Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Robert Syputa  

View Robert Syputa's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Verizon: 10%+ Free Cash Flow Yield And Low Valuation Make This Dividend Powerhouse A Buy [View article]
    Despite being in an exciting industry that impacts much commercial, government and individual activity, I agree that Verizon is a nicely boring investment.

    The attention given to the telecom/ICT sector probably adds some volatility to an otherwise boringly efficient historical and projected cash flow scenario. For example, when fears have risen regarding T-Mobile and then Sprint's 'price war' this may have contributed undue volatility in VZ. As quarters have thus proven, the impact of the alleged price war has been minimal. Largely this is due to the fact that prices trend down as a matter of course. Since the first cellular voice networks, unit prices have trended down while subscriber penetration and broadening out into new services has grown. What now adds to the fears of price erosion of income/cash flows and profits is that the saturation of subscribers will result in a net collapse of service revenues. However, this fails to account for two sustained factors: 1. New and expanded services continue to emerge. Primary among these are multiple attach rates among existing subscribers and evolution of mobile content, ie. video services and advertising. 2. The operator's unit cost per bit of providing network services is seeing a decline roughly attuned to 'Moore's Law'... or "Moore-Alamouti's Law" of wireless which sees a rough doubling of capacity at the same unit cost about every 18 months. This shifts the scenario from Verizon being the victim of aggressive pricing to being the champion of the game: By having the most efficient set of networks, VZ is able to offer highly competitive coverage, bandwidth, and quality of service at a lower price. What makes VZ the champion rather than the victim is their marketshare and qualitative position allows Verizon to stay competitive while not being forced to use price as the lowest common denominator. In other words, Verizon can shift pricing lower while keeping margins higher than competitors. They are not forced to offer the lowest price. Rather, the perceived value to subscribers includes breath of services, coverage, network quality and the brand image factor... thinking VZ is likely to continue to improve to keep ahead or at least up with competition and with less disruption than has been historically seen among competitors.

    The chance for competitive upset could become a factor in the future: this is an industry in which change is the status quo. VZ could get lazy and fall off of their game. Its been known to happen among the best of companies in maturing industries. However, the boring repetitive nature of VZ's results indicate that while investors should periodically perform a fresh review, they can take actions to invest based on an expectedly boring outcome.

    One way to increase the benefits of the relatively tight range of swings in VZ is to buy at times of market or sector distress , such as now, then sell slightly out of the money covered calls when VZ rises to near cyclic highs.
    Jul 28, 2015. 02:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Sprint's Greatest Fears Realized [View article]
    Your comment is naive fantasy.

    Softbank is not known for throwing money down the drain willy nilly. They obviously expected Sprint to be turned around and got blindsided by the surge in fortunes of closest rival T-mobile. So, the decision to acquire floundering Sprint was flawed. Now that they own it and its continued to underperform, Masa Son stated that he would not invest in a bottomless pit. That SB would invest in Sprint if the prospects showed a favorable ROI. That is pragmatic thinking opposed to retail investors like yourself who think that Softbank will plow money into Sprint ... apparently justified only by the fact that they are already on the hook for 81% of the company at a higher price. Bunkus interuptus.

    The other buffoonery is this oft repeated statement that Sprint's spectrum is worth $70B. I do analysis of value of spectrum as an industry analyst. At the peak of the outlook for 4G when Sprint was the only operator with such wideband spectrum (over 20MHz channel capacity) the 2.5-2.6Ghz band was estimated to be worth between $20 and $30 billion IF Sprint's plans at the time panned out. They did not meet, by a long shot, expectations at the time. The value of Sprints spectrum if calculated on the basis of comparative ROI generated by competitors bands of low and mid band spectrum might, euphemistically, be worth minus $20 billion! While that is in jest, the point is that spectrum is most directly valued based on how it is used to generate revenue and profits. Sprint has failed to make a profit using it, so its value is negative as an ongoing business value.

    The spectrum obviously does have a value because other operators probably can make money using it at some point. Trouble is that a large amount of mid band spectrum has opened up and has gone into use recently with more slated over the next 1-3 years. More is coming available in the 3.5 and 5Ghz bands and 60-120MHz in the 600-700MHz band.

    Sprint has to make a go of what they have. Failing to make the business profitable using the much hyped 2.6GHz band 41 spectrum has led to its value being discounted. Competitors will not pay Sprint $20 billion for the whole of it. Its foolish fantasy for investors to peg their investments on unfulfilled promises and fairy tale valuation of spectrum.
    Jul 11, 2015. 11:05 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • T-Mobile's On Demand Leasing Program Has Sprint's CEO 'Tired' [View article]
    Wall Street/the market is down on Sprint because their performance is under par with its competitors to the point of threatening its long term structure. Sprint almost certainly won't be allowed to go bankrupt, but as analysts peer into the future they see that something has to give/change: either Sprint makes what now looks like a miraculous recovery or shareholders will see their shares get diluted.

    Take a look at Sprint's performance in meeting its goals for new networks, subscriber and sales growth, etc. Then look at the financials. If you look at Sprint as if it were a company selling corn flakes, ie as if you do not own it, you might decide not to touch it with a ten foot pole.

    Industry analysts learn to look at companies mostly devoid of passion. They try to teach that in the MBA program but it doesn't always stick. Investors like to own things.. like owning a new car, they are vexed with falling into the ownership mode until the thing is falling apart.
    Jul 9, 2015. 09:39 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • T-Mobile's On Demand Leasing Program Has Sprint's CEO 'Tired' [View article]
    Individual experience is, as you all know, anecdotal. The wireless market is not nearly as simple as all that:

    Wireless coverage is no longer viewed as one homogenous attribute that is was: coverage is made up of voice connectivity which itself breaks down into a few components including in-building, rural/outbound, connectivity and reliability of connections (drops). Operators analyse their networks using both sophisticated measurement tools indicative of the Verizon ads depicting specialized equipment vans that tour the country looking for weaknesses, and 'crowd sourced' applications that run on SmartPhones that can perform measurements based on devices used in the field. The latter allows up to hundreds of thousands of points to be measured directly between actual devices and base stations to capture closer to the real world experience of subscribers.

    Figuring out how an operator ranks has become more complex: Wireless used to be all about voice connections with measurement of call setup times, drops, call quality that can be related to signal measurements including latency, jitter, call setup and impacts of various legs in the network. Now it has become multi-dimensional tests and analysis of the results. Voice coverage still ranks at the top of requirements with text messaging coming in second. However, text messages can be cued and transmitted when a good connection is made... a delay or momentary drop is not so upsetting as with voice. With web, video and broadband use gaining in popularity, the coverage measure has shifted to 'broadband-to-coverage'. Sites like RootMetrics must distill their measurements down to a few easily understood metrics such as average bandwidth. However, the user's experience may not be correctly reflected in that smoothing of the data. What is now important is bandwidth-to-coverage which can be summed up as the user experience of bandwidth. Due to the mix of spectrum Sprint has available they rank a distant number 4 behind AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon in relative order because Sprint tends to have high bandwidth in areas of dense urban deployment and lower bandwidth where the service relies on the broader coverage that narrower band lower frequencies provide. These factors cannot be wished away and will be expensive and time consuming to change.

    However, the network can be made roughly competitive such that perceptions of how well an operator is delivering on user's needs takes over in the picture of how well they rank. The facts are that all operators have migrated to use 4G and B4G, beyond 4G or 5G class networks. All operators are migrating to use multiple-band/multiple... networks and HetNet smallcell+macrocell network architectures. Their efforts differ by vendor, degree, mix of smallcell,Wi-Fi, and macrocell components but the end result is bound by the generation that uses the same basic set of technologies. That puts pressure on operators to differentiate based on perception of performance and image that can vary between the top four roughly based on market position: the dominant top two, VZ and T 'wage war' based on scale of operations and less as a 'price war' or more selective so. S and TMUS must wage war based on being renegades willing to fight for the sake of customers over price and accommodation of device and service offerings.

    The real world operation of networks matters because it closely defines the user's experience where they live, work and travel. Price and 'Un-Carrier' image is more important for 'the young and the restless' and other higher churn segments of the market. Therefore, perception has been shown to have a major influence on subscriber growth and flux. However, even so, it must be backed up by that real world network capability. T-Mobile has gained subs both due to the perception it is pursuing what users want and its investment in spectrum and networks that reasonably have delivered on the promise of better service across the board.

    Sprint lacks both the real world experience that pans out to be a better across the board experience and also a lagging perception that they are chasing rather than leading the way forward in the never ending race to deliver better quality and more and better services.

    I continue to see nothing on the near term horizon that shifts Sprint from a 4th place position in the race to a clear, momentum building 3rd or better position. Sprint has to deliver the broad improvement in performance that overtakes the damaged public perception of coverage and quality.. and do that in a way that gain improvement in overall ROI against the field of competitors. Otherwise, Sprint's network improvements will be, as in the past, for naught - improvements behind that of the field and at a higher per sub net cost that results in losses, rising debt, and decline in long term competitive position.
    Jul 7, 2015. 10:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • T-Mobile's On Demand Leasing Program Has Sprint's CEO 'Tired' [View article]
    The rankings of carriers is much of a misnomer: Third at what" Subscriber count obviously. However, considering devices relatively equal among competitors, sub counts are paid for by capex spending on networks, marketing including discounts and contract buyouts and other customer acquisition costs.

    A true ranking of operators must factor in profitability of each operator to some degree. However you might weight that 'sustainability factor', Sprint ranks in 4th place behind T-Mobile and "worlds apart" from Verizon and AT&T. Indeed, the two leaders appear to be on a different planet in terms of financial position.

    Claure appears very frustrated having lost not just in terms of subscriber position relative to two years ago but recognition as being the consumer friendly 'Un-Carrier" that is fighting for 'the little guy'. There is hype in all operators sales pitches... if not so, then user satisfaction would not be rated consistently low for the sector. Some of that dissatisfaction comes with the territory - customers will never be entirely satisfied because service will remain a moving target in which yesterday's very good is today's so-so or poor satisfaction rating. Sprint is in the throes of playing catchup in networks and in market image. Neither is an easy or inexpensive proposition.
    Jul 5, 2015. 10:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ergen's Fast One May Be Driving Dish Network, T-Mobile Merger Talks [View article]
    Good article.. I like your general thinking.

    DISH has requirements to start deploying in a portion of its spectrum within about nine months, but there will be a few years over which to deploy on a larger scale depending on the specifics of the license and when it will be cleared.

    The other way that the release of an aggregate of over 250MHz of overall spectrum will have is it will allow mobile network operators to push into home/business broadband services, TV/movie and new forms of video services that will be available in more places and devices than fixed and satellite networks. That won't come overnight but will start to come more quickly starting this year. Part of the equation for paying for the spectrum and cost of building on it is to absorb broadband and media under the same umbrella to increase ARPUs to an average of over $200/month.

    You are right that Charlie has to sell this to Deutsche. The pitch is not what the combining of current spectrum, network and content assets would be. It is the carrot and the stick between not doing the deal and then facing better financed Verizon and AT&T who are soon to launch their quad-play services, and the way out of becoming the sheep led to slaughter by building a quad play network-of-networks using the combined spectrum. In essence, the pitch is part "Join with me or get crushed as the competitive landscape shifts and go on to build on the best array of spectrum (minus the 600MHz piece) and most creative combining of competitive assets."
    Jun 8, 2015. 07:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    My personal opinion since reading Parkervision's D2D patent applications around fifteen years ago prior to being awarded patents by PTO was that the technology was invalid due to basic flaws:

    a) They do not teach a mechanism for energy transfer from the carrier wave to construct the baseband signal that is in keeping with limits established by Shannon-Hartley. The carrier wave signal upon which the baseband transits contains no data itself. As the name implies, it carries the information-bearing baseband signal. PRKR has failed to show a clear method that performs as claimed in the patents or in external literature. Despite belated attempts, such as documents of expert witnesses in the ongoing IPRs, Parkervision fails to describe/teach the alleged 'energy transfer sampling' method of generating the baseband. That is because the noise impacts are only suggested and not 'computed'.. ie. are failed to be shown by mathematics or in practical application. Expert testimony that includes an alleged modeling of conventional and Parkervision circuits leaves out vital information. While purporting to show the alleged patented circuit, it appears to be no different than prior art sample and hold circuits. And while extraordinary gains in SNR are alleged, the modeling and other testimony fails to follow through with the mathematical support of the theory/methods for such such claims. This leaves the late-in-the-game effort at expunging Parkervision's D2D from what Judge Dalton has conferred as the lack of evidence of the theory of operation as a red herring that exposes the basic weakness of the patents: they do not teach a method that can be shown/proven to work under exposure to critical review. This new 'evidence' cannot be brought forward in the CAFC appeal of the DC court decision and I expect IPR panel to see through it. Mike Farmwald/RPX will be deposing PV's expert on the 29th/tomorrow... it will be interesting to see how that goes.

    Long about way to answer your question.. I am piling up stuff that dovetails into this. The oral arguments at CAFC gave good indications that the judges were not going down the path of accepting Parkervision's only viable position, that the jury had enough evidence upon which to base their decision. Instead, it appears they are in general acceptance of Qualcomm's position as supported by admissions of PV's expert, Dr. Prucnal and chief technologist, FD Sorrells that Q's circuit is a conventional mixer, that the TX filter capacitor does not function as a part of the alleged energy sampling process and that there is, in any case, no proof that PV's patents are infringed in generating the baseband signal.

    Parkervision is going down the expected path: lacking proof that their energy sampling method is used while having to admit that baseband is generated at the output of what is admitted to 'look like' a conventional mixer, they were forced to come up with an explanation that would require a second generation or cogeneration process. Since that is not the theory used in Judge Dalton's DC, this shows up as a 'second signal theory'. The oral arguments show PV's attorney stumbling around the issue... trying to say there is not a second theory but that energy sampling of the carrier wave using TX cap is involved. CAFC asked for an explanation of what mechanism is shown, and PV's answer appears much like 'trust us. its in there'... ie. no valid response. While I may be reading into CAFC judges thinking, I got a sense of scoffing at the arguments.

    Let's get back to the primary issue that has always faced Parkervision: the patented method is vague, misrepresents itself as novel by using new terms to describe prior art methods, and, if the claims for improvement over prior art is to be half believed, violates basic laws of signaling, namely Shannon-Hartley. One plus one does not equal three... if a patent claims extraordinary benefits compared to the relatively modest gains that have been achieved by refinements and stacking up of prior art methods, then science requires at least a reasonable degree of proof that can be tested to validate the alleged method. I made a statement 15 years ago that Parkervision could never prove D2D works as claimed. That is proving out because their claims cannot.
    May 28, 2015. 12:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 9 Takeaways From The Verizon-AOL Deal [View article]
    Great article. This: "7. Home Run: ... but no one has figured out how to hit a home run. Triple Play strategies - landlines, wireless and video/Internet - have dominated, but are now multiply challenged by everything from Google Fiber to HBO Now. OTT both offers a big headache and a potential new place to play, with AOL offering what may be an on-ramp."

    Hitting the 'home run' has been difficult because the game has been changing. Some of that comes down to fully understanding market needs and being willing to transform from what had worked in the past. Asking the question: "Why didn't Yahoo! or AOL become the next big thing, Social Networking, giant... why did they not transform to become FaceBook (by offering similar ease of use social platform)?" AOL seemed to be heading towards the social and media platform over a decade ago. Yahoo!'s far flung portal efforts were even more in disarray but have embraced, particularly in Japan, innovations in social networking and media. Hitting the 'home run' to morph into social networking platforms that might then aspire to take part in the long heralded 'Triple/Quadruple play' platform services requires willingness to instigate changes that uproot and either transform or replace what was established.

    That remains a question for big mergers between industry segments: how well can AT&T+DTV, Verizon+AOL (or new deals between DISH, Sprint, T-Mobile, and cablecos) transform themselves into a simpler/easier to use, integrated platform rather than pounding of square pegs into round holes?
    May 16, 2015. 09:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Sprint Is Worth More Than You Think [View article]
    This article makes nonsense of mobile/ICT business. Spectrum is important if it can be used cost effectively. It is nonsense to measure spectrum in these gross terms as equal with other bands.

    Spectrum is much like the business case for real estate: Vacant land can have a value but until it is able to be put to use it costs money to hold onto it. Sprint only 'owns' ie. directly licenses about 1/3 of the 2.5-2.6GHz band 41. The rest is sub-leased at a cost of hundreds of millions whether it sits idle as it has or not.

    Sprint business has run nearly out of borrowing capacity. Its credit rating is sub-investment grade despite the support of the patent company. And Sprint continues to lose money while not gaining the subscribers expected following a major upgrade under Network Vision/Spark.

    Perhpas the "Sprint Next Generation Network" plan that is being worked up by Softbank-Sprint will provide additional funding of a plan that promises to make Sprint more competitive so that the company gains millions of new subscribers needed to generate the cash flows and profits to pay back huge debts and fund ongoing capital requirements. However, there is no bananza likely from profitless spectrum. The new plan must show new ways it can be used.
    May 15, 2015. 06:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Say Goodbye To Your Margins: What Google Fi Means For Verizon [View article]
    Google has some impact on developments, mostly in impacting regulators, Congress and the White House to push in a direction favorable to their goals.

    "For instance, Comcast recently abandoned their "we're halting infrastructure development" posturing over the FCC's net neutrality ruling in order to compete with Google's Fiber's rollout in new areas."

    ... I don't think Comcast's, (Verizon, or AT&T's for that matter), decision to go ahead, they never really stopped, capex investments is mostly attributed to what Google Fiber is doing to deliver service to <1% of the US populace . The cablecos and ICT, Internet and Communications Technology Companies, must continue with prudent investments in infrastructure due to competitive pressures regardless of the FCC's Title 1 ruling (net neutrality by treating ICT as a communications utility under Title 1 laws). Fiber optic is a very small part of direct connections to consumers. Moreover, all wired broadband is being either forced into sharing marketspace or being displaced by mobile broadband. Fiber optic and cable will be eventually resigned to a supplementary role for use with wireless connectivity... a long sustaining piece of a larger pie. Cablecos are now starting to transition to DOSCIS 3.1 which can hit fiber optic speeds of 1Gbps with longer term upgrade to 1.5Gbps. That puts cable on a practical footing with fiber in terms of both ability to support the end-user bandwidth with metro to regional grid and longline networks and the supporting content infrastructure including increased VOD and other services. Cable companies are forced to up their game because it they stay near the relatively low 30-60Mbps US bandwidth rates they will be overtaken by wireless broadband over the next several years.

    What Googley can do is, perhaps, push the technology down the pike a bit more rapidly. However, the more dramatic way they have in the past and might now influence the ICT industry is to push how the business is organized: G's orchestration of municipalities to streamline and lower costs of rights of way, permitting, network node facilities site leasing, etc. raises the bar for community involvement and expectations for service that can impact fiber, cable, and wireless providers.

    An important goal is for Google to gain favor with local, state, regional and national government entities and shift the public's image favorable to their position as the ruler of the data search and knowledge gateways. That role will become increasingly important and controversial as we become even more connected and reliant on the interacting ICT environment.
    May 1, 2015. 03:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Say Goodbye To Your Margins: What Google Fi Means For Verizon [View article]
    Google Project Fi is similar to other Google efforts: It is partly just a limited market experiment. The details of how open the sales will become remain sketchy. However, we know that it will be available on only one device, the MOTO/Google Nexus 6, that has been equipped with the antennas etc. to support operation on bot T-Mobile and Sprint networks. That limits the appeal of the service to those wanting that one device. It also begs questions about whether Google, TM and S will work on making more devices available and working on multiple screen applications. Thus for starters the impact of the project has to be scaled back from what it attempts to do in terms of changes to rate plan structure and network service implementation to the extent it is likely to be offered across devices and retail availability. At least for the near term, Google Project Fi is more an experiment than a serious threat to Verizon or AT&T. It might best be viewed by them as another wake up call that speeds innovations in networks, devices, and service plans that expands the potential markets in which they operate.

    Google put up a combined 'network-of-networks' coverage map for Project Fi Sprint+TMobile coverage. Without knowing how far the collaboration between the two junior players will go, from the initiation it will provide increased coverage using common 3G-4G voice-message-data capabilities. The details must be worked out, however, core and wireless networks of the two operators is similar enough to provide handoff of voice calls and data. Text messaging should have no problem across the multiple networks.. that is low bandwidth, discontinuous data transmission. The toughest service issue is call continuity... handoffs can be accomplished. However, fully seamless handoff does not occur with any operator.. there are locations/times where calls are dropped with them all. How well the quality measures up will depend on details that similarly have to be worked on whether transiting from one frequency network on Verizon to another or from between T-Mobile and Sprint networks.

    How far will this collaboration extend? According to TM, it does not initially include VoLTE. For full voice-messaging and Internet integration to occur, operators must shift to VoLTE. That is where voice will get more interesting and what posses problems and opportunities for S and TM to either work together and with outside parties on a more integrated basis or prove that the collaboration is more figurative than real. Voice-messaging will become more integrated with social, media, and eCommerce applications. For this to reach its potential it must be seamless and 'effortless'... users should be able to post something onto FaceBook, sending a text message to a group(s) of contacts, and place a group call out to a different set of friends, family or associates. If they can do that regardless of what physical network they are on, unbeknownst to them, then Project Fi will be more than just a sharing of networks or rolling over of data .. it will be a shift in how the currently disjointed world of communications shows up.

    However, much hype can appear that distorts real impacts. Google Fiber, for example, is used by about 0.5% of the US population yet is tends to show up in the media as a giant aimed to crush its competitors. Will Google Project Fi be a 0.5% marketshare participant... a monster only in the way it's perceived rather than real world impacts? A lot will depend on what T-Mobile and Sprint do to take the experiment beyond what Google is likely to do directly. As the starting point for more innovations all that can be said is that it has potential.
    Apr 29, 2015. 11:18 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    R.S. Analytics, good clarification of issues.

    Besides invalidation of patents, PTAB can invalidate specific claims or cause the patent holder to drop or change claims in order to avoid overall invalidation. For example, if the claims as interpreted through the Markman is overly broad such that it is anticipated by prior art, some claims may be invalidated or the patent holder may try to save the patents by removing or changing the claims to apply narrowly.

    One thing that distinguishes cases like Virnetx (or Parkervision), is the amount of the awards that are sought. This can stem from how these firms developed their capital structure, forcing the companies to pursue outside awards or they would otherwise collapse under the weight of their financial requirements.
    Apr 27, 2015. 11:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AT&T: The Die Has Been Cast [View article]
    The net neutrality issue is not so easily construed as being for or against government control. From the get-go, mobile operators are dependent on government grants of exclusive rights to licensed spectrum. Combined with marketshare and capital requirements, this helps erect barriers to competition unlike that of software, automobile, pharma and other industries. Thus, if you wanted to eliminate government involvement in the private sector, why not start with eliminating licensed spectrum?

    Many companies, industry segments and public groups depend on communications or compete for marketshare against the licensed monopolies/duopoly and are opposed to control over broadband Internet access in the hands of AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and other operators.

    If you want less government involvement, why not ask government to open up more unlicensed spectrum? Wi-Fi uses a scant 50MHz of 'junk' 2.4GHz spectrum deemed unsuitable for mobile use yet conveys over 50% of 'mobile' bandwidth with almost no involvement of the FCC or other branches of government. If you think free enterprise works, ask your government officials to open up more and longer range spectrum (lower frequency and higher power limits). If you want constricted use governed under regulatory control, then ask for what we have now - bureaucracy by design..
    Apr 15, 2015. 07:26 PM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Sprint's Guidance Could Be Ugly [View article]
    Nice article.

    Sprint will need much more capital than outlined:

    Sprint needs at least $3 billion more just to fund operations. If Sprint goes ahead with the expansion of about 7,000 base stations, although many are conversions rather than new locations, they will need an additional few billion in funding. The 600MHz spectrum auction, expected in early 2016, will require $8-$15 billion in additional funding. This low band spectrum is much needed to balance out the preponderance of Sprint's high frequency spectrum.

    Your article makes a point many probably have not considered - that Sprint already sold through the Radio Shack stores and RS's problems stem from lack of sales flow. The 'opening up' of 1,400 stores is an experiment in how much new pull can be achieved from the the more prominent branding of Sprint in those locations. Some consumers may see that as a more convenient Sprint service location.

    Sprint has needed for the previous cycle of replacement of 2G and 3G networks with LTE would result in a turnaround in subscribers and revenue commensurate with the expense... a ROI. Instead, Sprint continues to struggle to report significant growth while the cost of staying competitive have grown.
    Apr 13, 2015. 07:21 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sprint: Don't Follow Executives Into Stock [View article]
    RootMetrics latest report, 4th quarter 2014, shows that Sprint has made a substantial improvement in network quality. However, as mentioned in the previous post, this is largely due to making use of the limited supply of 850 and 1900MHz spectrum. Sprint's most substantial gains in the RM survey came from voice and text coverage and quality which correlates to the use of LTE in the 850MHz band to achieve wide area coverage and in-building penetration. The problem is that the 850MHz band does not have the bandwidth of competitors Verizon and AT&T's 700MHz band to deliver the combination of bandwidth in addition to messaging and voice traffic. The only way Sprint can advance networks to be on a competitive basis across the board (the country), is to acquire 20-40MHz of 600MHz spectrum in the auction expected to occur about 1 year from now. The last auction in the sub-1GHz band was for 700MHz which came in at $24 billion for an aggregate of about 34MHz nationwide. Since then, broadband revenues have soared, fueling the 2-3X higher than expected price of the AWS-3 auction. Despite limits on 30MHz of the auction, the 600MHz spectrum can be expected to fetch a record price, perhaps $60 billion depending on how much of the spectrum is made available for auction by the broadcaster spectrum holders.

    Thus the big question is how can Sprint turn from losses to a money printing machine in order to afford to balance their spectrum portfolio with at least a modest (20-30MHz) of 600MHz spectrum, or, using the alternative theory of network building, build out the largely unused 2.6GHz spectrum in tiered smallcell network architecture multiple-carrier networks. Either approach to network-service gains is more expensive that Sprint looks internally capable of accomplishing as a long term strategy. Short term/patch work improvements are certainly possible and that can send the stock higher... it all comes down to whether Sprint can show 'meaningful' improvement in subscriber growth.. at least several 100,000 gains in core postpaid subscribers imo.
    Mar 19, 2015. 11:40 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment