Rim Semiconductor updates

[Stoppmann]

Originally Posted by jjz34

I guess it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other as we don't even know who Kenneth Chan is. The person could have said William Gates or any other name, it makes no difference. I can take 3 guesses who did it and that he probably got a big chuckle as the person pats himself on the back for being so darn funny and clever!!! Imagine that!! Somebody impersonating someone else on a blog! Just out of this world hysterical and genius like! OK, sarcasm aside, I agree with the person's point, Rim can settle all of this.

They would if they could. It hasn't happenend yet. The "yet" is what keeps us all here.

[doughjo]

Correction: Rim Semiconductor
Ed Gubbins February 17th, 2008
In my initial report on Rim Semiconductor, I wrote that Embarq was one of the few publicly named members of the IPSL SIG–the group convened by Rim to develop industry standards for its IP Subscriber Line technology. In fact, Embarq is not now and has never been a member of IPSL SIG. Rather, Embarq hosted the group’s first meeting last April, but a spokesman for the carrier assures me that their only contribution was the locale–Embarq’s Technology Center. The telco has not participated in the group’s standardization efforts, though Embarq has evaulated Rim’s gear and is “keeping an eye on the technology,” the spokesman said.

[jjz34]

Wonderful! Keeping an eye... What the heck is that??

[destiny1]

SEC Form 4 FORM 4UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP

Filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 17(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or Section 30(h) of the Investment Company Act of 1940OMB APPROVALOMB Number:3235-0287Expires:February 28, 2011Estimated average burdenhours per response0.5 Check this box if no longer subject to Section 16. Form 4 or Form 5 obligations may continue. See Instruction 1(b).1. Name and Address of Reporting Person* Swope Will (Last)(First)(Middle)305 N.E. 102ND AVENUE, SUITE 105(Street) PORTLAND,OR97220(City)(State)(Zip)2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol
Rim Semiconductor CO [ RSMI ] 5. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer
(Check all applicable) XDirector10% OwnerOfficer (give title below)Other (specify below)3. Date of Earliest Transaction (Month/Day/Year)
01/03/20084. If Amendment, Date of Original Filed (Month/Day/Year)
6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line) XForm filed by One Reporting PersonForm filed by More than One Reporting PersonTable I - Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned 1. Title of Security (Instr. 3) 2. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year) 2A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year) 3. Transaction Code (Instr. 8) 4. Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed Of (D) (Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4) 6. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 7. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4) CodeVAmount(A) or (D)PriceTable II - Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
(e.g., puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities) 1. Title of Derivative Security (Instr. 3) 2. Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security 3. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year) 3A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year) 4. Transaction Code (Instr. 8) 5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D) (Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 6. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date (Month/Day/Year) 7. Title and Amount of Securities Underlying Derivative Security (Instr. 3 and 4) 8. Price of Derivative Security (Instr. 5) 9. Number of derivative Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 4) 10. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 11. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4) CodeV(A)(D)Date ExercisableExpiration DateTitleAmount or Number of SharesNon-Qualified Stock Option (right bo biy)$0.03101/03/2008A1( 1 ) 01/03/2018Common Stock2,000,000( 2 ) 1D

[doughjo]

Originally Posted by jjz34

Wonderful! Keeping an eye... What the heck is that??

427 post from another board.


I don't know what will happen with Embarq but I have had correspondence recently from an Embarq manager that says Rim is on the list for field trials this year.

[destiny1]

There has been considerable media hype of late concerning pair-bonded VDSL 2 lines as the method of choice for increasing signal speed and distance over copper.

AT&T and several others have extolled its virtues. Though slated to be deployed in early 2007, AT&T recently announced that deployment has now been postponed to late 2008. The bottom line is there continues to be issues with picture quality.

Rim Semi on the other hand has stated on many occasions that pixilation and noise/crosstalk concerns with pair-bonding continue to inhibit picture quality. And even if these issues are solved, CupriaTM chipsets can also be deployed on pair-bonded lines increasing speed and distance even further without risking service quality.

Here is a copy of a recent study speaking to this very issue. The bottom line: Unless the picture quality is at least equal to the cable offering, little else matters.

http://qoe.symmetricom.com/pdf/WP_07VQStdy_021308.pdf

D1

[Stoppmann]

Anyone care to guess why there are delays in producing the ASSP? What is holding them up? RSMI has conducted field trials, and the company has publicly stated that their chip is far superior than their competitors based on these trials.

Yet we hear from the telcos, through articles, that will ultimately purchase this technology that they are "keeping their eye on it" or "it's still in the breadbox stage". Based on these statements, it appears that the telcos like what they see but the technology has to be further developed before these telcos make the committment to purchase.

So what is holding up the party? Is it pricing? Is it compatibility issues? Which facet of the technology has to be improved? Perhaps the speed of the technology is superior but the technology has to be tweaked for a better end-user experience for IPTV? Hence the purchase of the algorithm from UTEK. Perhaps the telcos are relunctant to base their system on the IPSL technology. Perhaps the technology doesn't need improving but the telcos need additional time evaluate how much it will cost to upgrade their system? Does anyone know or care to guess?

[HopefulOne]

Why not send those questions to Brad and see how he answers?

H.1.

[destiny1]

More indication Embarq is moving toward focus on the VOD marketplace. Of course, this is where CupriaTM chipsets sit.

http://www.telecommagazine.com/newsg...?HH_ID=AR_3975
D1

[Stoppmann]

Originally Posted by HopefulOne

Why not send those questions to Brad and see how he answers?

H.1.

That is an excellent idea and I will. But in the past when I've emailed Brad about specific topics like this, I've gotten no response.