Just a small correction on Leons Shares. Of his 1,722,000 shares, he had already registered to sell around 997,896 of them, including the August 9th registration of 400,000. This means he has registered to sell roughly 60% of his remaining shares. He has already sold over 210,000 this year.

Is there another 400,000 registered that someone has referred to, or is it the August 9th registration we are talking about?

I've read it again. It's accurate. I'm not sure what you're missing.

Wiredog:

VoIP is not a term used "only" to describe service on the public internet. There is no "traditional" VoIP. Voice over the internet protocol is just that, sending voice data packets over the internet. It is what Comcast does, and what Vonage (thought Skype would be a better contrasting example) does.

The only difference is that Comcast only uses the portion of the INTERNET that they control. They do this specifically so that they can apply QoS to it (which you can not do if you do not control the network end to end), and therefore an acceptable quality of service (by programming the network to prioritize voice data packets). Insted of continuing the path through the public internet which they have no control over, they terminate to the public telephone network, for which they have to pay termination fees, and is why the service is more expensive than Skype.

Skype, on the other hand, sends their data packets through the public internet, which can not differentiate between data and voice packets, and therefore delivers sub par performance (though less expensive). If Skype users want to call users on the public phone network, they too pay more for this service, which is why Skype has different costs for internet-internet and internet-public phone number calls.

I continue to argue with you because you continue to claim that Comcast does not use the internet. You fail to realize that their broadband network (the cable infrastructure) is in fact part of the internet.

Incidentally, if you read early Comcast introduction documents to their VoIP service, they made an initial strategic attempt to avoid the use of the term "VoIP" for marketing reasons. They did this because they felt the public would not understand the differences described above, and why Comcasts service was better. They have since adjusted their approach, and are now proudly referring to their service as VoIP. Perhaps this explains your initial confusion with the term?

Wiredog:

I never argued that Comcast did not have their own network. You continue to "claim" that I did, but I have challenged you repeatedly to prove it (as my comments are on record here) and you continue to fail to do so (because there are no such statements from me). Again, for the record, I never claimed Comcast did not have, or did not use their "own" network. What I have said all along is that this network "is" part of the internet. You, Wiredog, have said it is not.

As proof of your (Wiredogs) claims, I offer his post #16747:
"Mike, most Cable Co's or at least Comcast are not using VOIP....they have their own networks that do not go over the internet.Its called CDV or Comcast digital voice."

and wiredogs post #17052:
"QOS attempts to ensure quality of the bitstream when error correction (which is the usual method) would be useless because voice calls must be immediate...
COMCAST needs no QOS because it does not travel over the internet....
POSER."

My claims all along have been that Comcasts Digital Voice is VoIP (wiredog claimed it was not), that it uses QoS (wiredog claims it does not), and that it uses the internet (wiredog seems to belive that Comcasts broadband network is not part of the internet?).

Wiredogs claims, and my responses are a matter of record on this board. Anyone can review them to see who said what and when. You can do this by clicking on my or Wiredogs name, and viewing the posts and replies.

sfx2000:

That was great link. I even browsed around a little, reading the press releases and technology reports. Only eight years ago.

Wiredog:

I will not reply to personal attacks. To be honest, you do not know me or my background well enough to launch them. I take it from your responses, however, that you were unable to back up your statement in post 17171 and my challenge to you that I said no such thing?

In post 17171 Wiredog wrote:

"You denied on more than one occasion that this was on Comcasts own network..."

And I assume by now that you have confirmed (at work) that Comcast Digiatl voive uses VoIP, QoS and the internet?

P2K:

You can't use Comcasts Digital Voice with WiFi. Ask Wiredog, the Comcast pro. So, ASNAP can not use Comcast's Digital Voice.

Weren't you the one P2K who educated me on QoS (my memory may be vauge here)? If so, expalin to me how QoS can work with ASNAP on a public Hot Zone (seeing as in order to apply QoS you need control of the network)?

Why the discussion about VoIP, QoS, and Comcast is relevant to CLYW and ASNAP. While the banter between wiredog and myself is not applicable to CLYW (and I appologize for wisting the boards time and space on it), the essence of the arguement is, and here is why:

One of the early arguments put out by members of this board and Calypso itself to use ASNAP was the offloading of voice calls to WiFi VoIP to help carriers free their capacity. It was also presented that this would be available at any WiFi hotzone installed. When it was argued that the quality of the VoIP calls was far too inferior to cell quality, QoS was offered (by board members)as a potential solution.

The poor quality (delays, crackling sounds, digital noise) occurs with VoIP when it can not be determined that the data packet traveling over the network is for voice, and therefore can not be prioritized.

Comcast (as an example) overcomes this by adding a device to the user end of network, to route and identify the data traffic as voice packets, and thereby assures its priority over the Comcast controlled portion of the internet. Comcast ties to the public phone network, rather than using the public portion of the internet because they can not control the data flow there.

However, ASNAP is applied to WiFi Access Points, which can not in and of themselves identify or prioritze the data packet as voice traffic. Therefore when a CLYW phone switches from cell to WiFi, the VoIP can not use QoS, and therefore can only offer call quality equal to the likes of Skype, which while acceptable to some, is not acceptable to most, and certainly not acceptable to the wireless carriers. In my opinion, most users would rather stay on the cell network, rather than transfer to the VoIP call.

Wrong again Wiredog. Show me where I said that (in reference to your quote "you denied on more than one occasion that this was on Comcasts own network....") My comments are on record here. And I never made any such comment or implication.

And here is your final straw:

http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/Comcast_Presentation.pdf

Check page 15 of this Comcast presentation. How does Comcast Digital Voice work? I quote "A cable channel is converted for use as the data channel for public Internet access. The EMTA ensures that IP Voice packets are identified and have priority in the bit stream. This is called Quality of Service."

You see, Comcasts Digital Voice service is VoIP, uses QoS, and runs in the internet.

3-0. Well actually, more like 7-0.

Well I have not yet provided you with proof of the third point, that it does use the internet, but how is the score you two and me one? It does use VoIP and it does use QoS - yes or no? I think I have been proven right on these two. And shortly, I will prove the third.

OK, so that is what they said in the class. Here is a link to an April 2005 presentation on Comcast Digital Voice, and on the top of page 5, you will read "It has priority Quality-of-Service"

http://chapters.scte.org/newengland/Presentations/0405_VoIP_Trials_Experiences_Comcast.pdf

OK, so we agree on VoIP, what about QoS?

So we're down to one of the three points. Are you conceding the other two, that is , Comcast Digital Voice is VoIP and uses QoS?

Nice work wiredog, you are getting closer. By the time your research is over I guarantee you will find 3 things to be true about Comcasts Digital Voice service:

1. It is VoIP
2. It travels over the internet (Comcasts network, mind you).
3. It uses QoS.

(All three of which you have denied to be true in the last few days)

Nice job wiredog.

Again you contradict yourself, with a documented record for anyone to see.

Your post #16746

"Mike, most Cable Co's or at least Comcast are not using VOIP."

and now today:

"Mike do yourself a favor and look up VOIP...and then the last word...PROTOCOL.....you can use that protocol anywhere...and Comcast uses it on their own network"

And you are still wrong about the internet. Here is a hint...look up the difference between public and private internet networks.

Your statement would be accurate if you said that comcast does not use the "public" internet, which they don't. They could not apply QOS over this portion. They do, however, use their own broadband internet (the cable lines) for their VoIP service, which does contrary to you "expert" inside opinion, use QoS.

You are wrong about Comcast using VoIP.

You are wrong that their voice service does not use the internet.

You are wrong that their service does not use QoS.

But go ahead, keep digging your hole. Anyone reading this can go back to review your statements and easily prove they are wrong. I hope you boss doesn't read this!

Wiredog.

Here is the link to the Comcast Digital Voice Homepage:

http://www.comcast.com/Benefits/VOIPBenefits.ashx?CMP=KNC-HJ7326417134

You should check it out. But let me copy the opening paragraph here for all to see:

"Comcast Digital Voice
Comcast Digital Voice is a Voice over IP service that provides unlimited calling and cool new features over our advanced broadband network - all without sacrificing any of your current phone features or the reliability and call clarity you expect. "

For reference, Voice over IP is VoIP. And for further reference the broadband network is the internet. Do you really work for them?

Wiredog:

You wrote:
"COMCAST needs no QOS because it does not travel over the internet...."

Wrong again. Jeez, for someone who works at or with Comcast you should know better. Do we need to teach you what the internet is? Comcast does connect to the Public Telephone network earlier than say a Skype does. But using the cable infrastructure from homes to their termination point is the internet, is VoIP, and does use QOS on this portion. But why am I telling you this? You already know it.

And even your first line: "...when error correction (which is the usual method) would be useless because voice calls must be immediate..."

"Useless" is a little strong since this is exatly how Skype and the other cheap VoIP services work. It is also why the quality of these services is sub par to the likes of Comcasts service and is why ASNAP (for Voice service) can not work effectively on "every" WiFi hotspot out there.

P2K:

Does the Jag have WiFi or Bluetooth? There are hundreds of models with Bluetooth, but I am not aware of any with WiFi yet.

Wiredog:

You wrote:
"Go back and read my posts over the past year"

I accept the challenge. Here are some of your posts from just the last month, and the facts as the bore out: (Your posts in quotes).

7/24/05
"Mike.
This thing is getting primed up right now for a move.
You will be late to the game.
Just my opinion.
Your posts are becoming silly.
IMO."

7/24/2005 (post # 15061)
"Are you silly enough to ask if they are demonstrating Asnap?"

The fact is, they were not.

7/24/2005
"They have a real phone ,that is a CLYW phone, on their
website.
You are not going to question that that is their phone , are you?
I think you need to take a breather and reconsider what you are posting."

The fact is, the picture is not their "real" phone.

7/24/2005
"and by the way...how do you know there isn't a camera on the other side that you can't even see?
You make sweeping statements and you don't even know if it has the capability you describe....."

Fact is, there was not a camera on the other side, and my sweeping statements about the phone were verified with a call to CLYW.

Here is a good one! On 7/25/05 you wrote:

"Mikey's confused.
The cable comanies have begun VOIP which is the same as Vonage and will have a huge impact in this sector."

An then on 8/24/05 you conflict yourself!

"I know exactly what it is since I am involved with it every single day....
My point was you were mis-naming it...
To call it VOIP is misleading at best.
and yes QOS is why they decided to use their own network."


On 8/12/05:

"thanks Gowfi..looks like we are getting some ink..."

Fact was the article you were refering to was over a year old.

But you insisted:

"zfritz, I seriously doubt it is a year old....
They even used the term "dual-mode".
It just got posted this month."

But you were wrong.

I liked this one too, on 8/12/05:

"The company did not join any of the alliances that were establishing standards or working together to develop mutually agreed upon protocals for 3g and beyond."

That's why they have trials...that's them working with the companies....geeezz."

Seriously, not understanding what standards bodies do as compared to a company conducting a filed trial?

From 8/24/05:

"5$ soon....
looks like resistance at 1$...then 1.10$...then 1.20$....
then 1.65$.............
then anywhere from 2$ - 2.75$.......
all up from there...."

Where are we trading 2 days later?

You've done plenty Wiredog to discredit yourself on this board. It's an open forum and you will certainly keep posting, but there is a track record here. The evidence is there for anyone who chooses to go back and read your posts.

wiredog:

You wrote:
"Go back and read my posts over the past year"

I accept the challenge. Here are some of your recent posts:

Or maybe investors are reviewing the historical press releases from CLYW and are just skeptical. The company has previously announced a 500 Million order from China, with no follow up comment as to what happened to it, and then just a few months ago announced a distribution agreement with a minimum of 100,000 phones in the first 3 months (which ended about 2 weeks ago), followed by 150,000 phones by years end. The period came and went, and not even an update from CLYW as to what happened. Why shouldn't investors be skeptical of the 4 Million Unit order? Even if it is legit, CLYW has given everyone reason to doubt.

The pumpers on this Board were celebrating and high fiving each other in mid May; "Congratulations", "We have liftoff", "it was worth the wait", "Job well done", "we're going to $5", "shorts missed their chance", "Merry Christmas", etc... and all when the stock was trading at $1.40. Go back and read the posts on May 18th.

The game is not over yet, but the current score has the skeptics well ahead of the dreamers, not only in terms of the stock price, but also in terms of what is happening technologically.

NOS:

You are clearly not reading many of the articles and links provided by various members to this board. That's too bad. Although you have every right to ignore them, they are presented to this board to help all members broaden their views and education in this market space. If you had read some of the recent ones, you would understand my comment. I have found many of them, including your link to the google story to be helpful, and sometimes educational.

NOS:

I'm not sure what your reference to dead in the water meant (I have not come across anyone on any board that ever suggested VoIP was dead?), but google getting into the business is more evidence that VoIP will compete with, not compliment, the wireless carriers.

I read speculation somewhere that google was working on their own network (kind of their own internet?). This and the VoIP service could be interesting if you understand QOS (incidentally, I think it was P2K that was harping about QOS for months...I asked him to explain the term to me, but he never replied...I recently came to understand the term and how it applies to VoIP from a Cisco engineer. The explanation made me more skeptical of the "original" ASNAP claims, of being able to access VoIP on any WiFi hotzone installed).

"everyone will want one even ma,"

Well, I already have one (CellFi, that is), but I would like to see a CLYW ASNAP equipped model.

sadee:

What the PR does is gove the opportunity for people to dump shares without the price tanking. A thinnly traded stock like this, would plumit if someone tried to dump 700K share without somthing (like a news release) to support it.

I'm not saying this is what happened, just responding to sadee who does not see how it could help.

Just read it (at your suggestion, thanks).

I like the new term "CellFi". Article quotes Nokia as wondering if consumers will want the transfer to be seamless. It also says Verizon may be a big player. Although they may play in the future, I know they have removed WiFi access from current models today, and I believe they see VoIP as more of a threat than an enhancement.

Wiredog:

It is VoIP, only Comcast controls the entire network so they can apply QOS to the service, which greatly enhances it. They have complete control of the VoIP call from the user to where the call accesses the public phone network.

Other services, such as Vonage and Skype, must use networks completely unknown to them (the internet) and therefore can not control the proper flow of the data (meaning prioritizing voice packets to prevent the delay and breakup of a VoIP call).

A carefull read of todays news speaks for itself. It is good for CLYW and RvTech if the 4 Million unit order does get placed and phones produced over the next six months, but the announcement is not good for ASNAP, and more clearly explains why they have been testing non-ASANP phones. The CoMob solution from Sleipner (described on their website) does exactly what ASNAP would have done. The one difference is that I do not believe the Sleipner solution (CoMob) is portable as far as VoIP is concerned, meaning it is set up in the office, and at home, but not available at every WiFi hot zone.

Early on CLYW was all about ASNAP and the patent, it now seems to be becoming all about the phone (ie, non ASNAP phones, GSM only phones, equity investment in RvTech, etc).

More evidence of carriers shunning VoIP:

http://dallas.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=41223&type_news=latest

Tenac:

CLYW is already a $100 Million Dollar company. $40/share would be $4 Billion. Your What Ifs are valid arguements, but there are certainly leveles of "What If"

The big one though: IF they pull it off, and IF they can keep anyone else from using any alternatives to ASNAP, and ASNAP is the only solution accepted in the industry, and IF everyone wants WiFi (no one cares for any of the alteratives such as 1XEVDO, EVDV, WiMax and/or OFDM), and most access points are swapped out to ines which include ASNAP technology, then they can easily be worth over $4 Billion, or $40 per share.

Stitch:


"And another thing...this whole video at movie quality stuff is ridiculous. even if you were achieving a completely full 11meg on the WLAN (which I doubt because you'd have to have perfect signal AND no competition from other devices), the local lan connection to the Internet would ALSO have to be much faster than a typical DSL connection to deliver the sort of resolution and number of frames per second that movie quality entails."

I've been makig this point on this and other threads for 2 years. Still, no one seems to have a problem with such statements as: "Mobile users using Calypso's ASNAP(tm) C1250i cellular phones will be able to access any Wi-Fi zones installed and access the Internet at broadband speeds of up to 11,000 Kbps per second"

And another factor more significant than the two above is the speed of the prosessor used on cellular phones. It can not process anywhere near 11 Mbps - not even close.

Actually, the best way to explain WLL is fixed phones that use cell technology rather than hard wired lines. Of course, they can provide internet access as well, but this is generally referred to as wireless broadband.

Of course everyone on the other board is happy - anyone with a differing view is banned! In all honesty, that board is NOT a discussion board, but they have the right to be whatever they choose.

I never thought it would be a good move to become a phone manufacturer. Seeding the market by having the phones produced (in the face of no other customers being willing to do it) is a good backup strategy. Investing in the company producing the phone seems to me to be another desperate move (that could payoff, don't get me wrong). I feel confident that when CLYW laid out their strategy in early 2004 as a technology play, buying a phone manufacturing company was not on their radar screen. IMO, the move is about survival. Considering where they are, probably a good move. At least CLYW can boast about one licensee!

Yes it does have the ability to disable or turn off the engine of the trucks it is monitoring.

pclee:

I do not currently own shares in CLYW. I think you are greatly misinformed about WiMax and what it is vs what some promise it to be. Think of it as a way to get broadband to the WiFi hotspot, not replacing it. WiMax and WiFi will work together just as cable and WiFi have. The chances of ever seeing a handset that communicates directly on WiMax is very low.

CLYW's patent is broad enough to cover WiMax usage as well, however. I think it is this "too broad" nature of the patent that leaves little concern in the industry with violating it.

Here is the link that has been posted on this and the SI board.

http://www.wirelessfidelitymag.com/articles/461feat2.html

This is the June 2004 issue.

That good ink...

"Dualmode phones are being manufactured now."

Is over a year old.