>Well H, is this actually the real deal?
Bob, I know a lot about computer networks, but I do not claim (and have never claimed) to understand or predict the sudden and rapid movements of share prices. I do not know whether it will hit a dollar or go back to 2c. I am not a holder so I do not particularly care.
I will point out, however, that we have seen this before with this very stock (under a different name of course). It gets mentioned in a paper, brokers start to talk about it, hot air is generated and the price rises. The rising pattern is spotted, new people take an interest in the momentum and turn up in this HC forum and elsewhere to investigate, then they buy in not wanting to miss the wave. Penny shares can spiral upwards almost as easily as they go down because it does not take a lot of capital to make them move. It is all vague and unpredictable and I do not know what it will do next, and nor, despite their claims, do the people who are bullish on the stock.
What I do know is that nothing fundamental has changed. That is not just my opinion. The ASX made NET issue an urgent statement confirming that nothing has changed. Consider that for a moment: the company itself has confirmed, in writing, in public, that there is no reason for this sudden upwards move in the share price. Anyone telling you that a deal is pending, or sales are about to rocket, or anything else, is uninformed. The price is moving because of share price momentum and the activities of speculative investors, not because anything fundamental has changed in the company. Just like the IWG days.
I will remind you of something else obvious: company valuations (and hence share prices) do tend to find their level based on what those companies achieve. NET has achieved nothing. No one has ever wanted to buy their product, and the only way they have found to shift it is to bundle it along with other things people do want. 1.7c was a generous valuation based on sales, money earned, and the other meaningful fundamentals. Current share price levels are baseless. My wife earns more than NET.
I do not dispute that the current NET strategy is clever one. VPN is banned (or heavily controlled) in China and the telecoms companies need an alternative solution. VIN is an alternative to VPN, so in theory there is a market there. The problem is, and has always been, that the technical approach it uses works on reliable networks as found in labs, clouds and corporations, but is unsuitable for the open internet. I can bore you with the technical details of why if you like.
As I have pointed out before, VIN is just a commercial implementation of the free software known as GNU Virtual Private Ethernet (GVPE). The homepage is here:
http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/gvpe.html
Read the blurb at that webpage and see if it rings any bells. Virtual ethernet? Encrypted host to host tunnels? Multiple end points? Single config file? It is the same thing. Under the covers it works in the exact same way (although GPVE is more flexible). Like others, I am eager to see the results of the technology value assessment which was promised some time ago. Unlike others, I am not surprised they are not releasing it.
The main reason you have never heard of GVPE is that except in specific situations it does not work very well and hardly anyone uses it. It is easy to demonstrate it working in a lab, and skilled network engineers can make it work by analysing the vagaries of a particular network and tuning the technology to make it match, but it is not a standard solution for open internet communications.
That is why I was so sure IWG would fail. VPN is reliable, ubiquitous, and supported for free by all computer and network device manufacturers. In the free markets of the west people will choose the best product to meet their needs. No one can expect to dislodge a technology like VPN with something that is not as good as VPN. No amount of glossy brochures was ever going to change the bare facts. And, of course, I was absolutely right.
The great unknown with NET is the Chinese state and their desire to separate their subjects from the anonymity successfully provided by VPN. With that driving force behind VIN, maybe it can be made into something which is good enough. It will never be a realistic competitor for VPN on a technical level, but under an authoritarian regime it might be forced into place if people and corporations are given no choice. Personally, I still would not bet on it.
(20min delay)