Replies to post #19181 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[wampuscat]

stitch_surfs,

No you don't get it. If you really believe that the ASNAP technology is obsolete then you really do need to get a wake up call.

...

Question: Have you read Calypso's White Paper discussing their ASNAP technology? If you have I think you need to read it again, if you haven't, read it.

I don't think you could explain the technical architecture and overall platform solution of the ASNAP technology accurately to anybody. Remember, for converging technology solutions there are several high level functional components. The first is where the handset seeks out and connects to either a cellular or wifi access point. The others involve the backend routing of calls, traffic, verification, etc. etc. From reading your post I am not sure you have the concept down. Engineers and managers from other companies who are a lot smarter than you like what they see with the ASNAP technology so far.

Also, if the ASNAP technology is obsolete you probably need to call Cisco and Servinova and tell them that. I am sure once they found this out from you that they would immediately lose interest in their effort to verify that ASNAP does work with their Cisco Aironet Wifi Access Points.

...

Question: Does anyone really believe that Cisco and Servinova would be wasting their time with Calypso and ASNAP if they thought it was obsolete?

Answer: Of course not. Companies like this see a way to increase their hardware sales by utilizing this technology. I am sure they are doing the same type of testing with the UMA technology.

...

You seem to get lost in a bunch of mumbo jumbo about analysts, various technologies, etc., and the belief that UMA is the only answer. If you made a better argument, you might could establish some credibility.

...

I'm glad to hear that manufacturers are testing the UMA technology on their networks. I'm also glad to report that Calypso's end user customers are testing Calypso's ASNAP technology on their networks!! Maybe you missed this.

...

It is all about revenue and market demand and being positioned to take advantage of the opportunity. Kineto is there and so is Calypso.

Almost everyone here on this board is here to try and make money off of there investment. The market play is a product offering in the emerging Cellular/WIFI converging solutions market. UMA is not going to get 100% of this market. Neither will ASNAP, or anybody else's solution whenever it comes to market.

Calypso has the products and the technology to successfully compete in this market and gain a market share that will result in an EPS level that will result in a higher PPS. In point of fact Calypso offers a more comprehensive, and IMO, enterprise level cost effective solution than anybody else because they offer a total convergence solutions package.

Calypso also has the patent that covers convergence. Kineto Wireless does not. What this means is that there is a good chance that Kineto, and other companies, will be paying royalties to Calypso for many years to come. All of this will have to go to court to be figured out once and for all. But, again, patent law is there to encourage innovation by protecting the rights and work of those who take chances and risk their capital by the required R&D effort and years of development. Patents and the legal protection they provide should not be taken lightly by anyone, nor dismissed as being insignificant.

It is all all about revenue dollars and margins. Major sources of revenue for Calypso Wireless as I see it are the following:

Cellular/WIFI Phones
ASNAP enterprise installation
Licensing of ASNAP technology
Royalties from the patent
Others

Bottom line: The convergence market is large and its here, Calypso is a first entry player, and they are in position.

Regards,

wampuscat

[johnnym]

Really it is in the wording of the patent. ASNAP seems to be an intelectual property, rather then a real technology. So I guess they sue over the concept and the use of the methodology involed in switching from 802.xxx to cellular protocols.

[plaintif2000]

there are different kinds of anaylsts. Frost and Sullivan is
a specialty information service, though they may look at
fundamentals (earnings, cash-flow, balance sheet), they are
more concerned w/ whats out there, the problems the solutions
and where the market may be going. CLYW has the solution for
when telco turns on its customers and makes them pay...

though im clearly overstating carriers long-term goals the
fact is eventualy nothing is for free. Skype, then Skype
premium. Now they are owned by ebay. As for being obsolete
well i realy have to question either your intellegence or your
motives because its clear that revenue sharing is ahead of its
time--but not so much so that we cant profit from it.

The explosive demand for bandwith will de-commoditize the
current excess in dark fiber. Streaming video everywhere?

you see all the new services will be bandwith intensive and
they will catch on, and more quickly than any other technology
and because handsets are always on they will always be
uploading and downloading. PC anywhere will become handset
everywhere. Its not just a matter of convenience its also a
matter of national security (i could state numerous reasons)

Revenue sharing has long been used by operators in terms of
promotions etc. to say that they will not want it because
they will make less money is an out and out lie. sprint etc.
has been giving customers free minutes for bringing on other
customers etc. Sharing broadband access is the natural
progression. UMA w/ revenue sharing = ASNAP, and hence
infringment. the problem with bashers on the board is they
both have an agenda, and they beleive future trends only if
they are sufficently brought into the mainstream.

ASNAP is ahead of the curve, its a fact for anyone who has
cared to think about it enough, a technology that

1.)saves money
2.)shares money
3.)brings better services

is poised for future growth. its that simple.

your track record is becomming very poor as far as clyw board
is concerned, if you contiune to harass the company after a
purchase order i will start reading your blogs, posting key
search terms here in association w/ your track record...ppl
will search for you and find themselves here and then they
will see what u r all about and your blog traffic will drop
significantly...and of couse your sweet revenue sharing w/
the goog will also suffer

fair is fair, thats the corner you are painting yourself into
because of your high profile you stand the most to suffer when
clyw comes throgh...

Face it uma is to skype as ASNAP is to skype premium, its
because of the features in skype premium that EBAY made
the multi-billion dollar aqusition

the guy i talked to in dc that worked for a major brokerage
stated that he had heard of clyw, and he was not an analyst
but a financial consultant. but he knew only of the concern
that the company had last year regarding raising cash. i was
actualy suprised when he knew of the company since he did not
specialize in telco...but the guy knew me because we went to
the same HS and Berkeley.

Those guys that you talked to dont know you from adam as they
say, blog or no blog, being a traditional analyst puts one
into a position of responsibility. In a company most of the
time worth less thatn 1/5 of a billion dollars you cannot
get a traditional analyst to do DD unless you pay them, thats
a simple FACT.

Again back to your so called seamless handloff claim well if
that handoff does the following

1. violates the clyw patent
and
2. causes financial loss to clyw

they WILL BE SUED...

unlike the misery that rambus has had to endure. CLYW's
situation will be much easier...no one will be able to claim
that CLYW tried to trick any of the companies, nor will the
companies be able to claim ignorance. I will not go so far as
to say CLYW will be able to prove collusion or conspiracy
which would vastly multiply the dollar value of an infringment
claim. But even without that, a claim victory or even a
settlement would be min in the range of a 500,000,000 dollars
--my guestimation based on the kinds of settelments that ive
seen over the past couple of years

Latin america and Europe are in intense competition w/ north
america, going w/ CLYW, a company w/ a US patent but thus far
not PUBLICALLY acknowledged by many US operators has a special
cashet--it goes against mainstream shananagans...

as for off brand, Aironet is an OFF-Brand? you've already been
nailed on this one...

i look forward, as im sure many other posters here at ihub do,
to the day when you will be afraid to show your face on the
CLYW board...

[Billcoln]

Thanks again for being the voice of reason.