Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
merkel, the answer to your frequently-posed question as to when NVEI will release the tech solutions it is currently building remains, IMO, the same as before:
as soon as they have all their ducks lined up in a row. To do anything else could possibly invite
invasion into the tightly-held IT the technology
represents; premature release invites insistent, unanswerable queries by the media and telcoms as to how it's done, how do we know it will work, etc. We need to build a
patent-proof and invasion-proof fortress about ourselves so that, at the time of release, we will
be impregnable to fierce attempts by the competition to steal (there is no other word for it) what is rightly ours. We have only one chance to do this right, but a million ways to mess it up. Our money is on the line, and I want them to take as much time as they need to get it done correctly, but not one day longer.
best, Rob
Stokhunter, Well said. My point,exactly. The
emergence of one dominating telco in a given country means that competition no longer exists and unit pricing is going to be higher than what would have been determined by multiple telcos slugging it out in the public arena. I certainly hope that some form of governmental regulation will supervene; history has certainly provided plenty of lessons from which they can learn, IMHO. Recent articles on the subject seem to indicate that government might be starting to lean that way. As you said, let's see what happens. best, Rob
dilt1, thanks for posting a very stimulating article about the emergence of dominant telecoms in Germany and England. Deutsche Telekom, in Germany, already owns the DSL market, and BT, in England, is apparently on the verge of doing so. IMO, if this pattern persists,
NVEI will be looking at a handful of companies which will be the likely users of its technology, rather than the dozens which might have, had they been able to withstand the monopolisic actions of those mentioned (done, seemingly, with the tacit approval of their respective governments). It will be more than interestng to see whether this pattern is repeated in other parts of the world, as well as in the USA. I invite the board's thoughts and comments on this important matter. TIA
Rob
Excel, please note that my post # 1899 (immediately previous one) was directed at Sidhaman, post # 1893.
Sorry for the confusion. Rob
Sidhaman, From what you say, the people to whom you've spoken have voiced their disappointment with NVEI
based upon data and performance of which we are all
aware. Nothing in your post indicated any "special"
or "inside" knowledge of the company, any unreleased
information, etc. IN short, there is no factual basis presented for the negative picture you painted
outside of what is general knowledge, even though your post strongly indicated otherwise. I would certainly appreciate such posts be clearly labelled
"IMO" or "IMHO" or, in this case, "IMVHO" so that there is no question as to its informational content. Thank you.
Rob
Sidhaman, your posting was somewhat vague. What I got out of it was that because you are in San Diego,
you have been able to solicit local information about NVEI from individuals who give you the "word"
about the company which is not favorable. If this is a fair reading of what you wrote, I, for one, would certainly appreciate some amplification as to the
inner details of your warning. As it stands now,
(and while I appreciate your time and effort to obain whatever information you've gathered and to share its general slant with us), if there's a truck bearing down on us, I'd sure like a heads-up and the skinny! More information, please. TIA. PS - have you spoken with JH about this?
Rob
hitimer@webtv.net
Excel: The Rams.
Rob
Excel, Thank you very much for your your continuing
timely posts. I can well understand the whirlwind many seem to be experiencing - myself included - in view of mgmt's conflicting statements/actions and agree that they
were lamentably unaware of the repercussions their
10K would create. I suspect that many of us are tired of creating a learning curve for mgmt to
climb ever more quickly; at least, the endgame is drawing nigh, per your recent post to that effect,
and we can relax a bit. But not yet. I have been in continuing dialog with JH re PR's, representing our need for more frequent, informative releases atuned to s/h's need for same. Regrettably, little was accomplished save the fact that yet one more person
had told him something that he already knew. Perhaps this will have a cumulative affect - we'll see.
best, Rob
Excel,
VERY interesting article re compression and its lack
of documentation for the hard math group. I'm looking forward to JH's response. Thanks for sharing.
best, Rob
dilt1, interesting speculation. IMHO, I would think that F-H is under instructions NOT to put the word out about us just yet because: we don't have our 3-layer tech patented yet, plus any other tech we may be filing, and we don't want to be probed by a slew of companies for any IP weaknesses we may have; the companies in the technet list which do have
knowledge of what we're about would likely keep their own council, IMHO, for competitive reasons. It does their own corp. no good to share this potentially extremely valuable ihfo with others - those in the know may see themselves approaching NVEI for any # of reasons once the tech is shown to be effective in field tests - thus, they may have already asked
NVC to contact them upon such an occurence (when the NDA allows them to do so upon its expiration), buyout possibilities, strategic alliance possibilities, etc., all of which become much more competitive efforts if other like-minded corps.
vie for NVEI's attention. This also is, IMO, why NVC has remained so quiet about it's development of the chip(s) and the field trials. The last thing they want is the telecom universe descending upon them,
wanting to know what they have, how does it work,
show proof of its efficacy, etc., all of which is entirely premature at this stage But, I conjecture, not too much longer in actualization. In business situations like this, paranoia is a GOOD thing!
best wishes, Rob
dilt1, thanks for the posts re the Washington Post article and the Broadband primer post, as well. Both are very illuminating, especially as today's NVC tech fulfills the ideal requirements for the various broadband applications noted in the "primer" post,
and is already close to meeting the goals that Technet has for broadband by the end of the decade!
Are they going to be in for a shock when the NVC/Telecom field trials are completed, and contracts signed and announced! At that time, we will have first hand evidence of exactly what "Disruptive Technology" really means. For those who have a difficult time assessing what the risk/reward ratio is wrt NVEI,
then IMHO a careful perusal of these posts will be
most educational. And deeba, thanks for the JH
material.
best wishes, Rob
Prettylady, Bundles spoken here as well. However,
It's been 1 1/2 years + since I made my investments; since that time I went through various phases, including the one you expressed. However, I never, ever, considered there to be a scam under way. I simply entered the stock with both hands full of money and kept them out there, waiting for them to be fllled with even more funds. After a while, I put my hands down, realizing that this dog don't hunt that
way. This company, I learned - and it was a difficult lesson to learn - was still slugging it through its development phase, and its commercialization, which is now coming hard upon us -was still a ways off. So I had a choice - sell out and go elsewhere, or hold on for its potentials.
In order to decide, I digged more heavily into its
past and present, and was heavily swayed by the its story and the personnel it has on board. Way too many class acts for this to be a "scam". These people are heavy hitters and NVEI has aligned themselves with a
billionaire honcho - Ivan Berkowitz - who is helping to steer this ship (via BOD) and funding is very good, to say the least. I could go on, but you get my point. The risk went down a whole bunch and the rewards spiked significantly. A company is all about its story, its business model, and its people. Sure they've made mistakes - every company does. But they also have demonstrated a quick reaction time and a steep learning curve they've quickly ascended. Good enough for me. But no scam. Good luck.
Best, Rob
Caroline - My cloudy crystal ball sees these teams taking home the winning football>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Philadephia, New England, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.
hitimer
Doughjo, When I asked John about this matter - the path to the tech trials, he responded by laying out what is transpiring, and in the process of happening for me. I reported his e-mail in a posting which you can review here:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msgs.asp?board_id=435&NextStart=1524
Although he doesn't recite chapter and verse, it does give us a general idea of the progress being made along the way. Hope this helps.
Best, Rob
Michael, thanks for sharing JH's response to your
e-mail. While I'm glad that they are getting the word out, I wonder just how much benefit we may derive from their action since brokers are not allowed to try to sell customers about BB stocks,
from what I understand. They can certainly buy some for themselves, get relatives involved, I suppose,
but not too much beyond that - yes/no? He's looking forward to the day of the field trials - as are we all - but my sights have been lowered to the day when Greaves releases his media papers to FH, with the anticipated effect upon s/p to follow - JMHO.
I've seen nothing to indicate that this will be a happening thing anytime soon, but...
Hitimer@webtv.net
Best, Rob
Additional input from John Howell re our progression toward carrier trials, in response to my inquiries into same.
"1. computer simulation: largely done.
2. Prototype system design: done, except for necessary adjustments on the fly.
3. Prototype implementation: components of the
system are added as each component is constructed.
There is still work in progress and is a prelude to carrier trials.
4. Carrier trials: Yet to be done."
John.
1/7/02
Very informative articles, Dilt. Thanks for sharing.
Rob
Wonderful stories, Dinky.
Rob
Thanks for posting this, Sharon. While it is nice to see that the SEC has not completely averted its eyes to Knight's MM practices, I suspect that the amounts involved are chump change for Knight and may be considered to be somewhat less than a slap on their wrist. Now if the figures were 10 or 20 x the actual
fines, Knight might actually sit up and take note.
Am I just being too cynical about Knight/SEC intertwinings or do others feel similarly? From all that I've read about them, they're not exactly
White Knights coming to the aid of investors...
Best, Rob
PENGY, Thanks for the reminder/reference to the original source. Interesting that the possibility of 3 Pr's before the end of 2001 was raised, but nary a
one in sight. Time lines being what they are, that is not surprising (sigh) but we are only 6 days past
their ETA, as it were. The ensuing weeks hopefully will prove to be revealing.
Best, Rob
pengy, In one of your posts re the time lines (such as they are), you re-estimated them, giving your latest best estimate/judgement from the available
information. As I recall, the time line estimated for the computer simulations was Nov-Dec 2001 (?).
Are we in possession of any knowledge which would assist us in determining whether the simulations
were, indeed, done/completed/in process, in keeping with these approximate dates? BTW, I'd appreciate it if you could re-direct me to your posting with this information (the latest time line estimates). Many thanks.
Best, Rob
Tiger, No, I did not know that and I appreciate the
info. I hope that you and yours are having a wonderful New Year in one of my favorite spots, Sedona. Any snow?
best, Rob
O.T. In defense of my semantic turf [ ], I'd say the the recent arrivals to NVEI be called the
"Laters" so as to clearly distinguish them from the
"Sooners" who have been bearing up under the
heavy weight of the increasingly unconscionable word
"soon" for a longer period of time, thereby bestowing upon us, at this late date, the dubious distinction of responding to "hey, Sooner" when called, We STRONGLY reject the letter "S" being stamped on our foreheads.
Best, Rob
c/c my IP attorney
Excel, from John's response, I take it to mean that each of the locations mentioned yields simulation results which are then compared with the others. The object, I imagine, is for all three results to be as nearly identical with each other. I wonder how
identical the simulation setup has to be at each place (with the others) or whether the simulation process lends itself to varying approaches, provided certain basic elements are kept constant in each instance. Just an idle thought on a slow news day. The other possibility is that each of the locales is measuring a different aspect of the simulation. (?)
Best, Rob
And so 2002 is upon us, a harbinger - hopefully, he said - of many things to come from NVEI. If THIS is not the year of their beginning fruition, then, pray tell, when else might it be? Note, I said, "beginning" fruition. I do not expect it to be fully realized in its entirety in 2002. Rather, we see, IMHO, (finally!, we say with one voice) much of what we have been semi-promised, promised, and what we have speculated about since last fall and even before. If this experience has not taught us the value of patience, nothing will. We have "lost"
quite a few former s/h's who, for lack of patience
have gone on to what they hope are greener pastures.
I can't imagine any pastures which could possibly be greener than ours will be this year and those which follow. Let these thoughts be something of a valedictory for all those who have "stuck it out", through the previous challenging months and years, and who now await the fruits of their patience to fall from NVC's laden trees, as it were. I needed to express these thoughts as the sense of mutuality I
experience with all those who have contributed to,
and shared these pages. And, I humbly suggest, perhaps the name for the assembled posters/waiters/dreamers be termed the "SOONERS"!
What, you say that this term is already in common usage by a particular football team? Perhaps, then, we just use it in-house and leave it off of our letterheads. Happy days approach, Sooners. May this
New Year be ours in health, happiness, and abundance.
Rob
Benmack, thanks very much for your input re
patents. Your speculation that NVC might be tweaking their most recent, 3 layer tech patent so as to represent the cutting edge of their upgrades and improvements re their latest discovery. I had mulled that around in my mind but kept it there,
reluctant to add fuel to the speculative fire. However, I'm glad YOU brought it up since, with your tech and patent background, it earns more in the way of consideration as a distinct possibility. I, too,
am concerned that, if this is indeed the case, each improvement begets yet another one and we run into a line of begetting that gives the Bible competition! I hope that someone looks up from his/her desk and - finally - asks the IP's to start doing their thing. My own sense of exasperation is just around the corner,
despite knowing that what you say is true: maintain
silence until it no longer serves the corporate purpose. Horns of a dilemma, anyone?
best wishes, Rob JMHO
spokeshave, At this point, the origins of the information concerning the patent under discussion
are unclear to me, but the definitely appear in the latter part of this year ? November, possibly October. You might pick up the traces by looking into porscha's daily DD postings and reviewing some of the periodic meetings mgmt has been holding with the s/h's. I know that I have referred to it on several occasions in my posts. Needless to say, no communications with JH have been able to zero in on the possible time of announcement of the patent PR.
Good luck, and Happy Holidays.
Rob
34S, well said. A very valid perspective, viewed differently from mine, and registers well in my sensibilities. It would be interesting to hear from spokeshave as to how much of what you have said was filtered through his considerations, since his thoughts engaged my interest, as well. Thank you.
best, Rob
Spokeshave, a most interesting, challenging
post. Personally, I cannot debate the points raised re the deafening silence since so much depends upon the relative weight given to the NDAs and the patenting process for mgmt's inability vs. failure to inform s/h's. Regarding the patents, I agree that most of them are probably filed by now,IMO. However,
the last patent of which we've been made aware, the three layer tech which Dr. Propps and others labored on and which seems to be the crown of their treasures, has been in the "process" of filing for
some time now (Ernie, I believe, sees it as a 6 week and counting period). Since no one has privy to this sanctum sanctorum of NVC's chambers, it is obviously
a point where one can choose up sides as to where one comes down on it. It is all too obvious that they will not proceed until this core tech is protected. As I've discussed in prior posts, once this is accomplished, IMO the "domesticated" Greaves
WPs can be issued, with all that it implies>>FH>>
media and us>>bank, or so we would wish. WRT to the other points dissected by you and your perception as to how it relates to your investment, I can not and would not take serious issue with any of them; they are as objectively reasoned as is possible without, again, knowing the interior workings of NVC. That cannot, nor should not, prevent anyone from coming to one's own conclusions, as you have, and managing his/her investment based upon them. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
best, Rob
Please note: my post 1367 is in response to that of Twisters, post 1352. Sorry for any confusion. Rob
Twister, Your take on the current status of investor "interest", IMHO, may not be giving sufficient weight to some recent mgmt.disclosures and announcements.
Our interest, as voiced by many posters, went up
considerably with the announcement of the 3 telecoms
currently looking to NVC to supply them with
the hardware embodying our technology for application to their systems. Toward such ends,
mathematical/computer modelling was` annouced as a preliminary step to be taken to see if the telcom needss will be theoretically served by NVC tech, and is now either finished or about to be completed, per the latest info/time line from the company and pengy's notes from the s/h conferences. After that, an in-house model will be mfr'd and successful testing of that then leads to the requested hardware being delivered for the
telecom's field testing. It is the attainment of this level of corporate performance which is exciting the longer term s/h as evidence of promises in the process of being delivered. It will take some additional time, to be sure, but the knowledge gained from mgmt's recent discussions in the s/h meetings leave many of us with a clearer picture of what strides have been taken by the superior hands we now have. Via our advisory panel and the many
engineers working with Drs. Propp, et al, to achieve these goals, make for exciting times at NVC and for most of their investors. We see it as a story unfolding, delayed but as promised - in fact, better than as promised, in view of the improvements made with the multiple layering of the original tech, its current process of patenting, and the quieter transmission promised therefrom. Others. such as yourself, see it as a "Show Me" proposition,
perfectly valid from the perspective of battle-weary OTC veterans, and not invalid at all in my eyes,
as well, since they, too, have been witness to too many BB corporate failures to keep promises, stock dilution, and what have you. Thus far, we have suffered none of those slings and arrows; our financing has been excellent, no significant dilution with an enviably low float and outstanding share count, and the company is in the process of
delivering as promised. It seems to me, Twister, that we have gone beyond the call for faith to sustain us and are entering the phase of anticipating the delivery of goods, at some time in the following year, with all systems go.
IMHO, it is now not a question of if, but when.
We will be just as happy as you when NVC
delivers the goods and the bandwagon starts rolling!
best wishes, Rob JMHO
Jason, I want to take an additional moment to extend a special wish for a healthy and happy holiday season and New Year to you and porscha who, amongst others, have given so freely and continuously of your time and effort in the sharing of your DD and knowledge of NVEI. I respect the objectivity you bring to your respective posts, the separation of fact from speculation, and your giving the lie to those who would have us believe otherwise. All of this has made for a board which, especially now on I-Hub, can offer its luster to all those who visit us. Kudos to both of you.
Rob - hitimer
Excel, great job at keeping the board free of excess baggage and very readable. A Very Happy Holiday and New Year to you and all NVEI posters, mgmt, and shareholders.
Pengy, Very informative. as usual. Thanks for all of your time and effort in organizing and submitting the reports.
Rob
mikeygold, this will be my one and only response to you. Your posts are insufferably boring, uninformed, and not given to` meaningful discourse. That they actually elicit responses, even as they decry your
posts, apparently continues to prompt your further replies, such as they are. I can only respectfully suggest to those who would appreciate surcease from his meandering, vacuous posts consider NOT responding to him at all and allow this tree, falling in the forest, to fall silently and silent.
JMHO
porscha,Agreed. From the perspective of what NVEI does for broadband transmissions, however, as we all know, is qualitatively AND quantitatively different
from other accelerants, making it more uniquely
able to do what the telcos want at competitive prices. True, the needs of some will be satisfied by other types of technologies formulated for this purpose BUT it will have to do commercial battle
with NVC, whose costs to the industry will be, if we understand this correctly, quite competitive. Thus,
a potential purchaser of a Last Mile Solution enabler will view NVC most favorably (everything else being equal) due to its innate advantages. How this will translate into dollar figures is, of course, unknown at this time,
but the figures you ran up, as an example, serves to illustrate quite well the potential NVC has for commercial success. I made the assumption that MSFT had contributed to the purchase because of the announced intention for it to provide whatever support might be required for a non-AOL bidder to be successful. If this was not the case, then my assumption was incorrect. And yes, Gates' propensity for "the whole pie" syndrome is well known. One wonders where his prehensility will take him next.
best, Rob JMHO
halston, your view point would certainly be worth considering were we not absolutely sure that MSFT
is privy to our tech via our (NVEI and MSFT) joint
usage of the Cambridge U. Computer Laboratory, headed by Dr .Greaves, a principal member of our advisory board and who was amongst those instrumental in advancing our technology to its current level of sophistication. Apparently, there is reason to believe that there a communal sharing of info re work done there by the doctoral candidates, etc, of whom we have one that we are financially sponsoring and who is working on the mathematical and computer-related aspects of the NVEI technology. Consequently, this cross-fertilization of the companies represented at Greaves' Lab at Cambridge is one way that other companies - BT, Marconi, MSFT, amongst others - may
learn of the NVEI advances in our dissruptive technology. Actually, after I thought about it a bit more, I think that MSFT jumped in with both feet so as to prevent their arch-rival, AOL/WB, from usurping such a large chunk of the action and allowing themselves to have a ready-made arena for their soft-wear to find application in the burgeoning broadband sphere. I guess when you have $60 billion in loose change burning a hole in your pocket, you can afford to ward competitors off with one hand while you're making set/top boxes with the other!
JMHO
Rob
dilt1, Mr.Lohr, the author of the article to which I'm responding, states, in part, that "Cable is emerging as the preferred digital, or broadband, pipeline...". Evidently, Comsat and others (MSFT,
in particular) seem to agree with that evaluation.
I find it unbelievable that such major companies
are unaware of NVEI's potential to raise copper
wire pairs - as, of course, found in the telephones
of business and nearly all of the homes in the U.S. - to a functional level equal to that of cable, and whose tranmissions are not affected by the number of
people viewing, as it is on cable. I spell all of these well-known facts (to readers of the NVEI board) out so as to invite the
replies of those who might hold contrasting opinions based upon facts unknown to me. I can only think that is, indeed, the case. Elsewise, why would such major corporations spend $100 Bln to acquire cable and its 17 mln users who might easily be tempted away by their telephone company's promise of better reception irrespective of volume usage, (I can only imagine) competitive prices, and high speed over > 1 mile or greater (depending on speed), but always xDSL. What, if anything, am I leaving out of the equation that would enable me to better comprehend the actions of Comcast, et al? tia
Rob
dilt1, Thanks for bringing the article to our attention. I zeroed in on their transmission
description as being MPEG-2 compression over 1 MB.
It seems to me that that would be an significantly lossy transmission with loss of sharpness and clarity, if I understand the implications correctly.
Could you please address this semi-informed
speculation, since my conjecture is actually based on the effect of M/PEG compression has on audio
quality (again, lossy>>>diminished quality).
Thanks. Rob
Pengy, thanks for the clarification. I understand that the papers to be released by Dr. Greaves are
"watered down" from their technological origins. Was anything mentioned in the meeting as to the release of these papers in any context? With the time shifts alluded to in ElderWolf's JH response, I wondered whether these, too, had been given new ETA dates,
+/-.
Best wishes, Rob