Ben Graham Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Is it possible that DirecTV will be the new player to use Clearwire's spectrum? Who better to do a end to end and stop all the run around than Web & Microsoft to "Kinect" us all with satellite hybrid spectrum. The new innovation. http://i-cns.org/media/icns/2003/03_A2/A2-04-Farneth.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Well, that was quick. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/clearwire-corporation-announces-public-offering-of-common-stock-2011-12-05 Also, an interesting decision by Comcast on their CLWR stake. http://www.multichannel.com/article/477517-Smit_Comcast_Will_Keep_Clearwire_Stake.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 If it were priced at two bucks chuck, it may be priced higher, that's approx. 16 percent dilution. Good to see Comcast keeping a nearly ten percent hedge or stake in the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 “The exit of Wireless DBS from the AWS auction means that DirecTV and Echostar will now have to focus on alternative sources of spectrum. They could opt for a partnership with either Craig McCaw’s Clearwire, which operates in the 2.5GHz band, or with one or more MSS operators. Although Clearwire’s network is already operational, the national footprint of MSS operators may prove a decisive advantage in the long term.” DirecTV’s Exit from AWS Spectrum Auction Refocuses Attention on Mobile Satellite Spectrum http://tmfassociates.com/AWSrelease.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Clearwire definitely wants to accept the role of overflow - because at the end of the day, that's all the spectrum is good for. If you listened to their conference call, they want to be the overflow for all carriers, not sprint. At the data growth rates, Sprint needs clearwire a LOT. Their spectrum is so perfect for the "urban jungle" (overflow markets). Their business model should be getting acquired by sprint. *** Clearwire will have to fight Lightsquared for the overflow crown. Lightsquared has had a head start on signing up wholesale partners, although Clearwire just signed up Netzero. I think Clearwire's best chance is to partner with the cable cos on strand/pole mounted mini-basestations to provide outdoor coverage. *** In terms of Clearwire vs. LightSquared, I don't see LightSquared winning. They're signing agreements with everyone without even getting approval for their network. Transmitting at half power, it's unlikely that their signals will travel further than Clearwire's and with only 10MHz, they won't have the speed or capacity of Clearwire. Plus, if the LightSquared deals are so favorable (as they seem to be for companies to be signing up with no network in sight), the company might just get into a position where their fees don't cover their costs. It just doesn't seem like a solid plan - and I think Sprint saw that after six months and realized that they couldn't rely on LightSquared for 4G. *** LightSquared fit with Sprint's vision a lot more. LS didn't want to do retail and was happy to let others take the ball there. However, that isn't going to work. Even if LS gets approval, they're transmitting at half-power with only 10MHz of spectrum and have sold off so much capacity that I can't imagine they'll be able to keep up with traffic. But it was a deal that meant that Sprint wouldn't be risking competing with them in the future for retail customers - something that might have happened and might still happen with Clearwire. Clearwire has so much spectrum that if they get a decent national network put together, it's easy to see them offering more favorable rates to consumers than their competitors. Especially for urban users, Clearwire could offer a lot more than competitors. So, there's a certain danger that Clearwire could undercut Sprint and that Sprint would have helped them do it over the long run. *** This all well and good, but who's going to provide the funding? Not the cable cos, since they don't want to fund a potential competitor. Ditto for Sprint, who does not want to fund a potential competitor and also does not want to anger the cable cos, since Sprint might have eyes on the AWS spectrum. Dish has its own spectrum that they want to use for mobile video. Direct TV might be interested for a mobile video play. * * * Thread: What to make of Clearwire? http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1740609-What-to-make-of-Clearwire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Leap-Enters-Spectrum-prnews-193399171.html?x=0 Verizon is doing victory laps around Sprint and AT&T. AT&T tried to resolve part of its spectrum problem with a big merger and failed. Still can't believe they agreed to such breakup fees when it was obvious from the start that this would be hard to swallow for regulators. And our poor fool Dan Hesse has wasted a full year losing all its advantage on 4G deployment. IMO, if Sprint had cooperated better, we would have rolled out 4G Wimax nationally by mid-year and would be about to complete the conversion to LTE by early Q1. I am not sure about the adjustments needed to make TDD and FDD compatible on existing 4G phones, but again I am sure that with better cooperation that this would have been resolved as well. Instead he wasted time inventing a 4G LTE plan inferior to all, wasted time with LightSquared and in the process destroyed confidence and with it valuable shareholder value that could have been very useful to raise financing. At this point, I am hoping for a 3 way deal with T-Mobile and AT&T. Regulators are seeing that T-Mobile will be dead in a few years despite the large break-up fee from AT&T. They have no 4G network and losing customers fast. AT&T which was in need of spectrum is going to be starved with the T-Mobile break-up plan. So I think that the best option is for AT&T to get the spectrum it needs to compete with Verizon get some additional subscribers and for T-Mobile to merge in part with Sprint to create a strong 3rd national competitor. May even have to bring Dish in that dance to get this done. Regarding Comcast staying invested in Clearwire, I think it is quite a vote of confidence in the assets considering what Sprint has done. IMO, with the exclusive relationship with Verizon, their only rational reason to stay is that they believe that Clearwire spectrum will go up in value and eventually be sold at nice prices despite the coming dilution. Same thing that they did with Spectrum Co. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Leap-Enters-Spectrum-prnews-193399171.html?x=0 Verizon is doing victory laps around Sprint and AT&T. AT&T tried to resolve part of its spectrum problem with a big merger and failed. Still can't believe they agreed to such breakup fees when it was obvious from the start that this would be hard to swallow for regulators. And our poor fool Dan Hesse has wasted a full year losing all its advantage on 4G deployment. IMO, if Sprint had cooperated better, we would have rolled out 4G Wimax nationally by mid-year and would be about to complete the conversion to LTE by early Q1. I am not sure about the adjustments needed to make TDD and FDD compatible on existing 4G phones, but again I am sure that with better cooperation that this would have been resolved as well. Instead he wasted time inventing a 4G LTE plan inferior to all, wasted time with LightSquared and in the process destroyed confidence and with it valuable shareholder value that could have been very useful to raise financing. At this point, I am hoping for a 3 way deal with T-Mobile and AT&T. Regulators are seeing that T-Mobile will be dead in a few years despite the large break-up fee from AT&T. They have no 4G network and losing customers fast. AT&T which was in need of spectrum is going to be starved with the T-Mobile break-up plan. So I think that the best option is for AT&T to get the spectrum it needs to compete with Verizon get some additional subscribers and for T-Mobile to merge in part with Sprint to create a strong 3rd national competitor. May even have to bring Dish in that dance to get this done. Regarding Comcast staying invested in Clearwire, I think it is quite a vote of confidence in the assets considering what Sprint has done. IMO, with the exclusive relationship with Verizon, their only rational reason to stay is that they believe that Clearwire spectrum will go up in value and eventually be sold at nice prices despite the coming dilution. Same thing that they did with Spectrum Co. Cardboard Cardboard, You have it right about doing a dance with Dish. But Berkshire Hathaway has some skin in on this game now and the doesy doe square dance partner will be DirecTV. ;) Ben (3) Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 At least someone at Sprint gets it: “Sprint doesn’t expect this deal to have any material impact to our business,” spokeswoman Melinda Tiemeyer said in an email Tuesday. “Wireless revenue from the cable partners is considerably less than 1 percent of Sprint’s overall revenues. ... This transaction and the price Verizon paid for spectrum licenses highlights the value of Clearwire’s spectrum holdings.” http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2011/12/06/sprint-sticks-up-for-clearwire-after.html?ana=yfcpc Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Required reading for CLWR investors: http://gigaom.com/broadband/will-clearwire-sprint-build-a-4g-monster-or-a-mouse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Issuing shares at $2 is a bad price and going for $100 million more (including Sprint) is even worse. I thought that we could get $2.25 or in that ball park with the recent stock movement. You wonder why they are paying JP Morgan, BofA and Jefferies so much money to do such a bad job? They are paid enough already to simply do that crazy arbitrage. First, someone knew the price yesterday looking at the plunge. Big volume, big gains on insider trading. Then today they are minting it with their favored customers who are getting shares at $2 and reselling right away. I am also starting to rethink my thesis with this investment. There is a lot of value in that spectrum, but unless some of it is sold soon or we see some sharing arrangement with another company than Sprint, we may still see some more dilution soon enough which management does not seem to care so much about based on today's move. When are they going to be profitable based on Sprint business alone? If that goes on for too long, you may end up with a valuable asset, but with little reflected in the share price over time due to continual dilution. Classic stuff that you see with mining companies and biotechs that sit on a valuable asset, but that take so long to bring the thing to market with continued losses in the meantime that shareholders end up with no profit. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brker_guy Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 "it's becoming pretty clear that this spectrum is not as desirable for LTE as the spectrum ATT wanted to acquire with tmo and that verizon just acquired from the consortium." Would you like to back up that statement with some data and some facts as to why the LTE spectrum that CLWR is not as desirable? Please get to know your facts before you sound off. I would love to see some proofs that led you to come up with that conclusion, Peter_Burke_CEO! Please educate us on what you know... In case you don't know, the WHOLE WORLD will be having LTE phones operating on 2.6GHz spectrum soon. That's the very same band that CLWR sits on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Issuing shares at $2 is a bad price and going for $100 million more (including Sprint) is even worse. I thought that we could get $2.25 or in that ball park with the recent stock movement. You wonder why they are paying JP Morgan, BofA and Jefferies so much money to do such a bad job? They are paid enough already to simply do that crazy arbitrage. First, someone knew the price yesterday looking at the plunge. Big volume, big gains on insider trading. Then today they are minting it with their favored customers who are getting shares at $2 and reselling right away. I am also starting to rethink my thesis with this investment. There is a lot of value in that spectrum, but unless some of it is sold soon or we see some sharing arrangement with another company than Sprint, we may still see some more dilution soon enough which management does not seem to care so much about based on today's move. When are they going to be profitable based on Sprint business alone? If that goes on for too long, you may end up with a valuable asset, but with little reflected in the share price over time due to continual dilution. Classic stuff that you see with mining companies and biotechs that sit on a valuable asset, but that take so long to bring the thing to market with continued losses in the meantime that shareholders end up with no profit. Cardboard Given the jumpiness of the financial markets and Sprint's large economic stake in CLWR, it's not surprising to me that the investors who bought this stock demanded $2 per share. I mean, would you put a big slug of money into CLWR as an OPMI at market price, knowing full well that you would have to deal with the incompetent machinations of Sprint management? I would demand a discount to the market or state that I would just buy CLWR stock in the market, hopefully getting a lower than $2 cost basis due to the turmoil in the capital markets and the volatility of CLWR stock. ------ Unfortunately, both S and CLWR investors have suffered dilution that could have been avoided had Sprint management and their advisors not played the poker game that they did with CLWR and the market. If Dan Hesse were smart, he would have done a deleveraging stock for stock merger with CLWR (a la LVLT/GLBC) when the markets were buoyant and there were people like David Einhorn talking Sprint up on CNBC. Think about how different the telecom world would have looked like today had this occurred. Sprint would now have Google and the MSOs as investors. It could have been Sprint that Comcast did a deal with. Sprint could have quickly shut down the retail ops of Clearwire, stopped duplicative network builds, and told CLWR that it would be switching to LTE. Sprint could have committed to open networks and net neutrality and vowed to provide uncapped services using their huge amount of spectrum. The market would have seen that Sprint was thinking ahead and could be a viable competitor to T-Rex and VZ, and it's not inconceivable that Sprint stock would have gone up upon announcement of the transaction. The combined entity's capital structure would have been much better. I suggested just such a transaction earlier this year on the LVLT thread. Unfortunately, Sprint management thought too much like financiers and not like businessmen. They could have done a fair deal with CLWR and concentrated on transforming Sprint into a premiere wireless network provider, possibly even putting T-Rex and VZ's services to shame. Instead, they hired Goldman away from CLWR and schemed to play a game where the ultimate end was for Sprint shareholders to benefit financially more than CLWR minority investors. If they had just been fair and friendly, like some of our friends up North are supposed to be, things would have been a lot of different. Maybe it's not too late for Sprint/CLWR to turn it around. But it may require firing some of these yahoos in the management suite. This saga should be a case study that's taught in business schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 Brker_guy, I think you'll appreciate this: http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Falcones+Harbinger+Capital+(HRG)+Gets+SEC+Wells+Notice/7008682.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Txlaw, You are absolutely right. Even if they had done this deal on October 7 it would not have been too late. Peter Burke, "it's becoming pretty clear that this spectrum is not as desirable for LTE as the spectrum ATT wanted to acquire with tmo and that verizon just acquired from the consortium." You are wrong. It has nothing to do with LTE, but with what is available for sale at the desired price and what could fit with ones existing assets. That is actually why I am rethinking my CLWR investment. It is clear that CLWR has excess spectrum and that it is desired by the industry to complement their needs. The question is when will it be sold if at all? Sprint does not "control" Clearwire, but that is just semantics. With the ability to nominate 7 directors out of 13, it is pretty clear that if Sprint does not want something, that Clearwire will not be able to do it. And recent events indicate that Sprint is so far in bed with Clearwire that it will not let it die. So a merger is still a good idea to resolve this circular issue. Clearwire could also sell some spectrum to reinforce both its financial position and Sprint. The equity infusion gives Clearwire a better chance to negotiate a fair price for its spectrum instead of a fire sale. So my main concern at this point is what will Sprint do? If they let Clearwire sell a good portion of its spectrum then it could be a great investment. I am not saying sell today, but when conditions are favorable. If they merge, it will likely be a share for share exchange and that likely mean a weak premium and getting Sprint's problems. If Sprint forces Clearwire to retain all spectrum, then I think that we end up with 2 companies on pretty weak financial footing. Dan Hesse has been far from impressive in that situation. He has destroyed shareholder value for both firms. What will he do in the future? If I had Ergen as Sprint boss, I would be firmly holding. However, with someone who is mainly a marketing guy and this track record, I am worried. Once again, the value is there, it is the realization of this value that is in question. So if you want reasons why the spectrum has not been sold yet: not for sale at this price, not for sale at all. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubuy2wron Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 Brker_guy, I think you'll appreciate this: http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Falcones+Harbinger+Capital+(HRG)+Gets+SEC+Wells+Notice/7008682.html One might consider shorting some of the Light squared debt me thinks kinda hard to raise the dough needed with these clouds, any equity in his deal will disappear in lawsuits IMO. How much is a special purpose used communication satelite without an attached network worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Man, not only did stock get issued at a great than 10% discount to market price, but the effective proceeds were only $1.91 per share. It's good to be a croupier, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Being a croupier in the investment field regardless of the portion of the hierarchy one is using their poking sticks in order to attract assets according to relationships, while attempting to earn from them under the principle of other peoples money(opm), continues to remain an anathema for society at large. Is there any other reason that their laws cannot guarantee profits while never foregoing returns; win, lose or draw on their end? It didn't take me long to figure this out while wearing my croupier hat early on in my tenure during a period when the firms' mantra was, "He with the most assets wins." The problem was and still remains that, winning often comes at the expense of their clients' own money, being at least partially transferred into their names for jobs poorly done, i.e. pay for under performance. Until this lop sided, half ass, upside down backward system is changed, the Wall Street Status Quo remains and draconian losses for the vast sums of investor capital pools remain prima facie, and should continue to trigger prima facie acridness on behalf of the investment PUBLIC during the process. All an investor or speculator ever needed to do to understand the right way to govern money principles in the money management field inside of our universe, was to understand the design of Warren E. Buffett's Original Partnership, one that tells the true story for society about the honor, integrity and character of this most gifted man from Nebraska, The Oracle of Omaha. That's called putting your money where your mouth is, and having one's OWN SKIN in the GAME in direct partnership with OPM. This is a way for investors to focus on as well as vet the character of the men to whom they are entrusting their hard earned capital with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Being a croupier in the investment field regardless of the portion of the hierarchy one is using their poking sticks in order to attract assets according to relationships, while attempting to earn from them under the principle of other peoples money(opm), continues to remain an anathema for society at large. Is there any other reason that their laws cannot guarantee profits while never foregoing returns; win, lose or draw on their end? It didn't take me long to figure this out while wearing my croupier hat early on in my tenure during a period when the firms' mantra was, "He with the most assets wins." The problem was and still remains that, winning often comes at the expense of their clients' own money, being at least partially transferred into their names for jobs poorly done, i.e. pay for under performance. Until this lop sided, half ass, upside down backward system is changed, the Wall Street Status Quo remains and draconian losses for the vast sums of investor capital pools remain prima facie, and should continue to trigger prima facie acridness on behalf of the investment PUBLIC during the process. All an investor or speculator ever needed to do to understand the right way to govern money principles in the money management field inside of our universe, was to understand the design of Warren E. Buffett's Original Partnership, one that tells the true story for society about the honor, integrity and character of this most gifted man from Nebraska, The Oracle of Omaha. That's called putting your money where your mouth is, and having one's OWN SKIN in the GAME in direct partnership with OPM. This is a way for investors to focus on as well as vet the character of the men to whom they are entrusting their hard earned capital with. Being a croupier in the investment field regardless of the portion of the hierarchy one is using their poking sticks in order to attract assets according to relationships, while attempting to earn from them under the principle of other peoples money(opm), continues to remain an anathema for society at large. Is there any other reason that their laws cannot guarantee profits while never foregoing returns; win, lose or draw on their end? It didn't take me long to figure this out while wearing my croupier hat early on in my tenure during a period when the firms' mantra was, "He with the most assets wins." The problem was and still remains that, winning often comes at the expense of their clients' own money, being at least partially transferred into their names for jobs poorly done, i.e. pay for under performance. Until this lop sided, half ass, upside down backward system is changed, the Wall Street Status Quo remains and draconian losses for the vast sums of investor capital pools remain prima facie, and should continue to trigger prima facie acridness on behalf of the investment PUBLIC during the process. All an investor or speculator ever needed to do to understand the right way to govern money principles in the money management field inside of our universe, was to understand the design of Warren E. Buffett's Original Partnership, one that tells the true story for society about the honor, integrity and character of this most gifted man from Nebraska, The Oracle of Omaha. That's called putting your money where your mouth is, and having one's OWN SKIN in the GAME in direct partnership with OPM. This is a way for investors to focus on as well as vet the character of the men to whom they are entrusting their hard earned capital with. ValueCarl, The following is the code of ethics for Southeastern Asset Management,Inc. They have their own skin in the game. * * * * * * * To align our interests with those of shareholders and prevent conflicts of interest, our Code of Ethics requires all employees to limit their investments in publicly traded equities to Longleaf Partners Funds, unless granted clearance by a compliance committee. All employees must report their securities transactions quarterly. Boards of Trustees review the administration of the Code of Ethics annually, and receive reports of any violations. The Independent Trustees of the Funds must obtain clearance before making personal securities investments to avoid conflicts of interest, and must invest in the Longleaf Funds an amount at least equal to their Trustees' fees. The employees and affiliates of Southeastern are collectively among the largest owners across the three Longleaf Funds. http://southeastern.jp/index.cfm#codeofethics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ValueCarl Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I have always heard good things about those Longleaf Boys down in Tennessee. I am aware of some fairly affluent Floridian friends of family who have placed their trust in their investment savvy over a number of years. This board host is also a man of character in the way he manages his fund's assets, that being, almost identical to the Original Buffett Partnership, with a high water benchmark at six percent, before any bonuses trued up quarterly in perpetuity. Speaking of "skin in the game" and "paying a price" for poor business decisions ill equipping one's owners in the form of "value destruction," over "value creation," what the hell are SPRINT OWNERS going to do about this Dan Hesse character? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 FCC Chairman to Congress: Hands Off Unlicensed Spectrum http://allthingsd.com/20111215/fcc-chairman-to-congress-hands-off-unlicensed-spectrum/?mod=googlenews_editors_picks In a follow-up interview, he talked about the need for such spectrum. “It takes spectrum that doesn’t lend itself for the same use (as that licensed to carriers and others) and says ‘Let’s put it out there as a platform for innovation,’ not knowing exactly what will happen,” Genachowski said. “When the FCC first did this, no one knew that it would lead to Wi-Fi.” Unlicensed spectrum has been used, he said, to help meet the challenges of lots of groups, including those faced by the wireless carriers that have licensed spectrum, Genachowski said. “Wi-Fi itself has gone from something that was resisted by the licensed carriers to something that is now embraced because it is such an important part of addressing demands on spectrum. Wi-Fi offload is a critical part of the system.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 'Desperate' AT&T May Turn to Dish for Spectrum Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/12/20/bloomberg_articlesLWIUXT0D9L35.DTL#ixzz1h7e4aFNC DirecTV will need to join forces with someone as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The Next Billion Dollar Wireless Industry Has Officially Launched A new form of wireless network known as White Spaces will come online next month, the FCC announced yesterday. White Spaces has been called "WiFi on steroids" and has been championed by the likes of Google and Microsoft. Spectrum Bridge has been given the OK to become the first active White Spaces database administrator. The FCC says it can begin operations on January 26. The first approved device will be made by Koos Technical Services, and it will work much like a wireless router. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Next-Billion-Dollar-siliconalley-2601791579.html?x=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brker_guy Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 "The Next Billion Dollar Wireless Industry Has Officially Launched" Yep, it's happening, Ben... The FCC just granted a license in DC for that. On the CLWR/S news yesterday, looks like they are on track: http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=2152 "Throughout 2011, Sprint achieved a number of significant milestones in the deployment of Network Vision. It is on track to offer LTE devices by mid-year 2012 and complete the majority of its Network Vision rollout in 2013." With 4 days left on the LS deadline, I am sure they are proceeding without LS for sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 "With 4 days left on the LS deadline, I am sure they are proceeding without LS for sure..." If there is anything I have learned about deadlines this year, is that they don't mean anything. Think about October 7, what a disappointment. There are many other deadlines related to other investments in my portfolio that turned simlarly pathetic. Well, I suppose that they do mean something. That disappointment is more likely than not on some anticipated deadline. My guess on that one is that Sprint will give an extension to LS2 and they are allowed to based on their contractual agreement. What else to expect from Dan Hesse? Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Graham Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I'd like to expose the artificial value of spectrum. Incumbents comfortable with the status quo will seek to preserve the inflated values of their government-issued licenses. Myth - Wireless spectrum is scarce: Spectrum appears scarce only because our current regulatory regime puts draconian limitations on its use. If multiple users were allowed to dynamically share frequency bands, and to employ cooperative techniques to improve efficiency, spectrum could be as abundant as the air in the sky or the water in the ocean. http://werbach.com/docs/new_wireless_paradigm.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now