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: pat mudge who wrote (1785)	2/20/2000 4:51:00 PM
From: MangoBoy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2347

<< [Pat writes:] Further on, I said: "Current specifications do not include Terayon's S-CDMA. So, yes, Terayon has, indeed, been thrown out of current specs." And you [Dan] replied: S-CDMA was never in current specs- never- at any point in time, hence can't be said to have been thrown out. The invitation to Terayon remains. Okay, I think we can agree 1) they've never been in DOCSIS specs, 2) they're not in current specs, and 3) they have an opportunity to be included in a future specification which as yet has no name and no date. When referring to current specifications, I will refrain from using the term "thrown out," and use "not included," instead. The latter has the door slamming more quietly. >> Since you (Pat and Dan) are now in agreement over the status of S-CDMA vis a vis DOCSIS, I want to make sure that it gets tied back to Pat's original point: << [Pat writes:] [Gilder wrote:] Every GTR subscriber knows a company that developed CDMA technology that others first claimed was unnecessary and unworkable. The technology proved itself with better handling of data and greater capacity. It excelled in Asia, and was finally adopted as an industry standard. The name of that company, of course, is...Terayon (TERN), now poised to repeat Qualcomm's (QCOM) remarkable success. Where was it "adopted as an industry standard?" >> Since it's now agreed that TERN's technology is not an "industry standard", Gilder is wrong. Thanks to Pat Dan, Mark, and others. I'm enjoying this immensely.

To: pat mudge who wrote (1785)	2/20/2000 5:07:00 PM
From: Redfisherman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2347

I continue to ponder the investment implications of the 3,000,000 warrants of TERN stock given to Shaw with an exercise price of $6.50/share. If exercised and sold at Friday's closing price of $232, the capital gain would amount to a tad over $675 million. Shaw's market cap is only a little over $4.5 billion. Their revenues for the past 4 quarters were a little over $725 million. I find these comparisons staggering! And on top of that, I seem to recall Shaw has ATHM warrants/stock too. Although I have to confess Dan B.'s points have me considering TERN as a short term investment more seriously than I had previously, I can't help but think that Shaw might be the better TERN play at this point. Certainly from a TA standpoint, TERN needs to consolidate a bit before I'd be comfortable jumping on board. SJR, on the other hand, is in the middle of a very nice looking up channel. From a FA standpoint, I'm not sure how to factor these unrealized capital gains into any sort of valuation model. They are pretty much one time gains so I suspect they must be discounted somewhat vs more standard forms of revenue. Still, they are ENORMOUS! Is anyone else out there thinking along similar lines? Are there other analogous situations from the recent past with other companies (where the company's capital gains was comparable to the revenues from their main business) that might provide a clue to how the market will ultimately value this? ps I'm still long on CMTO and the TA picture is still looking strong indeed (though I suspect that is obvious to all at this point)

To: pat mudge who wrote (1785)	2/21/2000 2:17:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2347

IMO, sorry, but you are becomming thoroughly kafkaesque. All this talk about "avowed" reduces to the fact that I see Terayon/Gilder says that S-CDMA voice is what Telegate adds. Good grief...I thought you'd like my tentative approach, but you seem to seek some deeper meaning, secret, or purpose in my words, which is quite beyond my intent. Re: "...you can't take back what's said or done. In this instance, either your earlier post was untrue or your disclaimer is untrue. You can't have it both ways. And either way you've lost your credibility" Not so. I did take it back, VBG. I TOLD you the first post was possibly incorrect and there it stands- unresolved. I never said nor implied in any shape or form that Modem sales didn't contribute to earnings- I only stated that Cherrypicker did. Kafkaesque. There is no mutual exclusivity between these posts- the second post remains true whether Cherrypicker contributed to earnings or not- since it only says that I don't know either way. I posted the correction to "cover my ass" in the event that Cherrypicker revenues did not actually add to earnings growth. I felt Cherrypicker probably added to earnings and I stated so in a very certain manner which I shouldn't have, but which may indeed be correct, so far as I know. The modem sales are reported and hence, obviously added significantly to revenues, if not earnings. Re: "...yes, you did add to my knowledge. Before your post I had no idea CherryPicker had brought in such good numbers." For the last time, I added nothing terribly significant in either post concerning the actual size of Cherrypicker's contribution. You may draw your own conclusions as to how much of the revenue growth came from modem sales(which did increase dramatically- overtaking CMTO's growth), and how much(if any) is from Cherrypicker revenue growth. If you think Cherrypicker revenue was added unfairly into the comparisons offered, by all means, get to the bottom of that. I'll have no beef with the revealing of such a truth be it so. "First of all, the agreement was with Terayon (not Telegate), and was struck last March and ends one year later. From the S-3:" What's this? Who said it was with Telegate anyway? Not me. If the acquisition of Telegate allows TERN to develop what Rodgers may want, so what? I can't tell you it does, only that Gilder seems to imply it does, just as you say. So what? "Will Telegate/Terayon meet Rogers' requirements within the next 3 1/2 weeks? " How am I supposed to know? I read in GTR that Mr. Gilder expects Tern to offer a voice and data product for DSL within weeks, but he says nothing about the timing of a voice for cable product- save that presumably it already exists, and thus- I guess here- could already have been offered to Rodgers- although I have no knowledge of such. Re: "I will refrain from using the term "thrown out," and use "not included," instead. The latter has the door slamming more quietly." That will be a misleading approach since it ignores the existing invitation which you otherwise recognize. Not an appropriate way to go, IMO, and certainly not necessary to your purposes. Get real, IMO. Save it for when TERN fails to deliver and the invitation is gone, if that's to be the case(as I take it so many in the industry believe). Re: "You go on to write:" No, I didn't write that, I quoted from an article written by the CTO's of Shaw and Terayon. Re: "Could you please respond to the following comments from a friend in the industry? "They're adding up multiple headends across a large geographic area to get those numbers. . . . The fact remains TERN systems have a HARD LIMIT of 128 simultaneous users/channels. That is the absolute most under ideal conditions. DOCSIS deployments have no such limit."" Sounds right to me, from all I gather- though it may be misleading since DOCSIS deployments are limited by noise. Have I got this right Mark? I think we both know that Terayon doesn't try to sell a system that can't be upgraded beyond 128 users in 22,000 homes passed...the question is, for the first 128, second 128, and so on, are there cost advantages in being able to pass so many homes without adding high pass filters and products like CMTO's Return path Multiplexer. Re: "Anyone who would give false information on something as critical as earnings' figures certainly can't be trusted to be honest about anything else. Ok, fine, don't gimme a break..LOL. As indicated above, nothing in my original statement was false save if Cherrypicker was not at all accretive to earnings. Allowing for that event, I took it back- admitting a possible error before it's even proven to be an error. I hope that was the responsible thing to do. For all I know, if it pleases you, the boom in modem sales hindered earnings, but I'd doubt it. Dan B