[Bozo T. Clown's Take On Wirbel Comments About USRX DSL Plans]
I periodically review the US Robotics ("USRX") message board on AOL,
where a poster named "Miclone83" is about as respected as pat mudge
is here. A pertinent Miclone83 post dated 3/14/97 from the AOL USRX
message board is reproduced below, followed by my own analysis:
**************************************************************************************************
Subj: Re: CAP vs. DMT for ADSL modems
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 00:16:17 EST
From: Miclone83
Message-ID: <19970314051601.AAA18842@ladder01.news.aol.com>
I spoke to Asghar Mostofa (Sp?), the VP of design at USR about this
CAP versus DMT. They are doing a CAP modem because the TI chip/Amati
code will not be ready until 2nd half of '97 and they could get the
CAP out right away. Also CAP is much more prevalent today and a CAP
solution gets them into trials.
Asghar confirmed that they still plan to do a "Universal modem" based
upon the TI DSP, but left the door open that other DSP chips may also
be considered. Bottom line is that CAP has some market presence but
most believe that DMT will be the technology that eventually gets
rolled out. DSLAM's will probably need to be able to support both.
Miclone
**************************************************************************************************
USRX is now locked in a standards war for 56 Kbps modem
transmission. USRX calls its patented technology X2, while
competitors Lucent/Rockwell have a different version of 56 Kbps
technology. So how does USRX sell X2 to consumers and ISPs when no
standard exists? By stressing that its products, even if purchased
now, will be upgradeable by a software upgrade to whatever standard
is eventually set for 56 Kbps modem transmissions. In contrast, the
competing Lucent/Rockwell technology is expected to be upgradeable
only by a more expensive replacement of components.
I suspect, but cannot confirm, that USRX plans to develop and
market a "universal" modem that will allow a consumer to connect to
any ISP by any of (1) X2 at 56Kbps, (2) CAP-based ADSL, or (3) DMT
based ADSL. This would allow USRX to market one product to any
consumer regardless of which of the 3 technologies was in current or
future use by the ISP. This would be similar to the way USRX began
to market 28.8k modems that would be upgradeable to X2 even before
USRX finished the X2 product design. By maintaining maximum
flexibility with a relatively easy software download, USRX can sell
modems to all consumers (and corresponding hubs to all ISPs),
regardless of which version of ADSL will be implemented by any
particular ISP. Clearly a good thing for USRX.
USRX would probably view this, from its perspective, as "an
entirely proprietary route" because X2, unlike DMT, is not yet a
standard. As a result, USRX is not required to license X2 to anyone,
making X2 "entirely proprietary." And USRX has already announced that
its first ADSL modem will be CAP-based, so all USRX needs to design a
"universal modem" is a DSP from TI (or anyone else) that already has
the DMT technology (line code?) embedded in the DSP. From USRX's
perspective, such a universal modem design could be considered
"entirely proprietary," because USRX would be free to refrain from
licensing the X2 portion to others.
The lack of a standard for 56 Kbps actually helps USRX in this
regard, because without a standard, USRX is under no compulsion to
make the patented X2 technology available to AMTX or anyone else. It
is my understanding that in the absence of a standard requiring
otherwise, the owner of patented technolgy like X2 can license third
parties to (1) make, (2) use, and/or (3) sell such technology. A
license of any of these three rights does not necessarily include the
other two.
Thus USRX , if it chooses, and if it has suffiient negotiating
strength, could license TI to manufacture a proprietary chip design,
necessary to power an X2 modem, solely for USRX, without giving TI the
right to sell such a chip to AMTX or others.
Conversely, because the award of the ANSI standard to AMTX
requires AMTX to license DMT technology on a fair and reasonable basis
to others, AMTX does not have the luxury of setting up a similarly
restrictive licensing scenario with TI (even if AMTX otherwise had as
much bargaining power as USRX). I suspect, but am not certain, that
AMTX might be allowed, if it had sufficient bargaining power, to
require TI to supply AMTX first, or to give AMTX "most favored nation"
status (i.e., a price at least as low as what anyone else pays TI),
but could not prohibit TI from selling the TI DSP containing AMTX
technology (line code?) to anyone, including USRX.
At least until such time, if ever, that X2 becomes an ANSI
standard, USRX could prevent AMTX from making a "universal" modem,
even though AMTX could not prevent anyone from using the TI DSP chip
containing AMTX's patented DMT technology.
What would this mean for early ADSL modem sales? As soon as USRX
gets its hands on any chip containing embedded DMT technology, USRX
could start designing its "universal" modem. Once designed, USRX
could market the universal modem to consumers, even before any ISP
offers ADSL connectivity, on the basis that the universal modem will
connect, from among 28.8 Kbps analog, 56 Kbps via X2, CAP ADSL speed,
or DMT ADSL speed, at whatever is the highest speed connection
offered by that consumer's ISP, then or in the future. This would be
analogous to the existing software upgrade path that USRX created for
28.8 Kbps consumer modems even before the 56 Kbps consumer modems
incorporating X2 technology existed.
Wirbel's reference to "all relevant DSL standards" is probably
just a recognition of the fact that AMTX's competitors are trying,
whether or not they are ultimately successful, to have CAP based ADSL
deemed an additional or alternative ANSI ADSL standard. USRX
probably doesn't care how the standards war between CAP and DMT shakes
out, so long as USRX can sell modems and hubs incorporating the
eventual standard(s).
I'm not an electrical engineer, so please point out any flaws in
my analysis.
Of course, I am posting this information anonymously (albeit in
an overtly anonymous fashion), so there will probably be some posters
out there who will (1) worry about whether I am a stockbroker, and/or
(2) worry that I am trying to manipulate the gullible. Really? With
a screen name like Bozo T. Clown?
If you fall in one of these "worry" categories, why do you worry
about such things? What do you care even if I claim to live on the
UFO behind the Hale-Bopp comet [I don't]? Don't you do your own
research before making investment decisions, as nearly everyone here
suggests is wise? Or do you assume that everyone with a "real"
sounding name is totally honest, while those who choose to post
anonymously (especially if they use an obviously fictitious screen
name), are automatically evil?
If you were really intent on manipulating others, wouldn't you
use a screen name that sounded ordinary and harmless? Think, people!
I'll get off my soapbox now -- but can we please stick to
analysis of what's happening in AMTX's business?
Bozo T. Clown
If you make an investment decision based on a comment by some
Bozo, you have only yourself to blame! |
