C/O MNM Feb 4th repost4 Mar 2020 10:41
I don't know how many of you remember me. Last post must've been 5 years ago.
Cyan (back then it was not CC) was projected as the World Leader with xxxx solution expecting millions of order with TNEB. I had cautioned about the expected outcome with what I had heard within my circle (connected to metering and smart metering in India). I was the target of most of you (who seem to be on the opposite side now!). Where's sage? and there was a lady too. Consistency is observed only with LTI. I don't remember tonyj. Vas, BST, 1967 etc etc were on the same side of LTI?. Received enough booing back then. Was the SP around 40p back then?
The xxxx solution was proprietary and my posts were mostly about the 'standardisation and interoperability' which was the expectation in India. And Cyan bought Connode to get the 6LoWPAN as the technology (which was one of the standards in Sub-GHz mesh protocol). Good.
Now the topics seem to be around yyyy (omnimesh?), whatever it is, which is expected to be high-tech, 'Low cost' solution. And the only such solution in the world without any competition? Hahaha!
Although 'DYOR' is repeated numerous times here, the real 'R' is missing in all the posts. In India, 6LoWPAN solution is being adopted by MSEDCL (Mahavitaran or Maharashtra Electricity Board) for years now. And so far there could be more than 5 million meters with 6LoWPAN RF mesh technology in Sub-Gz frequency consumed by them. They have doing it for years now (you may have missed it as the same is not termed as 'smart meter' by them). Question is why CC is not involved in it? My sources tell me, 'either the technology is incomplete by CC or the solution is expensive (the single phase energy meter with 6LoWPAN bought by them is ~ $11, whereas the RF solution of CC costs more than it without the energy meter'. It leads to another doubt, how many of the utilities remain with CC, if the cost remains so high when other lowest cost equally competent options are available.
These are not connected to EESL. Closed door, round/rectangle table or not, EESL is expected to move on with cellular technology and the hype created here to switch to LPRF seems to be unrealistic.
Anyways, good to be back here after so long. Pity the investors though. See you again in few more years.
Only consistency I see is flurry of RNSs on low volume contracts (no guarantee on cancellation), LoIs, change of board of directors, auditors, etc etc.. just before the placement.
'NLN' (That's how every message used to end in those days). Of course, DYOR (now). Unlike yesteryears, I don't track this segment or CC regularly anymore.
Goodluck.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
