid freq bands.
The market is reacting very timidly to the new offers from Sprint and T-mobile. In days leading up to this, financial analyst/industry opinion had varied; some calling for Sprint to come out with very aggressive pricing in order to sway marketshare while others suggesting that S's margins would be negatively impacted. Both views are right: Sprint must be aggressive to hold onto coveted post-paid subscribers in an attempt to keep T-Mobile from knocking Sprint out of the number 3 operator spot.
The immediate market reaction is TMUS is down marginally while S's rebound is muted.
error $60 unlimited plan. This plan is more aggressive than previously announced share plan and goes directly after T-Mobile's marketing image. Even while it slaps T-Mobile in the face directly, its as much to do about brand image than peeling away subs from the similar market position T-Mo. The bulk of the potential market is held by AT&T and Verizon. What Sprint can hope for is that it regains the position as the price leader that has been taken by T-Mo and, in so doing, participates in taking marginal share away from Verizon and AT&T.
I doubt that T or VZ will see a large defection of subs. Rather, Sprint is more likely to stem sub losses as it holds onto existing subs while capturing a portion of new postpaid subs that are part of the remaining unserved/up-sale market. It remains unlikely T and VZ will enter into a price war. Instead they will keep hammering on their coverage, reliability and premium services.. and business and other dominated segments.
The plan announced today of ^40 for unlimited talk, text, and data targets both new and existing customers. It should help Sprint hold onto existing subscribers and win some converts imo.
VZ and T have the best performing networks, best coverage, and highest reliability that remains far enough above that of Sprint and T-Mobile to help cement post-paid marketshare. Both have gained net subscribers despite T-mobile's 'price war' on the heals of the SmartPhone market having reached and leveling from its growth apex. If you had a Maserati dealership in your area, would you sell at the price of the Hyundai dealership down the road? That would be foolish. You might sell a mid-priced model made at the same factory in order to participate in the value segment of the market and sell cheaper used cars (MVNO segment), but the premium model (core postpaid) would be modified on by degrees while you scale up deployments for the next luxury model (network derived wave of demand) that you hope will lift your sales and margins. Coverage and reliability of networks has improved for all operators with T and VZ setting the 'gold standard'. S and TMUS have to offer lower pricing and less contractual obligations in the attempt to peel off subscribers from the sticky fly paper.
This is so talked about it should be rudimentary understanding. A bet on S is a bet that the company will, step by step or as a red herring move jump higher in qualities of the network or gain cost efficiencies that allow a higher degree of price competition that offsets the remaining deficits in quality, reliability and coverage. That is how its been and remains. The market is more mature; consumers have become more discerning... not my words now.. look at the results of me-too comparable networks.
The studies of the networks have been ongoing over the past few years. These used to be done just by the drive surveys but now are done using that and the crowdsourced data. Imagine yourself downloading RootMetrics or other company's Android or iPhone app, using it to test how the network is doing between your suburban home (average commute), a side trip on the way home to to to the health club and then do some shopping and return home. Along the way the signal level is recorded back at RM or other database where it is immediately available to use in graphs, coverage maps and reported statistics.
The details have some lag but its good enough, particularly when observed over time, to help judge how the network is performing. These are good studies made better when they are used in collaboration with other stuff like quarterly reports and market trend surveys and analysis. What do these reports tend to show about what customers, likely very few having read such reports, thinks about operator S, T, Tm, or V's services? That, on average, customers have been choosing competitors more often than Sprint. The impact of the price plan will become the focus in the near term: how much price elasticity impact is there between mobile operators vs. traction achieved by other metrics such as coverage and reliability?
Marketing plays a very important role... when competitors offer close to the same benefits or offsetting benefits, markets tend to be more price elastic. T-Mobile and Sprint offer fairly similar pricing and approach: offers to pay for contract termination, fewer LT contract commitments, and lower pricing. These are attempts to break away subs who are otherwise stuck by contracts and what they perceive as better value of coverage, reliability, quality. Sans having the upper hand in the network metrics, the J.Y. dogs must throw water on the stickiness holding VZ's and T's subscribers.
If that works better than I expect, I will admit it as results show.
You attempt to spin the data, which is confirmed by all other independent studies and even by Sprint in its own presentations that show improvement only in metrics where they have pulled abreast of competition and relative improvement in stuff like customer service and dropped calls.
If anything, RootMetrics basic report launders the problems in Sprint's network because the graphs and statistics smooth out the lumpy gravy coverage. The RM and other independent survey coverage maps show the more detailed nature of operator's coverage: how the bandwidth and signal strength change between cells. Sprint's coverage looks like what Sprint referred to as 'Metro Zone hotspot' coverage provided by the scant number of 2.6GHz base stations is known by everyone (other than ignorant or in denial ShareZombies) understand to be the case - lumpy gravy coverage - higher peaks, perhaps, than competitors within city 2-3 blocks proximity to line of sight of 2.6GHz equipped base stations that quickly drops and is nearly vacant in shadow areas such as the valleys between high-rise buildings or behind hills. Inside of buildings, garages, etc. is not shown on these maps but shows up in commercial surveys. Sprint continues to make up the distance between their network and competitors, However, the deployment methodology will run out the quick gains, even though these have appeared slower than comp, while the competitors expansion and upgrades in low and mid band spectrum has easy ground for improvement to come.
The nearly foregone conclusion by this time (finally after all these years), is that Sprint has to change how they design and deploy their networks... or adopt another brute force method around it such as acquiring DISH and availing themselves of greater mid and some low band spectrum plus the 5,500 person deployment corps.
If you need to have it explained more concretely than that, read back posts over the past 6 years for CLWR and S. (wayback dot c.om or similar)
A read of mr_whigglee;'s posts over the past couple of years shows him to be a 'perpetual bull' except, like this recent occurance, someting bad happens then belated he chimes in that this or that should have happened. To give credit where its due, whigglee was bullish after Softbank announced its acquisition of Sprint and remained so #$%$ rose to ~11. Unfortunately, w. remained bullish throughout. Among his posts were the typical ShareZombie harrang of short sellers. Near the 36+ month highs, short interest had climbed. whigglee posted that they would need to cover and S would be very likely to land the deal to acquire TMUS. Without knowing the details of the supposed deal, w. was bullish that S shareholders would benefit.
I had urged caution on Sprint-Softbank's announcement of the attempt to acq. T-Mo pointing out from the start, when no media or fellow analysts had yet, that the regulators would oppose it, and, in any case, would require a screen of the spectrum and lengthy review of 18-24 months if it were made official. Before rather than after events took place is when forecast analysis adds value. W. did get the trend in investor speculation right. Unfortunately, he stuck with it until after the crash, then chimed in some posts about Sprint needing to clean up problems, etc. That may be comforting to those who stuck in there with him, rather than taking profits, selling calls, putting in stop losses, diversifying to other stocks, etc. as I had frequently posted.
Go back and read past posts.. its slavishly boring but educational.
Reply to what? That some vested board posters don't like my posts? OK, I 'Like' that some ShareZombie board posters do not like my posts. If I wanted to please most people, I would side with the long ShareZombies. I forgot that this is all about having more likes... let's move the board to FaceBook and we can like each other to death.. how comfy-cosy., shalalala!
You attack me because I am right, you have proven to be wrong... along with Sprint's macrocell dependent deployment strategy. Anyone who can read should do so to tell who is bloviating and who is not.. enough said. Your posting has gone overboard because you cannot defend either your own recommendations to buy when S was trading higher or Sprint's position, which you said was going to improve... echoing the Sprint official pablum over the past three+ years. The financials and aspect of the network have improved.. and so has that of competitors, particularly T-Mobile, leading up to this point in which Sprint might be able to hold their head above water (stop the hemoraging of subscribers, particularly the coveted post-paids.
Come on, lay out your posts recommending buy and sell points and what investors should do such as to avert risk.. we can use this to review the course of S and help board viewers to plan their investments going forward. I will await your detailed response.
Yes, I am, and you are not. Care to review the history of you posts and mine.. I double junk yard dog dare you.
Get ready for a wild ride... in a new sideways channel! ; ^)
Prediction for a new trend channel:
Near term S will trade between the current price level and the upper area of the crash, around 6.
Over the next three months, Sprint (S) will trade between 6 and 7.50. This depends on modestly favorable results from the new plan adjustments.
A move higher than 7.50 will require a breakthrough type announcement such as acquisition or national rollout partnership with DISH. The spectrum auctions that can eventually help Sprint smooth out its lumpy gravy coverage now looks to be delayed by the TV broadcasters lawsuit
Side Note: the pig broadcasters spectrum holders were gifted with free spectrum and now want to hold up the American public from the benefits of its more effective use - too bad the FCC doesn't (politically can't) simply take back the spectrum without any compensation for primarily unused portions. A cursory review leads me to think the broadcasters will lose in court.. but since that could take over a year, the FCC may strike a bargain.