Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : COM21 (CMTO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hassell Anderson who wrote (1762)	2/19/2000 2:01:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 2347

My goodness, thank-you. I think a have another one or two in me on these subjects. I posted last night while generally reading backwards towards posts from Dave Horne and Mark Laubach, which I'd seen earlier from the link provided by Bernard Levy on the TERN thread. "She's really offered nothing but speculation and spin that is comforting to investors who missed out on TERN. I believe her smearing of TERN as a perpetrator of fraud is a disservice to CMTO investors." Well, seeing that we have TERN press releases of successful S-CDMA test results, investment from CISCO, manufacturing by Lucent(no longer- I don't think), and...(I won't go on), going back through '96, I'd say(as someone here earlier said about some of Pat's posts on the conference call- which, by the way, I haven't read yet)- there has been quite enough time for folks to discredit TERN's technology...instead, despite testing of CMTO systems, Tern is rolling out in Hong Kong with it's meager offerings(which may be slower, I think, but likely not so much slower as I previously thought from reading TERN's site and this thread, not by a long shot). Something is amiss around here, that's for sure. In any event, I just wanted to say that I was thinking of Horne and Laubach posts when I wrote, not Pat. Dan B

To: Hassell Anderson who wrote (1762)	2/19/2000 2:20:00 PM
From: Mark Laubach	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2347

DanB: IMO, the notion that S-CDMA is not any better on upgraded plant seems to me to be based purely on speculations which the speculators admittedly don't fully understand. Hassell: This has been my problem with Pat's conclusions all along. She's really offered nothing but speculation and spin that is comforting to investors who missed out on TERN. I believe her smearing of TERN as a perpetrator of fraud is a disservice to CMTO investors. I'd recommend doing technical diligence before labeling someone as a "perpetrator of fraud". If you go back and check my postings here and Dave Horne's posting elsewhere (I don't have the message number reference) you can get the non-speculative skinny on TERN's proprietary cable modem's capabilities. Let me summarize the key points: 1) S-CDMA doesn't provide any real advantages on clean plant over the upstream PHY's used in DOCSIS and CMTO. As more and more high speed data services get deployed, everything will get converted to HFC, more nodes will be deployed, therefore node sizes will shrink dramatically with the revenue stream in place. This will have the effect of moving more bandwidth towards the home and cleaner bandwidth with each node split. 2) TERN doesn't use full capacity in the downstream, less than 1/2 possible, and therefore wastes bandwidth that could be used for revenue bearing high speed data services. This is compared to 64 QAM modulation at 30 Mbps used by DOCSIS, DAVIC/DVB, CMTO, and Motorola. Capital $'s per MHz allocated and homes passed is a key in the cable operator's business models. 3) The nature of symmetric systems and the nature of asymmetric TCP/IP flows means that the symmetric cable modem system runs out of downstream bandwidth before running out of upstream. This means that about 1/2 the allocated upstream bandwidth is also wasted. Therefore, on upgraded plants, the TERN S-CDMA based symmetric system is actually much less effective than DOCSIS, DAVIC/DVB, CMTO or Motorola. Mark

To: Hassell Anderson who wrote (1762)	2/19/2000 3:06:00 PM
From: jeff greene	Respond to of 2347

OT,OT... Hassell -- With those dubious analogies you created to Pat's comments, it would seem apparent to me that she has a much better nose for the truth. And if the thread will pardon my indulgence for a moment, let me respond. ...while all along ignoring the fossil and geological record indicating that Earth is somewhat older. If, as you claim, evolution required so much time, why has NO, that's right--not ONE, transitional form ever been discovered in the fossil record? and as to.. ...Since the bible must be right, then the only explanation is that space aliens landed on earth and placed all those dinosaur bones beneath all those rocks! It's called The Flood.(Genesis 6) Lastly, if you are sceptical of the innerancy of the Bible, as I was at one time, I would graciously suggest you actually read it. After a rigouros examination of the manuscript, archeaological and prophetic evidence you just may conclude it to be divinely written. OK, back to the corner I go, Jeff