Then why did TERN not want it disclosed? Sure as hell seems like material information to me. Cable Labs claims TERN made misrepresentations and threatened "corrective action."
How is that not "material information" that should be disclosed to shareholders?
I hope someone explores the dates Terayon's managers sold blocks of shares. 1) They knew before January 13 what CableLabs had decided, 2) they knew on February 2 how serious CableLabs was regarding their misrepresentations, and 3) their position was made public on February 25, this time on CableLabs website.
I believe the critical time-period is February 2 to February 25, the period between receipt of the stern warning and the CableLabs' information being made public. I suspect the other letters Mr. Rakib referred to in yesterday's conference call could reveal a warning that a public statement would be made. This is an assumption but it's hard to imagine CableLabs making such a public statement without giving Terayon fair warning.
Pat
cablemodem.com
CableLabs' Efforts for an Advanced Physical Layer for DOCSIS
February 25, 2000
1. CableLabs started discussions last year about an advanced physical layer for DOCSIS and what modulation techniques should be included. These discussions were held with Terayon Communications and Broadcom, and were in parallel with activities of IEEE 802.14 committee.
2. In June 1999, multiple vendors as well as an IEEE 802.14 representative presented information to CableLabs and our member companies on their advanced physical layer technologies and how they might be included in the DOCSIS specification.
3. In September, 1999, David Fellows, on behalf of the DOCSIS Certification Board, wrote to the IEEE 802.14 committee, indicating that (ii) certain advanced modulation techniques (FA-TDMA) would be included in DOCSIS 1.1 through its normal change process and (ii) Terayon was asked to present to CableLabs, for testing and possible inclusion in DOCSIS, a prototype of an SCDMA/DOCSIS modem. The letter stated, "If the prototype performs as expected, and meets the cost projections promised, it is very likely (but not certain) that we will include this in a future release of the DOCSIS specification."
4. Since then, CableLabs determined that the changes required to support FA-TDMA were extensive enough to consider it a separate DOCSIS release, rather than being included through the normal change control process (ECN's).
5. At CableLabs' request, Broadcom, Terayon, Conexant and Texas Instruments drafted a FA-TDMA specification (the "November" specification) which has been shared with CableLabs members and with any chip vendor with a reasonable plan to build silicon based on the specification.
6. The November specification has not been adopted with a DOCSIS number, and is not currently considered a DOCSIS specification.
7. CableLabs has not designated the next revision or version of the DOCSIS specification. Although last September the term DOCSIS 1.2 was used in conjunction with the next generation physical layer, there is no DOCSIS 1.2 at this time. A CPE Controlled Cable Modem revision of the DOCSIS 1.1 specification is underway (formerly known as "host migrated" modem) which will likely be given a release number in the near future.
8. CableLabs remains committed to adding enhancements to DOCSIS. We expect that the DOCSIS specification will change as the industry evolves and the technologies advance. Two of our current requirements are that a new technology be contributed to the DOCSIS IPR pool, and that it be backwards compatible with today's DOCSIS deployments.
9. In February, 2000, CableLabs wrote to the four companies who drafted the November specification indicating that when a prototype shows up and demonstrates it meets the anticipated advantages, it is very likely (but not certain) we will then assign it a release number and adopt it as part of the DOCSIS specification. CableLabs also indicated that Terayon was still invited to present a prototype of its SCDMA modem, and that if it meets the anticipated advantages, it is likely (but not certain) that it will be included in another release of the DOCSIS specification.
That letter is attached.
>>>>
cablemodem.com
>>>>
DOCSIS Certification Board
Cable Television Laboratories
400 Centennial Parkway
Louisville, Co 80027-1266
February 25, 2000
As Parties involved in the evolution of the DOCSIS Advanced Physical Layer, the Certification Board wants to make sure that you understand our current plans in this area, and wants you to ensure that all communications with the public are in concert with these plans.
CableLabs remains committed to adding enhancements to DOCSIS. We expect that it will evolve as the industry and technology advances.
Attached to this letter is a letter that was sent to the IEEE 802.14 committee last September, outlining the Certification Board's plans as of that date. Since then, there have been several changes. First, in the process of selecting the exact set of FA-TDMA tools to include in DOCSIS, we realized that the changes were extensive enough to warrant a separate DOCSIS release, and not just an ECN to the existing DOCSIS 1.1. When we realized this, we looked at re-combining the FA-TDMA and S-CDMA techniques back together in one release, but decided that FA-TDMA would be available significantly sooner if we kept them separate, which we did. Four authors (Broadcom, Conexant, Terayon, and Texas Instruments) wrote a proposed specification, which we posted to CableLabs' members last November, and has been subsequently shared with any chip vendor with a reasonable plan to build silicon based on the proposal. The November proposal has not been adopted with a DOCSIS number, but rather we are applying to it the same rules as those with Terayon --- that is, when the prototype shows up, and demonstrates it meets the anticipated advantages (including co-existance with DOCSIS 1.1 and low incremental cost), it is very likely we will then give it a number and adopt it as part of the DOCSIS specification. Of course, before anything is added to the DOCSIS specification, the vendor contributing the technology to the specification must agree to include it in the DOCSIS royalty-free IPR pool.
Terayon is still working on its prototype, and if it meets the anticipated advantages (including coexistence with DOCSIS 1.1 and low incremental cost), it is likely (but not certain) that it will be included in another release of the DOCSIS specification.
Since the FA-TDMA techniques are no longer an ECN, but will be given its own number, the paring of any release with any number (e.g. S-CDMA with DOCSIS 1.2) no longer holds. In addition, we are working on a Host-migrated version of the DOCSIS specification, which will probably be given a number. In the letter we stated that "it is unlikely that any of the other techniques considered by 802.14 (e.g.OFDM, DMT, of S-TDMA) would be included in any near-term DOCSIS release." The Board has decided that, while this is so, it is also true that anyone who shows up with an advanced technology will be considered for inclusion in an evolution of the DOCSIS specification.
Thanks you for your support of the DOCSIS program.
David M. Fellows
>>>>>> |
