Can anyone give a summary of the 8-K?

Edgar is no longer "FreeEdgar" and they have a very poor privacy policy, so I have not signed up for the freee trial, hence I can't see the 8-K.

Anyone?

Thanks

jeff_p: I suspect that there will "white papers" for public consumption, and a set of detailed technical specifications for "partners".

I am a little disappointed in the response that I got. I was only asking for some clarification of the material presented by Greaves at the SHM. I doubt that I will get any response at all from Ketch, but even a "sorry, I can't tell you that without NDA" would be appreciated.

I also noted that John has abandoned the word "sooooon" and now uses "shoooooortly".....

E-mail to JH:

Mr. Howell

I have been digesting the Shareholder Meeting presentation by Dr Greaves, and I have a few of questions.

1) Some time ago, I asked if the New Visual Technology was a type of DMT modulation technique. You replied that it was not. Since that time, it would appear that much has changed. It the above still correct?

2) Since Dr. Greaves stated that the technology uses time domain duplexing, it seems intuitive that the technology is not a type of QAM modulation either. Is that a fair conclusion?

3) It seems further intuitive that since the technology uses multiple channels and time domain duplexing, it shares more characteristics with DMT than QAM, though with fewer that the standard 256 channels. Would this be a fair conclusion?

4) Assuming that the answers to 1 - 3 above are yes, then is it a fair conclusion that the NV technology is not standards-compliant?

5) Is it expected that the NV technology will compete directly with DMT, QAM and other lesser utilized modulation technologies?

6) Does the outcome (assuming there is one) of the T1E1.4 conference in Denver have any potential impact on our technology?

7) And, to completely shift gears, can you shed any further light on what "...being currently prepared for worldwide distribution" means?
I sincerely thank you for your time.

A week passed with no response. So, I sent the following:

Mr. Howell:

I sent these questions a week ago and have not yet heard back from you. I realize that you are quite busy, but I would appreciate a reply. Thanks again.

To which he replied:

Tim,

Not being qualified to answer the questions myself, I have forwarded your email to Brad Ketch. I doubt that he will address your questions as specifically as you wish, if at all. We intend to present white papers in the near future that will be very specific and should answer the questions. You will also hear news very shortly regarding the distribution of the movie.

John

excel: Past Management

I agree that Cooper is running the show now, but Ray is still Chairman, John is still treating investors like children, and the trademark lack on information continues. So, even though there is a new CEO, I see little that has changed. I can give you a slew of examples, but I will pick two.

1) Field trial - We have been told that the completed test is the first of several. Well, that first test was completed about 6 weeks ago. I think that we have a right to know approximately how many tests are to be done, and the anticipated timeline for completion. If there are severla more to do, and each test takes 6 weeks, then it is highly unlikely that the target of presenting a prototype to telcos and suppliers by the end of the year will happen. This company has no record of exceeding expectations, so, in the absence of information, some people are forced to assume the worst.

2) The movie - Although it has little bearing on the future of the company, SIL could provide much needed revenue. It was supposed to be released this summer - Cooper said so. There are 16 days left in summer, and no news.

I like to keep my eyes wide open when investing. I try to never stick my head in the sand. I also try to call a spade a spade. I am displeased with all NVEI management teams to date. I believe that Cooper has the goods to get this thing done, but he, and the rest of his management must realize that the company has to change its ways. I have not seen that happen yet. For the record, just because I am being critical does not mean that I do not believe that my investment will pan out.

I regret that you perceive that as "bitching".

How many times do you all need to be told that?

With all due respect, that is a bit insulting. I am not stupid, and I did not forget that Cooper is the new CEO.

austin01: Re befuddled...

I am not befuddled with the share price per se, I am far more befuddled with the reasons that have driven the share price down. Specifically, my biggest gripe is with the company's tight lips and long string of broken promises.

Since Al and Mike were canned, I have had absolutely no idea about what I have invested in. Yeah, sure, Cooper and Ketch have described it in very broad terms, but I, and I am sure many other shareholders, am getting very anxious. The *only* reason that I still hold shares is because of Cooper. I would not trust Ray and John as far as I could throw Mikey's wife. But my faith in Cooper is blinf faith, and it is running out quickly.

But my faith in Cooper is blind faith, and it is quickly running out.

Too much time on my hands....

I started writing this a couple of days ago, got several hundred words written, and poof... it disappeared. Probably IHUB's way of saying don't be too wordy. Anyway, based on some posts I have seen recently, and on RB, there seems to be some confusion about what exactly the "last mile" problem is, and how NVEI porportedly intends to solve it.

First off, one of the problems with understanding the "last mile" problems stems from the fact that there are actually at least two "last mile" problems (actually, there are more, but I have already been punished for being too wordy):

1) Residential "last mile" problem: This problem results from the fact that even though most telcos now offer some type of broadband service, the range of that service is limited to about 5000 feet for typical DSL. Fast, big internet is delivered to the telco's Centrla Office (CO) in a great big fiber data pipe. The COs are generally brimming with capacity, but have no good way to deliver that capacity to customers that are more than a few thousand feet away from the CO.

One solution is DSL. However, it is limited by its range, and as I stated above, it loses its effectiveness dramatically over distances greater than 5000 feet. The last report I saw said (IIRC) that only 25% of customers are within 5000 feet, but 95% are within 18,000 feet. So, currently, DSL can only reach at best 25% of the residences. Even then, DSL has speed limitations, and will likely be unable in most cases to deliver the VoD and other high-bandwith services.

Another possible solution is VDSL. A common misconception is that VDSL is better than DSL since is transmits faster. This is true, but only over short distances. The typical way that VDSL will be implemented is in conjuction with Fiber-to-the-neighborhood (FTTH) or Fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC). As the names imply, these schemes require that optical fiber be run close to the end user, and then VDSL would bridge the last few hundred feet. A better solution than DSL from a bandwidth perspective, but very expensive to trench all that fiber. There is a real need for something that can give VDSL-like performance over DSL-like distances. There is even bigger need for something that can give VDSL-like performance at distances more than 3 times DSL-like distances. So this is the residential "last mile" problem.

2) Business "last mile" problem: This problem is similar to the residential one, but different. As businesses grow and technology develops, the need for broadband increases. Small to medium sized businesses often use what is called T1 for broadband. T1 does not describe a technology, instead, it describes a speed and a format - 1.544Mbps over 24 channels. How that data is delivered depends on what types of services are available. T1 originally began as 24 separate ISDN lines at 64Kbps each all bundled together - hence 24 channels. In fact, many T1 lines are still done this way. Now, thoug, T1 is probably most commonly delivered with multiple DSL lines with a very small percentage done over fiber. Most small companies can get T1 lines provided there are enough free telephone lines. The problem comes when a company outgrows its T1.

Long ago, 1.544Mbps was considered fast, and a T1 was considered a lot of bandwidth. Now, with email, large attachments, videoconferencing, etc. the bandwidth demands are ever-increasing, and T1 is just not adequate. The "last mile" problem emerges when a business wants to upgrade from a T1. The next step is T3, which is 44.746Mbps. Unfortunately, you cannot deliver T3 over copper lines - it would just take too many. The only way, now, is to use fiber.

Unfortunately, the huge fiber build-out we experienced over the last 10 years never completed the last step. Most businesses are within a few thousand feet of a big fat fiber data pipe, but have no cost-effective way to reach it. There is currently a huge demand for greater-than-T1 services, and telcos are reluctant to provide it because it means that they must run fiber to the building. Where it might be worthwhile to run a huge fiber bundle to the Microsoft complex, it is simply too expensive to run it to Spokeshave Consulting Services. That is the crux of the business "last mile" problem.

What NVEI promises is a way for the telcos to tap that big fat data pipe for the small to medium sized businesses and provide greater than T1 service all without laying new fiber and using only the existing copper plant. This is a huge market. There are billions to be made.

Though it would seem a more glamorous goal to provide broadband to every home, that is not where the money is. Business data needs are increasing dramatically, and there is no end in sight. NVEI is correct to go after that market first.

So, if anyone asks me why I still am invested in NVEI, even after all of the broken promises and disappointments, my answer will be because there is a billion dollar untapped market out there that a guy like Tom Cooper says we can tap.

Malibu Film Festival....

Apparently, SIL was screened at the Malibu Film Festival on August 18 and 20. See:

http://www.malibufilmfestival.org/home.htm

Click on 2002 Schedule and scroll down to the above dates.

Interestingly, if you click on 2002 Films, you will find the info listed under Feature Films, not Documentaries.

been called worse....

COMPSYS68: I goofed. That's what happens when you think one thing and type another. For future reference, it is best to listen to what I mean, not what I say. Thanks for pointing out the error.

trinity: The difference is in the type of cabling.

Catagory 5 cabling is a completely different animal than POTS twisted pair. Cat 5 is two twisted pairs in a single cable for use in runs of up to 500 feet. It is designed for point-to-point use, and does not have any interferences like crosstalk, signal reflections, bridged taps, etc. that plague POTS twisted pair.

There are many companies other than Intel that sell Gigabit chipsets for use on Cat 5 cable.

This is not a competing technology. It is designed for installation of Gigabit ethernet on existing LANs that use Cat 5 cable. The NVEI technology is designed to bring the internet *to* the LAN over existing POTS wire.

Does "Surfing Rabbi" know something we don't??

"See the Surfing Rabbi featured in this year's incredible new surfing film, "Step into Liquid", to be released at theatres this Fall. Rabbi Shifren explains his "Surf and Soul" philosophy and the parallels between surfing and Judaism. This is the most beautifully depicted film about the essence of surfing since "Endless Summer" in the 60's. You won't want to miss it, and yes....you can bring the family! "

So much for a summer release.

http://www.surfingrabbi.com/

excel: Re: "Don't you realize NV is receing funding from someone right now?"

Far be it from me to agree with Mikey. However, I see no indication at all that NVEI is receiving funding from anyone. To date, the only funding they have had has come from dilutive 144 issues.

While it sure would be nice to find out that there was a non-dilutive funding vehicle in place, any speculation about such an animal would be just that - speculation.

34Simmons: Re: Cashless Exercises

I personally never found this practice objectionable. In fact, at one time I wished that the company I worked for offered cashless exercise of options. I had 10,000 options at a strike price of $5 and when I became vested, the price was about $20. In order to exercise, I had to raise $50,000. I did not have that kind of cash on hand, so, I had to get a loan for part of it. By the time the loan closed, the share price had dropped to about $16. I exercised anyway, since I had already paid loan fees, and I did not feel good about the share price recovering (it never did - company went belly-up), but it cost me 40 grand.

I think that cashless exercises are a good perk for employees that presents essentially zero risk to the company. This is completely different from, say, a company lending its CEO half a billion dollars to build a summer home in the Hamptons. Cashless exercises can really benefit the "little guy" like me, and IMO should not be considered company loans. This, to me, is no different than a company "lending" PTO to employees - as many companies do. PTO is money and by this strict interpretation the process of PTO "lending" could also be considered a "loan".

While I am completely in favor of corporate responsibility, I hate to see genuine employee benefits and perks be sacrificed in the interest of corporate PR.

buffalobobco: Earnings per share...

is calculated based on the number of shares outstanding and is usually calculated from the average number of shares outstanding for the reporting period. However, it generally does not include unexercised options, warrants, etc. unless a reference is made to "earnings per fully diluted share".

So, if earnings stay the same from one period to another, and shares outstanding double, EPS goes down by half.

Arrgh. See. That is exactly what I mean.

His answer means nothing.

I recognize that they may not know exactly how many tests need to be conducted, but I am certain that they have a general idea. What would be wrong with saying something like: We expect to conduct between 5 and 10 different tests. However, we may need fewer or more depending on test results.

How hard is that?

His answer also implies that there is a carrier trials schedule. It sure would be nice to know the schedule. I do not share John's confidence about their ability to meet schedules based on past experience.

This is the kind of JH response that simply burns me up.

He blithely dismisses what appears to possibly be a true "last mile" solution as "squeezing more juice out of the same orange" yet they refuse to give *any* information about what *exactly* NVEI is developing. We may wake up one day to find that there is enough juice in existing DSL to make any NVEI solution an "also ran".

I am frankly tired of his dismissive, patronizing and condescending remarks. We are the investors that pay his salary. We should not be treated like children.

Time to put up or shut up John.

wheels: Propeller head comment:

There are several companies developing Ethernet over DSL technology. Every one that I have looked at is layer 2 and up. Probably the best one out there is Paradyne's Etherloop. It is a good product and it takes advantage of some fairly innovative techniques to improve speeds over existing QAM (which is a layer 1 standard). All of the whiz-bang stuff is handled by layer 2, and so it is conceivable that a better layer 1 (NVEI's technology) could make Etherloop even better.
So, these companies are potential NVEI customers.

My biggest concern is that, even though we may offer the best layer 1 technology out there, by the time we get to market, these other technologies won't need us.

lanrex: The problem with trying to put a technical, even arcane subject into laymans terms is that in oversimplifying, you must sometimes leave out details.

The OSI reference model is not perfect, and there are a few protocols that could legitimately be placed into more than one model layer. Ethernet is one of those. Ethernet is probably best classified as a sublayer of layer 2, though depending on the application, it may be a true physical layer. For example in a LAN, using Cat 5 twisted pair less than 500 feet, Ehternet is the true physical layer. However, in Ethernet over DSL, there is a separate physical layer inherent to the DSL. That was my point. In that case, Ethernet is more appropriately called layer 2.

also ethernet packets are not resent because they arrive out of sequence, they are only resent if there is an error, and they are not a voice packet.

Read my post again. I did not say Ethernet packets were resent if they arrive out of sequence. I said IP packets are resent if they arrive out of sequence.

OSI Layers Redux:

Assuming that our technology is still a layer 1 (physical layer) technology, it may be helpful to point out the differences between the different layers.

For our purposes, the most important layers are 1, 2, 3 and 4. Let's start with layers 3 and 4 first. Layer 3, also called the network layer, is responsible for determining the route that data will take on a network. Sort of the traffic cop of data. It chooses the best path based on distance and delay. An example of a layer 3 technology is Internet Protocol (IP). We are all using IP right now.

However, IP is responsible only for routing the data. It has no idea if the data actually got there. That is the responsibility of the layer 4, or the transport layer. The transport layer essentially ensures that the data are received properly. It usually does this by assigning a sequential number to a data packet. If a packet arrives at the other end out of sequence, the error is detected and the packet resent. A common type of transport layer is Transport Control Protocol (TCP) and is commonly used with IP as a layer 3. The combination of these two layers is TCP/IP.

So, these two layers (3&4) basically rout your messages and make sure that they get to their destination.

Now, let's look at layer 1 and 2. When I post a message here and click submit, my typing is sent to my network interface card (NIC) by layer 3 (network layer) handled by my software. My NIC then uses a layer 2 (data link layer) to send the signal to the cable modem. In my case, the NIC is an Ethernet card thus Ethernet is the layer 2 protocol used. Layer 2 (Ethernet in this case) is responsible for compiling groups of bits into groups (frames) and adding error control bits to the front and back of the frame. These error control bits do such things as tell the receiving Ethernet device how many bits should be present. If the bits do not add up, the frame is resent.

This probably sounds similar to the responsibilities of the transport layer (layer 4). The idea is similar, and a simplified comparison is that they do sort of the same function, but with different sizes of data chunks.

OK. My NIC has now sent a signal to my cable modem. The cable modem must pass this signal on to the router at the cable company's office. However, it has to figure out a way to take a digital signal from the NIC, transform the signal into an analog waveform (here is your waveform generator, porscha) and send it down the cable wire. Then the receiving unit at the other end must take that analog signal, and reform it into a digital signal. The process of placing the signal on the wire is called MOdulation and the process of taking it off of the other end is called DEModulation. Thus the term MO-DEM. This process of taking a digital layer 2/3/4 signal and placing it on a different physical medium is called the physical layer, or layer 1.

OK. So why am I saying all of this? Well there seems to be some coonfusion about who might be the competition out there. A recent post of an Allied Telesyn PR was touting the speeds and distances of their technology. If you read the PR carefully, you will see that it is an Ethernet technology that has been developed, which is layer 2. I found no reference to a physical layer technology. It would seem that they have developed a layer 2 technology that increases the efficiency of ordinary ADSL.

ADSL is a conglomerate term for a number of different layer 1 technologies (plus other stuff). This type of technology could benefit greatly from a better DSL, and as such, each of these companies would potentially fall into the catagory of Cooper's "suppliers" that he referred to in his SHM address. If you were to crack open one of the Allied Telesyn products, you would find likely a chipset produced by Infineon, Alcatel, AMD, Broadcom, etc. Those chipsets are the target for NVEI. The more competitive this type of market becomes, the more successful an edge like the NVEI technology would make a company. More successful companies like Allied Telesyn is a good thing.

If you see a reference to companies that do fiber or wireless as potential competition, I suggest that you simply ignore the poster. They are uninformed. While fiber and wireless do have some niche "last mile" applications, they are not in the same ballpark. One of the main reasons for the "last mile" dilemma is that fiber is far too expensive to run to everyone's door. Wireless is developing nicely, with recent advances that allow non-line-of-site (NLOS) service at good data rates. However, this technology requires a significant physical plant investment on the part of the ISP or Telco. Those guys would *much* rather find an inexpensive way to use existing hardware.

For some more good info on OSI layers, see:

http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/usail/network/nfs/network_layers.html
http://www.rad.com/networks/1994/osi/layers.htm

austin01: August is a good month too.

Blue Crush opens this week. It would be nice to see our release coincide. While I recognize that we want the best distribution deal possible, our bargaining position must be seriously eroding as the summer draws to a close. IMO, *any* deal right now would be better than nothing.

"beggars can't be choosers".

miler: Re: Maybe they should hire someone to relay the message!!


NO! NOT ANOTHER PR COMPANY!!!!


Sorry. I coudn't keep that in. One of my biggest gripes is the seemingly endless parade of PR companies that we have seen.

OT: Jared: Interesting. BTW, how do you find out a user number? That could come in handy. I have been browsing the new features. This place is much more cozy than RB.



Carpe Fermentum :)
Tim

PB: I didn't know it was that easy. Why didn't you say something sooner? :)

WooHoo! I'm back. Thanks, Jared.

Now, how do you suppose that happened? Looks like IHUB has an IGONRE feature after all.

milerman: It was real.

Actually, the testing in still taking place, and it is using a *real* device on a *real* telco network.

On a separate note, I wish that NVEI would use the term "prptotype" instead of "simulation". It would certainly cause fewer misunderstandings.

OK. Now I am scared.... I think that it is a vast right-wing conspiracy.

It's bizarre! I cannot see *any* of my posts. Does IHUB even have an IGNORE feature?

OK, now I am really freaked out. None of my posts are showing up. Does anyone else see them? Greg, did I do something wrong?

Missing Post....

I posted something a few minutes ago (post # 5058) that I can no longer see. I know that it was here for a while because poorboy even responded to it. Was it deleted? If so, why?

427Cobra: Re: FPGA Product

Unlikely, in my opinion. According to Ketch's presentation, he said:

"This new science is encapsulated in the ASICs that we will sell to what we have termed the “platform providers”. New Visual will also create reference designs so that our partners can use our chips to get to market quickly."

FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) are relatively expensive devices that are pretty much mostly used in device modeling. They are usually pre-production devices and are essentially what the name says - arrays of logic gates that can be programmed. In essence, they allow the modeling of what you want a chip to do, while leaving you the flexibility of easily reprogramming new logic. They are usually too expensive to be cost-effective for a mass production unit. In general, the breakeven point is somewhere around 5000 units. I hope we plan to produce much more than that. Here is how I see the development process:

1) Model the technology completely in a computer environment. No hardware at all. There are many workstation applications that allow you to do this. Once you have a design that you feel is a good one, go to step 2.

2) Develop a programmable prototype using off-the-shelf development hardware and software. This is typically done with programmable logic devices like FPGAs or CPLDs (Complex Programmable Logic Device). Once the prototype is done, go to step 3.

3) Test the prototype in a laboratory environment using line-simulation software and hardware. These simulations model the behavior or real-world lines. There are many such tools available. When the testing is being done, you can reprogram the FPGAs on the fly to address bugs, etc. When you are satisfied with the laboratory testing, go to step 4.

4) Test the prototype on an actual service loop. This is where the rubber meets the road. If the prototype works here, the final product will work as well. If the process is done correctly, the final product will do *exactly* what the FPGA prototype did. <-------- YOU ARE HERE

6) Once you are satisfied with the the prototype in the field tests, you fab an ASIC. This is a relatively simple process (though deceptively complex). You simply take the FPGA code to an ASIC Foundry like TI, LSI or Atmel (there are hundreds of ASIC Foundries) and they can rather quickly map the FPGA code to an ASIC design. How quickly depends on the complexity of the code, but it can be done in a few weeks to a couple of months. (Cheap, Fast, Good - pick and two - applies here)

Though it is possible that we could go into limited initial production with an FPGA product, my guess is that we will quickly move to an ASIC for volume production.

hitimer: Re: White Paper

Maybe. But it was the previous administration that promised a "white paper" late last year, that never materialized. I have no idea if Cooper intends to produce such a thing or not.

I must keep reminding myself that Cooper is a consummate businessman and he will do what is best for the business even if it is not in the near-term best interest of the shareholders. So, although we as shareholders would like to have some technical details such as speeds and distances, I doubt that we will see such details unless Cooper determines that there is a net benefit for the growth of the company. I can see no real benefit other than a possible rise in share price thereby making funding (dilution) more palatable. Not really much of a benefit.

So, as much as I would like to see the details, both from the perspective of a shareholder and a scientist, I am not holding my breath.

If I had to guess, I would agree with NorthernTrader in that we will not likely see any details until we have ASIC first-silicon. Of course, if Cooper sticks to his schedule, by my timeline reckoning, we must have first-silicon by the beginning of the year at the latest in order to realize meaningful revenues by May next year. So, my guess is that we get some kind of "white paper" by the end of the year.

However, it could take much less than a "white paper" to move the share price. Any PR that mentions a Telco or manufacturer by name will send this thing off to the races. An announcement of a funding package couldn't hurt either.

A more sleazy approach is also possible. Rather than releasing technical details, we could see something like "Field trials demonstrate NVEI technology is up to 10 times faster than existing copper wire technology". I say that is sleazy because it tells you very little with qualifiers like "up to". I hope we do not go that route. I would rather wait for the real poop.

NT: Here is my take.

NVEI will release details about the technology only when they are ready to begin marketing a product. The way I see it, there is no benefit to releasing any technical details until then (other than satisfying shareholder curiosity). Any release of details before a marketable product is ready would give the competition an advantage.

The release of information about the technology should rightly be for the purposes of letting potential customers know what NVEI can do. Not what they think they can do, not what they hope they can do, but what the actually *can* do.

Speaking of buyouts....

Can anyone tell me when the poison pill provision expires? I believe that it is sometime next year, but I cannot seem to find it. TIA

excel: That could be.

As I understand it, the FPGA prototype can be configured in a number of ways, depending on the application. I believe that we are testing the prototype in these different configurations. I am not so sure that the different configurations are necessarily telco/manufacturer specs. Instead, I think that they are more likely network protocol specs.

The only concrete affiliation that we can assume is that NVEI is working closely with at least one carrier - the one whose loop we are testing on.

johnnygb: I disagree

Cooper, in the SHM address, stated:

"Our most significant advantage in entering this market is the fact that we are building products for markets, carriers, (like Verizon or SBC) and suppliers (like Lucent, Alcatel or NEC) who already exist."

I am fairly certain that "system partners" means the suppliers mentioned above (like Lucent, Alcatel or NEC).

Cooper seems to tend to use the term "partners" in the context of potential customers. An example of this is when he said:

"AS further evidence of the success of our development program, we will begin actual field simulations of our technology this month with our first telephone company partner."

excel: I take "system partners" to mean equipment manufacturers. Clearly "carrier" refers to a Telco, that is, a company who owns or leases the copper. The system partners, in my opinion, are the companies that manufacture the equipment attached to either end of the copper.

crozet: "Realistically this "could" take 1-3 more years."

Possibly. However, Cooper's 12 month timeline (now about 10 months) included:

4. Begin volume production and deliveries
5. Recognize meaningful revenues from these sales

Once meaningful revenues are recognized, the analysts will have a means of valuation and projecting growth. This should happen when the first revenues are realized, i.e. less than a year.

However, I think that speculative interest will increase dramatically long before then. The pivotal event, in my opinion, will be when a PR announces that NVEI has successfully completed carrier trials, and the carrier is named.

jeff_p: "The real money that will move this stock will wait for the completed picture."

Agreed. Big investors (primarily institutions) will be looking for a more concrete means of valuation. Meaning, some numerical expectations of revenue and earnings growth. We obviously will not have that until we have a complete, marketable product, or some licensing agreement.

Even then, we will not see much institutional interest until we get listed on the NASDAQ. Until then, it will be the speculators who will need to drive the price above $4 and provide the momentum to be able to reasonably expect it to stay above $4 long enough to qualify for NASDAQ SC listing.

jeff_p: Re: "Spoke, how can you say this?"

Well, I don't want to beat an old cliche to death, but I say this because I have "connected the dots". Here is my logic. In order to understand what "meets expectations" means, we must clearly understand the "expectations". I think that Ketch made that abundantly clear with the statement:

"The technology’s wideband approach combined with its elegant and innovative characterization of noise, affords the ability to provide faster speeds out to greater distances than any other known solution."

This is further supported by:

"You will begin to hear more about our unique Multi-Wide Band carrier which uses a small number of bands to reach further and faster than other carriers."

and:

"With New Visual, the existing copper can support data speeds that are faster, and over longer distances than before."

To me, that expectation is clear. Faster speeds at greater distance than any other known solution.

Now, I realize that these are general terms, and there is no mention of Mbps, feet, BER, QoS objectives or other measureable metrics. I, frankly, did not expect to see actual objective data until we have "first silicon". That is the way semiconductor manufacturing works. But if the expectation is performance better than any other known technology, and the first round of testing met this expectation under real-world conditions, I cannot help but be satisfied with the progress.

I think that the stock price reflects the general investor apathy toward any telecommunications stock.

Brady: I would add that the actual goal that Cooper set was to have significant revenues by the end of 12, or now 10, months.