SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-Q

[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED June 30, 2004
OR

[_] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM _______________ TO _______________.

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

4988 GREAT AMERICA PARKWAY
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95054
(408) 235-5500
(ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE, OF
THE REGISTRANT’S PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [_]

     Indication by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated file (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes [X] No [_]

     As of July 20, 2004 registrant had outstanding 75,562,071 shares of Common Stock.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE ON FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

     This Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: statements related to industry trends and future growth in the markets for cable modem systems; our strategies for reducing the cost of our products; our product development efforts; the effect of GAAP accounting pronouncements on our recognition of revenues; our future research and development; the timing of our introduction of new products; the timing and extent of deployment of our products by our customers; and future profitability. We usually use words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “future,” “intend,” or “certain” or the negative of these terms or similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Discussions containing such forward-looking statements may be found throughout the document. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. We disclaim any obligation to update these forward-looking statements as a result of subsequent events. The business risks discussed in Part 1, Item 2 of this Report on Form 10-Q, among other things, should be considered in evaluating our prospects and future financial performance.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
INDEX TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

2

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands)

See accompanying notes.

3

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(in thousands, except per share data)
(unaudited)

See accompanying notes.

4

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(in thousands)
(unaudited)

See accompanying notes.

5

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)

1. Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Description of Business

     Terayon Communication Systems, Inc., or the Company, was incorporated under the laws of the State of California on January 20, 1993. In July 1998, the Company reincorporated in the State of Delaware.

     The Company develops, markets and sells equipment to broadband service providers who use the Company’s products to deliver broadband voice, video and data services to residential and business subscribers.

Basis of Presentation

     The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States for interim financial information and in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements at June 30, 2004 and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 have been included.

     Results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 are not necessarily indicative of results for the entire fiscal year or future periods. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes included in the Company’s Form 10-K dated March 15, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The accompanying balance sheet at December 31, 2003 is derived from audited consolidated financial statements at that date.

Reclassifications

     Certain amounts in the 2003 financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the 2004 presentation.

Basis of Consolidation

     The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.

Use of Estimates

     The preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Estimates are based on historical experience, input from sources outside of the Company, and other relevant facts and circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Areas that are particularly significant include the Company’s valuation of its accounts receivable and inventory reserves, the assessment of recoverability and the measurement of impairment of fixed assets, and the recognition of warranty and restructuring reserves.

6

Stock-Based Compensation

     The Company accounts for stock-based compensation for its employees using the intrinsic value method presented in Accounting Principles Board, or APB, Statement No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” (APB No. 25), and includes the disclosure-only provisions as required under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation” (SFAS No. 123). The Company provides additional pro forma disclosures as required under SFAS No. 123 and SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, Transition and Disclosure”.

     For purposes of pro forma disclosures, the estimated fair value of the options granted and employee stock purchase plan shares to be issued is amortized to expense over their respective vesting periods. Had compensation cost for the Company’s stock-based compensation plans been determined based on the fair value at the grant dates for awards under those plans consistent with the method of SFAS No. 123, the Company’s net loss applicable to common stockholders and net loss per share applicable to common stockholders would have been increased to the pro forma amounts indicated below (in thousands, except per share data):

Inventory

     Inventory is stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market. The components of inventory are as follows (in thousands):

Purchase Obligations

     The Company has purchase obligations to certain of its suppliers that support the Company’s ability to manufacture its products. The obligations consist of purchase orders placed with vendors for

7

goods and services and require the Company to purchase minimum quantities of the suppliers’ products at a specified price. As of June 30, 2004, $27.0 million of purchase obligations were outstanding. The Company accrues for vendor cancellation charges in amounts, which represent management’s estimate of the Company’s exposure to vendors for its inventory commitments. At June 30, 2004, accrued vendor cancellation charges were $0.7 million and the remaining $26.3 million was attributable to open purchase orders in the normal course of business. The remaining obligations are expected to become payable at various times throughout 2004.

     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, the Company reversed approximately $0.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively of accrued vendor cancellation charges, which were previously recorded as cost of goods sold. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, the Company reversed approximately $2.1 million and $4.4 million, respectively of accrued vendor cancellation charges. The Company reversed these charges as it was able to negotiate downward certain vendor cancellation to more favorable terms. Additionally, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, the Company reversed approximately $0.3 million and $0.8 million, respectively, of inventory provisions, which were previously recorded as cost of goods sold. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, the Company reversed approximately $1.0 million and $1.7 million, respectively of inventory provisions. The Company reversed these provisions as it was able to sell inventory originally considered to be excess or obsolete.

Net Loss Per Share

     A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator of basic and diluted net loss per share is provided as follows (in thousands, except per share amounts):

     Options and warrants to purchase 15,836,009 and 17,394,492 shares of common stock were outstanding at June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per share, since the effect would have been antidilutive.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

     Accumulated other comprehensive loss presented in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets consist of net unrealized gains or losses on short-term investments and accumulated net foreign currency translation gains or losses.

The following are the components of comprehensive loss (in thousands):

8

Impact of Recently Issued Accounting Standards

     In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB Interpretation No. 46 (FIN No. 46), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of ARB No. 51”. FIN No. 46 requires existing unconsolidated variable interest entities to be consolidated by their primary beneficiaries if the entities do not effectively disperse risks among parties involved. Variable interest entities that effectively disperse risk will not be consolidated unless a single party holds an interest or combination of interests that effectively recombines risks that were previously dispersed. FIN No. 46 also requires enhanced disclosure requirements related to variable interest entities. FIN No. 46 was revised in December 2003 and is effective for the first financial reporting period ending after March 15, 2004. The Company adopted the provisions of FIN No. 46 for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2004, and the adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

     In March 2004, the FASB issued an exposure draft of a proposed standard that, if adopted, will significantly change the accounting for employee stock options and other equity-based compensation. The proposed standard would require companies to expense the fair value of stock options on the grant date and would be effective at the beginning of the Company’s 2005 fiscal year. The Company will evaluate the requirements of the final standard, which is expected to be finalized in late 2004, to determine its impact on the Company’s results of operations.

2. Contingencies

     Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits in federal court against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Later that year, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court, Northern District of California as In re Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Court then appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint. In 2001, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new complaint. In 2002, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint, which, like the earlier complaints, alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding the Company’s technology. On February 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000.

     On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants’ motion to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the definition of the plaintiff class. On September 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties’ summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003, the Court issued another order staying all discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date, which had been November 4, 2003.

     On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying two of the lead plaintiffs. The order also states that plaintiffs’ counsel must provide certain information to the Court about counsel’s relationship with the disqualified lead plaintiffs, and it provides that defendants may serve certain additional discovery. On March 24, 2004, plaintiffs submitted certain documents to the Court in response to its order, and, on April 16, 2004, the Company responded to this submission. The Company also has initiated discovery pursuant to the Court’s February 23, 2004 order.

     On October 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and the individual defendants (Zaki Rakib, Selim Rakib and Raymond Fritz) in the California Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County. This

9

lawsuit is titled Bertram v. Terayon Communications Systems, Inc. The factual allegations in the Bertram complaint were similar to those in the federal class action, but the Bertram complaint sought remedies under state law. Defendants removed the Bertram case to the United States District Court, Central District of California, which dismissed the complaint and transferred the case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. That Court eventually issued an order dismissing the case. Plaintiffs have appealed this order, and their appeal was heard on April 16, 2004. On June 9, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order dismissing the Bertram case.

     The Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming dismissal of the Bertram case does not end the class action, and the plaintiffs in the Bertram case may still seek review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Company believes that the allegations in both the class action and the Bertram case are without merit, and the Company intends to contest these matters vigorously. These matters, however, could prove costly and time consuming to defend, and there can be no assurances about the eventual outcome.

     In 2002, two shareholders filed derivative cases purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former directors, officers, and investors. (The defendants differed somewhat in the two cases.) Since the cases were filed, the investor defendants have been dismissed without prejudice, and the lawsuits have been consolidated as Campbell v. Rakib in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. The Company is a nominal defendant in these lawsuits, which allege claims relating to essentially the same purportedly misleading statements that are at issue in the pending securities class action. In the securities class action, the Company disputes making any misleading statements. The derivative complaints also allege claims relating to stock sales by certain of the director and officer defendants.

     The Company believes that there are many defects in the Campbell and O’Brien derivative complaints.

     From time to time, the Company receives letters claiming that the Company’s technology and products may infringe on intellectual property rights of third parties. The Company also has in the past agreed to, and may from time to time in the future agree to, indemnify a customer of its technology or products for claims against the customer by a third party based on claims that the Company’s technology or products infringe intellectual property rights of that third party. These types of claims, meritorious or not, can result in costly and time-consuming litigation; divert management’s attention and other resources; require the Company to enter into royalty arrangements; subject the Company to damages or injunctions restricting the sale of its products, require the Company to indemnify its customers for the use of the allegedly infringing products; require the Company to refund payment of allegedly infringing products to its customers or to forgo future payments; require the Company to redesign certain of its products; or damage the Company’s reputation, any one of which could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

     The Company is currently a party to various other legal proceedings, in addition to those noted above, and may become involved from time to time in other legal proceedings in the future. While the Company currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these other proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or overall results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur in any of our legal proceedings, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations for the period in which the ruling occurs. The estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s financial position and overall results of operations for any of the above legal proceedings could change in the future.

10

3. Operating Segment Information

     The Company operates as one business segment.

(in thousands)

     Two customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (25% and 12%) for the three months ended June 30, 2004. Two customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (23% and 10%) for the six months ended June 30, 2004. Five customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (16%, 13%, 13%, 13%, and 12%) for the three months ended June 30, 2003. Three customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (28%, 11%, and 10%) for the six months ended June 30, 2003.

4. Executive Severance, Restructuring Charges and Asset Write-offs

Executive Severance

     In June 2004, the Company entered into separation agreements with two executive officers. The Company recorded a severance provision of $1.7 million related to termination costs for these officers. Most of the separation costs are expected to be paid in the third quarter of 2004 with nominal amounts for employee benefits paid through the third quarter of 2005.

Restructuring

     First and Second Quarter 2004 Restructurings

     During the first quarter of 2004, the Company approved a restructuring plan. The Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $3.3 million in the first quarter of which $1.0 million related to employee termination costs, $0.9 million related to costs to exit an aircraft lease, and $1.4 million related to costs for excess leased facilities. The Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $1.15 million in the second quarter related to additional costs for excess leased facilities, which were contemplated in the first quarter plan. Net costs accrued under this restructuring plan, included estimated sublease income from the aircraft and the excess leased facilities. As of June 30, 2004, the employment of 58 employees had been terminated, and the Company had paid $0.8 million in termination costs. The amount of net costs accrued under the first quarter 2004 restructuring plan assumes that the Company will successfully sublease the aircraft and excess leased facilities. The reserve for the aircraft lease and excess leased facilities was based on information provided by the Company’s brokers that estimated, based on

11

assumptions relevant to the aircraft and real estate market conditions as of the date of the Company’s plan, the time it would be likely to take until the aircraft and excess facilities would be fully sub-leased. Even though it is the intent of the Company to sublease, assign or sell its interests in the aircraft and excess facilities at the earliest possible time, the Company cannot determine with certainty a fixed date by which such events will occur. In light of this uncertainty, based on estimates, the Company periodically re-evaluates and adjusts the reserve, as necessary. The Company currently anticipates the remaining restructuring accrual related to employee termination costs to be substantially utilized by the end of 2004. The remaining restructuring accrual related to the aircraft lease is expected to be substantially utilized for servicing operating lease payments of operating lease commitments, through January 2007, and the remaining restructuring accrual related to excess leased facilities, is expected to be utilized for servicing operating lease payments through October 2009.

     In the second quarter of 2004, the Company re-evaluated the first quarter 2004 restructuring charge for the aircraft lease termination. Based on market conditions and new assumptions provided by the Company’s broker, the Company increased the charge for the aircraft lease termination by $0.8 million.

     A summary of the first and second quarter 2004 accrued restructuring charges is as follows (in thousands):

     2003 Restructuring

     During the first quarter of 2003, a restructuring plan was approved. The Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $2.7 million related to employee termination costs. All accrued restructuring costs related to the 2003 restructuring had been paid as of December 31, 2003.

     2002 and 2001 Restructurings

     During 2001, a restructuring plan was approved and the Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $12.7 million of which $2.7 million remained accrued at June 30, 2004, for excess leased facilities. During 2002, another restructuring plan was approved, which increased the reserve for excess leased facilities due to the exiting of additional space within the same facility. The Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $3.6 million for the 2002 restructuring of which $1.2 million remained accrued at June 30, 2004 for excess leased facilities. The Company currently anticipates the remaining restructuring accrual relating to excess leased facilities, will be utilized for servicing operating lease payments or negotiating a buyout of operating lease commitments, through 2005.

     The following table summarizes the costs and activities during 2004, related to the 2002 and 2001 restructuring (in thousands):

12

Asset Write-offs

     For the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Company wrote off $0.1 million, of fixed assets, which were determined to have no remaining useful life. For the six months ended June 30, 2003, the Company wrote off $0.5 million of fixed assets, which were determined to have no remaining useful life. The Company did not write-off any fixed assets during the three months ended June 30, 2004 or June 30, 2003.

5. Related Party Transactions

     Lewis Solomon, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors and a member of the Company’s Nominating and Governance Committee and Compensation Committee, is also a member of the Board of Directors of Harmonic, Inc. (Harmonic). Additionally, Harmonic is an authorized, non-exclusive reseller of certain of the Company’s video products. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, related party revenue included $2.6 million and $3.4 million, respectively, of revenue from Harmonic. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, related party revenue included $0.6 million and $1.0 million, respectively, of revenue from Harmonic.

     Alek Krstajic, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, was the Senior Vice President of Interactive Services, Sales and Product Development for Rogers Communications, Inc. (Rogers) until January 2003. Beginning April 1, 2003, the Company no longer recognized revenues related to Rogers as related party revenue because Rogers was no longer considered to be a related party. For the six months ended June 30, 2003, the Company recognized $1.5 million of Rogers’s related party revenue, net of amortization of co-marketing expense.

     In the six months ended June 30, 2004, the Company paid Mr. Krstajic $30,000 for consulting service provided to the Company.

     In December 2001, the Company entered into a co-marketing arrangement with Rogers to promote the Company’s brand and identify its products. The Company paid $0.9 million to Rogers, and recorded this amount as other current assets. In July 2002, the Company began amortizing this prepaid asset and charging it against revenue in accordance with the Emerging Issues Task Force 01-09, “Accounting for Consideration given by a Vendor to a Customer or Reseller in Connection with the Purchase or Promotion of the Vendor’s Products.” Amounts charged against revenues in the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, totaled approximately $1.4 million and $2.8 million, respectively. This asset was fully amortized during 2003.

     Cost of related party revenues in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations consists of direct and indirect costs. Accounts receivable from Harmonic totaled approximately $1.1 million at June 30, 2004. None of the related parties is a supplier to the Company.

6. Sale of Assets

     On April 2, 2004, the Company sold all of its ownership in Radwiz, Ltd., Ultracom Communications Holdings Ltd. and Combox Ltd. to a third party for a cash payment of $150,000. In connection with this disposition, the acquirer received obsolete inventories with no book value, $0.2 million of selected net assets, and assumed $1.35 million of net liabilities related to these subsidiaries. The Company recorded a net gain of $1.3 million on this transaction in the second quarter of 2004, which is included as an element of other income (expense) in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations.

13

7. Product Warranties

     The Company provides for estimated product warranty expenses when it sells the related products. Because warranty estimates are forecasts based on the best available information — mostly historical claims experience — claims costs may differ from amounts provided. An analysis of changes in the liability for product warranties for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2004, is as follows (in thousands):

14

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

     The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

Overview

     We develop, market and sell cable modem termination systems (CMTS), customer premise equipment (CPE) products, including cable modems, and digital video equipment. Our revenues are generated principally from sales of these three major product groups either directly to broadband service providers through direct sales forces primarily in North America, Europe and Asia or indirectly through resellers.

     In 2003, we completed the transition from selling proprietary-based products to selling standards-based products using the Data Over Cable System Interface Specification (DOCSIS) 2.0 specification. Due primarily to the adoption of DOCSIS 2.0, we now generate DOCSIS CMTS and cable modem sales to U.S. cable operators as well as to global customers.

     Our gross margins fluctuate from period to period primarily as a result of the mix of products we sell. Specifically, we derive substantially higher margins from sales of our CMTS and digital video equipment products than we do from sales of our CPE products, which are subject to intense price competition. To date a majority of our total revenues have been generated from sales of our CPE products. We anticipate that the erosion of average selling prices (ASPs) of our CPE products will continue. We also believe that the widespread adoption of industry specifications, such as the DOCSIS specifications, will further erode ASPs. We are working to mitigate pressures on our gross margins by continuing to focus on product manufacturing cost reductions, especially for our CPE products. In the first quarter of 2004, we largely completed our transition to a new original design manufacturer (ODM) in Asia for our CPE products. To the extent that the containment of our product costs do not keep pace with ASP declines, our gross margins will be adversely affected.

     We have not been profitable since our inception. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, we had a net loss of $4.9 million and $15.1 million, respectively. We believe our ability to achieve profitability in the long term will depend primarily on three factors. The first factor is our ability to achieve improved gross margins through an improved sales mix by increasing sales of higher margin digital video and CMTS products relative to the sales of CPE products. To increase sales of digital video products, we are targeting new markets such as the broadcast sector and promoting new applications such as high definition television (HDTV) and digital insertion to cable and satellite operators. To grow the CMTS business, we will attempt to capitalize on our DOCSIS 2.0 expertise and provide application solutions for DOCSIS 2.0 advanced services, including voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and commercial services. To the extent that sales of CPE products continue to comprise a greater proportion of our total revenues, our ability to achieve profitability in the future could be adversely affected. Secondly, we will continue to focus on lowering product costs for our CPE products through our new ODM relationship in Asia and the introduction of our new lower cost semiconductor, which is used in our CPE products. In our CMTS business, we will continue to reduce costs through improved designs, better leveraging of our contract manufacturer supply network, and the reduction of sole source components. Finally, as discussed below, we expect to benefit from a lower expense base resulting in part from restructuring activities in the first and second quarters of 2004 combined with continued focus on cost containment. Beginning in the second quarter of 2004, we anticipate annual savings of approximately $10.0 million derived from restructuring activities. Furthermore, as part of our restructuring efforts to refocus our business, we will continue to divest unprofitable product lines in an effort to focus on growing our business and redirect our resources. However, despite these efforts, we may not succeed in attaining profitability in the near future, if at all.

15

     At June 30, 2004, we had approximately $116.3 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as compared to approximately $138.6 million at December 31, 2003. The decrease in the first half of 2004 primarily resulted from the use of cash for operating activities. Although we believe that our current cash balances will be sufficient to satisfy our cash requirements for at least the next 12 months, we may need to raise additional funds in order to support more rapid expansion, develop new or enhanced services, respond to competitive pressures, acquire complementary businesses or technologies or respond to unanticipated requirements. There can be no assurance that additional financing will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on acceptable terms, we may be unable to continue operations, develop our products, take advantage of future opportunities or respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

     Our ability to grow our business and attain profitability is dependent on our ability to effectively compete in the marketplace with our current products and services, develop and introduce new products and services, contain operating expenses and improve our gross margins, as well as the continued recovery of the communications industry. A more detailed description of the risks to our business can be found in the section captioned “Risk Factors”.

     In the third quarter of 2004, Jerry Chase was appointed as the Company’s new Chief Executive Officer, and Arthur Taylor, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, resigned.

Critical Accounting Policies

     There have been no material change to any of our critical accounting policies and estimates as disclosed in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Results of Operations

Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003

Revenues

(in thousands)

     We sell directly to broadband service providers, and to a lesser extent, indirectly through resellers. Revenues related to our sales are recognized when: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, (2) delivery has occurred or services rendered, (3) the selling price is fixed or determinable, and (4) collectibility is reasonably assured. A provision is made for estimated product returns as product shipments are made. Our existing agreements typically do not grant return rights beyond those provided by the warranty. Revenue arrangements with resellers are generally recognized when product is shipped to the resellers as we generally do not grant return rights beyond those provided by the warranty.

     Our revenues increased 40% to $42.8 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 compared to $30.6 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2003, primarily due to increased sales of our DOCSIS modems and video products, increased deployments of our CMTSs by cable operators, and increased sales of our legacy Multigate circuit-switch product, slightly offset by the lack of sales of our proprietary S-CDMA products in the second quarter of 2004 which were present in 2003.

     Our revenues increased 59% to $83.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to $52.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003, primarily due to increased sales of our DOCSIS modems and video products, increased deployments of our CMTSs by cable operators, and increased sales of our legacy circuit-switch voice product, slightly offset by decreased sales of our proprietary S-CDMA products. We expect total revenues to decline slightly in the third quarter of 2004 compared to the first and

16

second quarters of 2004 primarily due to a decrease in sales of our CPE products including our Multigate circuit-switch product line, partially offset by increased sales of our video products.

Revenues by Groups of Similar Products

(in thousands)

     CMTS revenues increased 19% for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 compared to the quarter ended June 30, 2003, and increased 64% for the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2003. This increase was due to additional deployment of our DOCSIS products into new markets, primarily in the U.S. We have intensified our efforts to win new CMTS business through more direct engagement with key potential customers, specifically in Asia, Japan, and Europe. We are optimistic this may continue to yield improved results in the near future as we generate additional revenues from existing customers, acquire new customers, and increase the amount of sales into second and third tier North American-based multiple system operators (MSOs). Additionally, we are reviewing the opportunities available in the CMTS market and are assessing potentially viable strategies for growth and profitability, including leveraging what we believe to be a leadership position in commercial services. We expect CMTS revenues to be relatively flat in the third quarter of 2004 compared to the first and second quarters of 2004.

     CPE revenues increased 47% for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 compared to the quarter ended June 30, 2003, due to an increase in modem sales, and to a lesser extent, an increase in sales of our legacy circuit-switch voice product in Europe. The number of DOCSIS modems sold increased from approximately 0.3 million units in the second quarter of 2003 to approximately 0.5 million units in the second quarter of 2004. CPE revenues increased 59% for the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2003, due to an increase in modem sales and an increase in sales of our legacy circuit-switch voice product. The number of DOCSIS modems sold increased from approximately 0.6 million units in the six months ended June 30, 2003 to approximately 1.0 million units in the six months ended June 30, 2004. The intensely competitive nature of the market for broadband products has resulted in significant price erosion of ASPs. However, we believe that our full transition to an ODM in Asia, which was substantially completed in the first quarter of 2004, and the introduction of our new lower cost modem semiconductor, which is used in out CPE products, may allow us to remain competitive in the marketplace and maintain favorable margins on these products. Additionally, during the second quarter we experienced exceptionally strong demand for our legacy Multigate circuit-switch product line, which is sold primarily to one customer in Europe. We anticipate revenue generated by the legacy circuit-switch business to be substantially lower going forward. Consequently, we expect total CPE revenues to decline in the third quarter of 2004 compared to the first and second quarters of 2004.

     Revenues from video products increased 103% for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 compared to the quarter ended June 30, 2003, and increased 108% for the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2003, due to increased sales to United States MSOs of our DM 6400 Cherrypicker video product. We are encouraged by the prospects for the video business to grow and

17

currently believe that we will continue to see increased sales of video products as demand for high definition television (HDTV) and other digital video services, including digital ad insertion, grows in 2004. We currently anticipate video revenues will increase in the third quarter of 2004 compared to the first and second quarters of 2004, primarily due to revenues associated with video product deployment at Fox Broadcasting Company.

     The Company had no sales of its legacy telecom products in the second quarter of 2004. Other revenues decreased 93% for the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2003, due to significantly decreased sales of our legacy telecom products. We expect sales of telecom products to be minimal in 2004.

Revenues by Geographic Region

(in thousands)

     Revenues in the United States increased 20% to $21.2 million in the second quarter of 2004 compared to the same period in 2003, and increased 38% to $43.1 million in the six months ended June 30, 2004, compared to the same period in 2003, due to increased sales of DOCSIS 2.0 CMTSs and modems as well as video products to United States MSOs. Revenues in Canada and Asia, excluding Japan, also increased due to increased sales of DOCSIS 2.0 CMTSs products. Revenues in Israel increased due to increased sales of our legacy Multigate circuit-switch product. During the first half of 2004, we emphasized sales to our United States and other Asian customers while placing a lower emphasis on other locations such as Canada, EMEA, and South America. In 2004, we currently expect revenues to continue to increase in the United States and Asian markets. However, overall revenues are expected to be flat or down in the third quarter of 2004. Two customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (25% and 12%) for the three months ended June 30, 2004. Two customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (23% and 10%) for the six months ended June 30, 2004. Five customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (16%, 13%, 13%, 13%, and 12%) for the three months ended June 30, 2003. Three customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (28%, 11%, and 10%) for the six months ended June 30, 2003. No other customer accounted for more than 10% of revenues during these periods.

18

Related Party Revenues

(in thousands)

     Related party revenues increased 316% in the second quarter of 2004, compared to the second quarter of 2003. Related party revenues increased 38% in the six months ended June 30, 2004, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2003. Related party revenues in the first quarter of 2003 included revenues from Rogers Communications, Inc. (Rogers) and Harmonic, Inc. (Harmonic). Alek Krstajic, a member of our board of directors, was the Senior Vice President of Interactive Services, Sales and Product Development for Rogers until January 2003. Effective in April 2003, Rogers was no longer a related party to us. Consequently, revenues attributable to Rogers were classified as revenues after the first quarter 2003. Lewis Solomon, another member of our board of directors, is a member of the board of directors of Harmonic. All revenues attributable to Harmonic were included in related party revenues in 2004 and 2003. The increase in related party revenues was primarily due to an increase in sales of our video products to Harmonic in 2004 as compared to the same periods in 2003. None of our related parties is a supplier to us.

     In December 2001, we entered into a co-marketing arrangement with Rogers. We paid $0.9 million to Rogers, and recorded this amount as other current assets. In July 2002, we began amortizing this prepaid asset and charging it against related party revenues in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) 01-09, “Accounting for Consideration given by a Vendor to a Customer or Reseller in Connection with the Purchase or Promotion of the Vendor’s Products.” We charged $0.15 million per quarter of the amortization of this asset against total revenues through December 31, 2003. Approximately $0.15 million amortization was charged against total revenues in the first quarter of 2003. No further amounts of this co-marketing arrangement were included in other current assets after December 31, 2003 and no further amortization has or will occur in 2004.

Cost of Goods Sold and Gross Profit

(in thousands)

     Cost of goods sold consists of direct product costs as well as the cost of our manufacturing operations. The cost of manufacturing includes contract manufacturing, test and quality assurance for products, warranty costs and associated costs of personnel and equipment. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, cost of goods sold was approximately 65% and 67% of revenues, respectively, compared to 78% and 82% of revenues, respectively, in the same periods in 2003. Additionally, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, we reversed approximately $0.3 million and $0.8 million, respectively, of inventory provisions, which were previously recorded as cost of goods sold. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, we reversed approximately $1.0 million and $1.7 million, respectively of inventory provisions. We reversed these provisions as we were able to sell inventory originally considered to be excess or obsolete.

19

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, we reversed approximately $0.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively, of accrued vendor cancellation charges, which were previously recorded as cost of goods sold. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, we reversed approximately $2.1 million and $4.4 million, respectively, of accrued vendor cancellation charges. We were able to negotiate downward certain vendor cancellation claims to terms more favorable to us.

     In the three months ended June 30, 2004, related party cost of revenues increased compared to the same period in 2003 due to higher sales of our video products to Harmonic. In the six months ended June 30, 2004, related party cost of revenues decreased compared to the same period in 2003 due to classification of cost of revenues to Rogers as related party cost of sales in the first quarter of 2003.

     Our gross profit increased 120% to $15.1 million or 35% of sales in the three months ended June 30, 2004 compared to $6.9 million, or 22% of sales in the same period in 2003. Our gross profit increased 188% to $27.5 million or 33% of sales in the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to $9.5 million, or 18% of sales in the same period in 2003. The increase in our gross profit was primarily related to a favorable product line sales mix as we recorded a larger proportion of sales from our higher margin video and Multigate products, as well as lower product manufacturing costs for our modem business due largely to the benefits gained from moving to a large manufacturer ODM model, a more moderate rate of modem ASP erosion and the benefits from the reversal of inventory and vendor cancellation claims, described above.

     We will continue to focus on improving sales of higher margin products and reducing product-manufacturing costs. We are now partnering with contract manufacturers in Asia and the U.S. for our CMTS, CPE, and video products, which may provide us with more competitive component pricing, economies of scale, and improved manufacturing capabilities. Our endeavor to shift our product mix from CPE revenues to higher margin CMTS and digital video product revenues, should enable us to increase our margins. However, there are no assurances that we will succeed in selling a greater percentage of higher margin products or reducing our product manufacturing costs.

Operating Expenses

(in thousands)

     Research and Development. Research and development expenses consist primarily of personnel costs, internally designed prototype material expenditures, and expenditures for outside engineering consultants, equipment and supplies required to develop and enhance our products. Research and development expenses decreased 18% to $8.5 million or 20% of sales in the three months ended June 30, 2004 from $10.4 million or 34% of sales in the same period in 2003. The $1.9 million decrease in research and development expenses was attributable to $0.8 million of reductions in employee related expenses. The

20

decrease in research and development expenses also included reductions of $1.2 million in purchases of materials, costs incurred to develop prototypes, and other research and development expenses, partially offset by an increase of $0.1 million of outside engineering consultants.

     Research and development expenses decreased 23% to $18.0 million or 21% of sales in the six months ended June 30, 2004 from $23.4 million or 44% of sales in the same period in 2003. The $5.4 million decrease in research and development expenses was attributable to $2.1 million of reductions in employee related expenses. The decrease in research and development expenses also included reductions of $0.2 million of outside engineering consultants and $3.1 million of reductions in purchases of materials, costs incurred to develop prototypes, and other research and development expenses. We believe it is critical for the Company to continue to make significant investments in research and development to create innovative technologies and products that meet the current and future requirements of our customers. Accordingly, we intend to continue our investment in research and development although at slightly lower levels. In connection with our worldwide restructuring plans in the first and second quarters of 2004, we currently expect research and development expenses to continue to decrease in 2004.

     Sales and Marketing. Sales and marketing expenses consist primarily of salaries and commissions for sales personnel, and marketing and support personnel, and costs related to trade shows, consulting and travel. Sales and marketing expenses decreased 18% to $5.4 million or 13% of sales in the three months ended June 30, 2004 from $6.6 million or 21% of sales in the same period in 2003. The $1.1 million decrease in sales and marketing expenses was primarily due to $0.1 million of decreased travel costs, $0.7 million of reductions related to aircraft costs now included in restructuring charges, and $0.7 million of overall sales and marketing cost reductions. These reductions were partially offset by $0.2 million in increased employee expenses in sales and marketing and $0.2 million of increased spending for outside consultants.

     Sales and marketing expenses decreased 5% to $12.6 million or 15% of sales in the six months ended June 30, 2004 from $13.3 million or 25% of sales in the same period in 2003. The $0.7 million decrease in sales and marketing expenses was primarily due to $0.8 million of reductions related to aircraft costs now included in restructuring charges, and $0.9 million of overall sales and marketing cost reductions. These reductions were partially offset by $0.4 million in increased employee expenses in sales and marketing and $0.6 million of increased spending for outside consultants. We currently expect sales and marketing expenses to continue to remain flat for the remainder of 2004.

     General and Administrative. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salary and benefits for administrative officers and support personnel, travel expenses and legal, accounting and consulting fees. Overall general and administrative expenses remained flat at $3.0 million or 7% of sales for the three months ended June 30, 2004 from $3.0 million or 10% of sales in the same period in 2003. Prior to the second quarter of 2004, we included severance expense related to the termination of an executive officer in general and administrative expenses. In the first quarter of 2003, $0.3 million of general and administrative expense included severance expense related to the termination of an executive officer. Beginning in the second quarter of 2004, we now record all severance expenses associated with the termination of executive officers in "Executive Severance, Restructuring Costs and Asset Write-offs."

     General and administrative expenses decreased by $1.3 million to $5.4 million or 6% of sales for the six months ended June 30, 2004 from $6.7 million or 13% of sales in the same period in 2003. The decrease was primarily due to $1.2 million in reduced employee expenses including $0.3 million of severance expense in the first quarter of 2003 related to the termination of an executive officer, $0.9 million of overall general and administrative cost decreases, partially offset by $0.7 million of increased spending for outside consultants and $0.1 million increase of travel expenses. In connection with our worldwide restructuring plans in the first and second quarters of 2004, we currently expect general and administrative expenses to continue to be lower than in 2003.

21

Executive Severance, Restructuring Costs and Asset Write-offs

(in thousands)

     Executive Severance Charges In June 2004, we entered into separation agreements with two executive officers. We recorded a severance provision of $1.7 million related to termination costs for these officers. Most of the separation costs are expected to be paid in the third quarter of 2004 with nominal amounts paid for employee benefits paid through the third quarter of 2005.

     Restructuring Costs During the first quarter of 2004, we initiated a restructuring plan to conform expenses to revenue levels. We incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $3.3 million of which $1.0 million related to employee termination costs, $0.9 million related to exit costs for an aircraft lease, and $1.4 million related to costs for excess leased facilities. We incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $1.15 million in the second quarter of 2004 related to additional costs for excess leased facilities, which were contemplated in the first quarter plan. As of June 30, 2004, the employment of 58 employees had been terminated, and we paid $0.8 million in termination costs, $0.6 million of costs related to the aircraft lease, and $0.3 million of costs related to excess leased facilities. We anticipate the remaining restructuring accrual related to the aircraft lease to be substantially utilized for servicing operating lease payments or negotiating buyouts of operating lease commitments, through January 2007, and the remaining restructuring accrual related to excess leased facilities to be utilized for servicing operating lease payments or negotiating a buyout of operating lease commitments through October 2009. Additionally, in the second quarter of 2004, we revalued the restructuring reserve in accordance with SFAS 146 and recorded an additional provision to increase restructuring costs, primarily associated with the aircraft lease, by $0.7 million.

     The amount of net costs accrued under the 2004 restructuring plan assumes that we will successfully sublease the aircraft and excess leased facilities. The reserve for the aircraft lease and excess leased facilities approximates the difference between our current costs for the aircraft and excess leased facilities and the estimated income derived from subleasing, which is based on information derived by our brokers that estimated, based on assumptions relevant to the aircraft lease and real estate market conditions as of the date of our implementation of the restructuring plan, the time it would likely take to fully sub-lease the aircraft and excess leased facilities. Even though it is our intent to sublease, assign or sell our interests in the aircraft and excess facility at the earliest possible time, we cannot determine with certainty a fixed date by which such events will occur, if at all. In light of this uncertainty, we will continue to periodically re-evaluate and adjust the reserve, as necessary.

     During the first quarter of 2003, we initiated a restructuring program. We incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $2.7 million related to employee termination costs and paid $2.7 million in termination costs. At June 30, 2004, no restructuring charges remain accrued.

     In the third quarter of 2002, we initiated a restructuring program. As part of this program, we restructured our worldwide operations including a worldwide reduction in workforce and the consolidation of excess facilities. We incurred additional restructuring charges of $3.6 million in 2002. Of the total restructuring charge, $2.3 million was related to employee termination costs. The remaining $1.3 million related primarily to costs for excess leased facilities. At June 30, 2004, restructuring charges of $1.2 million remained accrued. As of June 30, 2004, the employment of 153 employees had been terminated, and we paid $2.2 million in termination costs and $0.2 million in excess facility costs. We currently anticipate the remaining restructuring accrual, primarily relating to excess leased facilities, will be utilized for servicing operating lease payments or negotiating a buyout of operating lease commitments, through 2005.

22

     In 2001 we incurred restructuring charges of $12.7 million. Of the total restructuring charges recorded, $3.2 million related to employee termination costs covering 293 technical, production, and administrative employees. The remaining $9.5 million of restructuring charges related primarily to costs for excess leased facilities. As of June 30, 2004, restructuring charges of $2.7 million remained accrued. We anticipate utilizing the remaining restructuring accrual, which relates to servicing operating lease payments or negotiating a buyout of operating lease commitments, through 2005.

     Asset Write-offs For the six months ended June 30, 2004, we wrote off $0.1 million of fixed assets, which were determined to have no remaining useful life. We did not write-off any fixed assets during the three months ended June 30, 2004. For the six months ended June 30, 2003, we wrote off $0.5 million, of fixed assets, which were determined to have no remaining useful life. We did not write-off any fixed assets during the three months ended June 30, 2003.

Non-Operating Expenses

(in thousands)

     Interest Income. Interest income decreased 49% to $0.5 million in the second quarter of 2004 compared to $0.9 million in the same period in 2003. Interest income decreased 50% to $0.9 million in the six months ended June 30, 2004 compared to $1.8 million in the same period in 2003. The decrease in interest income in both periods was primarily due to lower invested average cash balances, as well as lower interest rates.

     Interest Expense. Interest expense, which related primarily to interest on our Convertible Subordinated Notes (Notes) due in 2007, remained relatively flat in the second quarter of 2004 and the six months ended June 30, 2004, compared to the same periods in 2003 as no Notes were repurchased in 2003 or 2004.

     Other Income (Expense). Other income (expense) is generally comprised of the impact of foreign currency transaction gains and losses and realized gains or losses on investments. In the second quarter of 2004, we sold all of our ownership in Radwiz, Ltd., Ultracom Communication Holdings Ltd. and Combox Ltd. to a third party for a cash payment of $150,000. In connection with this disposition, the acquirer received obsolete inventories with no book value, $0.2 million of selected net assets, and $1.35 million of net liabilities related to these subsidiaries. We recorded other income of $1.3 million on this transaction in the second quarter of 2004.

Income Taxes

     (in thousands)

     We have generated losses since our inception. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, we recorded an income tax expense related primarily to foreign taxes.

23

Litigation

     Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits in federal court against us and certain of our officers and directors. Later that year, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court, Northern District of California as In re Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Court then appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint. In 2001, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new complaint. In 2002, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint, which, like the earlier complaints, alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding our technology. On February 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000.

     On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants’ motion to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the definition of the plaintiff class. On September 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties’ summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003, the Court issued another order staying all discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date, which had been November 4, 2003.

     On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying two of the lead plaintiffs. The order also states that plaintiffs’ counsel must provide certain information to the Court about counsel’s relationship with the disqualified lead plaintiffs, and it provides that defendants may serve certain additional discovery. On March 24, 2004, plaintiffs submitted certain documents to the Court in response to its order, and, on April 16, 2004, we responded to this submission. We also have initiated discovery pursuant to the Court’s February 23, 2004 order.

     On October 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against us and the individual defendants (Zaki Rakib, Selim Rakib and Raymond Fritz) in the California Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County. This lawsuit is titled Bertram v. Terayon Communications Systems, Inc. The factual allegations in the Bertram complaint were similar to those in the federal class action, but the Bertram complaint sought remedies under state law. Defendants removed the Bertram case to the United States District Court, Central District of California, which dismissed the complaint and transferred the case to the United States District Court, Northern District of California. That Court eventually issued an order dismissing the case. Plaintiffs have appealed this order, and their appeal was heard on April 16, 2004. On June 9, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order dismissing the Bertram case.

     The Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming dismissal of the Bertram case does not end the class action, and the plaintiffs in the Bertram case may still seek review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. We believe that the allegations in both the class action and the Bertram case are without merit, and we intend to contest these matters vigorously. These matters, however, could prove costly and time consuming to defend, and there can be no assurances about the eventual outcome.

     In 2002, two shareholders filed derivative cases purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our current and former directors, officers, and investors. (The defendants differed somewhat in the two cases.) Since the cases were filed, the investor defendants have been dismissed without prejudice, and the lawsuits have been consolidated as Campbell v. Rakib in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. We are a nominal defendant in these lawsuits, which allege claims relating to essentially the same purportedly misleading statements that are at issue in the pending securities class action. In the securities class action, we dispute making any misleading statements. The derivative complaints also allege claims relating to stock sales by certain of the director and officer defendants.

     We believe that there are many defects in the Campbell and O’Brien derivative complaints.

24

     From time to time, we receive letters claiming that our technology and products may infringe on intellectual property rights of third parties. We also have in the past agreed to, and may from time to time in the future agree to, indemnify a customer of our technology or products for claims against the customer by a third party based on claims that our technology or products infringe intellectual property rights of that third party. These types of claims, meritorious or not, can result in costly and time-consuming litigation; divert management’s attention and other resources; require us to enter into royalty arrangements; subject us to damages or injunctions restricting the sale of its products, require us to indemnify its customers for the use of the allegedly infringing products; require us to refund payment of allegedly infringing products to our customers or to forgo future payments; require us to redesign certain of our products; or damage our reputation, any one of which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

     We are currently a party to various other legal proceedings, in addition to those noted above, and may become involved from time to time in other legal proceedings in the future. While we currently believe that the ultimate outcome of these other proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or overall results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur in any of our legal proceedings, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our results of operations for the period in which the ruling occurs. The estimate of the potential impact on our financial position and overall results of operations for any of the above legal proceedings could change in the future.

Off-Balance Sheet Financings and Liabilities

     Other than lease commitments and unconditional purchase obligations incurred in the normal course of business, we do not have any off-balance sheet financing arrangements or liabilities, guarantee contracts, retained or contingent interests in transferred assets or any obligation arising out of a material variable interest in an unconsolidated entity. We do not have any majority-owned subsidiaries that are not included in the consolidated financial statements.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

     At June 30, 2004, we had approximately $47.8 million in cash and cash equivalents and $68.5 million in short-term investments.

     Cash used in operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2004 was $21.2 million compared to $43.9 million used in the same period in 2003. In the six months ended June 30, 2004, significant uses of cash from operating activities included $15.1 million loss from operations, $9.6 million decrease in accounts payable, and $6.0 million of increase in gross inventory. Inventory levels increased at June 30, 2004 when compared to December 31, 2003 due to increased CMTS and modem inventories in order to meet service levels established with our key customers. In the six months ended June 30, 2003, significant uses of cash from operating activities included a $37.1 million loss from operations, and a $8.7 million decrease in vendor cancellation reserves as we paid down these obligations, $4.1 million increase in accounts payable, partially offset by a $6.6 million decrease in other assets, and $8.6 million decrease in inventory.

     Cash provided by investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2004, was $37.8 million compared to cash used in investing activities of $5.8 million in the same period in 2003. Investing activities consisted primarily of net purchases and sales of short-term investments in 2004 and 2003. The increase in cash provided by investing activities in the six months ended June 30, 2004, was primarily due to the maturity of short term investments during the period. The decrease in cash used in investing activities in the six months ended June 30, 2003 was primarily due to movement of short-term investments to cash and cash equivalents to fund operations.

25

     Cash provided by financing activities was $0.6 million in the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 primarily due to proceeds from the exercise of stock options and the sale of shares of common stock through our Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

     In July 2000, we issued $500.0 million of Notes, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $484.4 million. The Notes are a general unsecured obligation and are subordinated in right of payment to all of our existing and future senior indebtedness and to all of the liabilities of our subsidiaries. The Notes are convertible into shares of our common stock at a conversion price of $84.01 per share at any time on or after October 24, 2000 through maturity, unless previously redeemed or repurchased. Interest is payable semi-annually. Debt issuance costs related to the Notes were approximately $15.5 million.

     Through June 30, 2004, we had repurchased approximately $434.9 million of the Notes for $171.0 million in cash and $17.9 million in stock, resulting in a gain on early retirement of debt of approximately $234.4 million net of related unamortized issuance costs of $11.6 million. We did not repurchase any Notes in 2003 or 2004.

     We currently believe that our current cash balances will be sufficient to satisfy our cash requirements for at least the next 12 months. In order to obtain profitability in the future, we will need to increase revenues, primarily through sales of more profitable products, and decrease costs. In the first and second quarters of 2004, we initiated a restructuring plan, which resulted in a reduction in workforce, consolidation of certain facilities, and reduction or elimination of discretionary costs and programs. Beginning in the second quarter of 2004, we currently anticipate annual savings to be approximately $10.0 million. These statements are forward-looking in nature and involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results may vary as a result of a number of factors, including those discussed under the risk factor “Our Operating Results May Fluctuate” below and elsewhere. We may need to raise additional funds in order to support more rapid expansion, develop new or enhanced services, respond to competitive pressures, acquire complementary businesses or technologies or respond to unanticipated requirements. We may seek to raise additional funds through private or public sales of securities, strategic relationships, bank debt, and financing under leasing arrangements or otherwise. If additional funds are raised through the issuance of equity securities, the percentage ownership of our current stockholders will be reduced, stockholders may experience additional dilution or such equity securities may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of the holders of our common stock. We cannot assure you that additional financing will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on acceptable terms, we may be unable to continue operations, develop our products, take advantage of future opportunities or respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Contractual Obligations

     The following summarizes our contractual obligations at June 30, 2004, and the effect such obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flows in future periods (in millions):

     We have unconditional purchase obligations to certain of our suppliers that support our ability to manufacture our products. The obligations require us to purchase minimum quantities of the suppliers’ products at a specified price. As of June 30, 2004, we had approximately $27.0 million of purchase obligations, of which $0.7 million is included in the consolidated balance sheets as accrued vendor

26

cancellation charges, and the remaining $26.3 million is attributable to open purchase orders. The remaining obligations are expected to become payable at various times through 2004.

     We had restricted cash of $9.2 million at June 30, 2004. Restricted cash related to commitments primarily required to support operating leases, are as follows (in millions):

     In 2002, we entered into an operating lease arrangement to lease a corporate aircraft. This lease arrangement was secured by a $9.0 million letter of credit. The letter of credit was reduced to $7.5 million in February 2003. This lease commitment is included in the table above. In March 2004, in connection with our worldwide restructuring, we notified the lessor of our intentions to locate a sub-lessor or purchaser for our remaining obligations under this lease.

Impact of Recently Issued Accounting Standards

     In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB Interpretation No. 46 (FIN No. 46), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of ARB No. 51”. FIN No. 46 requires existing unconsolidated variable interest entities to be consolidated by their primary beneficiaries if the entities do not effectively disperse risks among parties involved. Variable interest entities that effectively disperse risk will not be consolidated unless a single party holds an interest or combination of interests that effectively recombines risks that were previously dispersed. FIN No. 46 also requires enhanced disclosure requirements related to variable interest entities. FIN No. 46 was revised in December 2003 and is effective for the first financial reporting period ending after March 15, 2004. We adopted the provisions of FIN No. 46 for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2004. The adoption of FIN No. 46 did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

     In March 2004, the FASB issued an exposure draft of a proposed standard that, if adopted, will significantly change the accounting for employee stock options and other equity-based compensation. The proposed standard would require companies to expense the fair value of stock options on the grant date and would be effective at the beginning of the 2005 fiscal year. We will evaluate the requirements of the final standard, which is expected to be finalized in late 2004, to determine the impact on our results of operations.

RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the risks described below before making an investment decision. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business could be harmed. In such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business

We have a history of losses and may continue to incur losses in the future.

     It is difficult to predict our future operating results. We began shipping products commercially in June 1997, and we have been shipping products in volume since the first quarter of 1998. As of June 30, 2004, we had an accumulated deficit of $1,002.7 million. We believe that we will continue to experience

27

challenges in selling our products at a profit and may continue to operate with net losses for the foreseeable future. In the past few years, we experienced a decrease in revenues, which was, in large part, due to the erosion of average selling prices (ASPs) of our products and a drop in CMTS sales volume due to our transition from a proprietary platform to the DOCSIS standards platform. Although our revenues increased in 2004 as compared to 2003, we still incurred losses of $4.9 million and $15.1 million, respectively, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2004. As a result of the operating deficiencies, we have had to use available cash and cash equivalents to supplement the operation of our business. Cash used in operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2004 was $21.2 million compared to $43.9 million used in the same period in 2003. Additionally, we generally have been unable to significantly reduce our short-term expenses in order to compensate for unexpected decreases in anticipated revenues or delays in generating anticipated revenues. For example, we have fixed commitments with some of our suppliers that require us to purchase minimum quantities of their products at a specified price irrespective of whether we can subsequently use such quantities in our products. Further, we have been experiencing and will likely continue to experience declining ASPs of our products. We record an inventory charge to reduce our inventory to the lower of cost or market if ASPs fall below the cost of these products. In addition, we have significant operating lease commitments for facilities and equipment that generally cannot be cancelled in the short-term without substantial penalties.

     Our business may be adversely affected by delays in, or our failure to, commercialize new products, or reduce the cost of manufacturing our current products. Moreover, given the conditions in the broadband equipment market, the profit potential of our business remains unproven.

We may experience fluctuations in our operating results and face unpredictability in our future revenues.

     Our quarterly revenues have fluctuated and are likely to continue to fluctuate significantly in the future due to a number of factors, many of which are outside our control. Factors that affect our revenues include, among others, the following:

     Our quarterly results are affected by the gross margin we achieve for the quarter relative to our gross revenues. A variety of factors influence our gross margin for a particular quarter, including, among others, the following:

28

     We often recognize a substantial portion of our revenues in the last month of the quarter. We establish our expenditure levels for product development and other operating expenses based on projected sales levels, and expenses are relatively fixed, particularly in the short term. For example, a significant percentage of these operating expenses are fixed due to operating leases for our facilities and equipment. Also, we have fixed commitments with some of our suppliers that require us to purchase minimum quantities of their products at a specified price. Because in the past, we have been unable to use all of the products that we purchased from our suppliers, we have taken vendor cancellation charges as a result of these fixed commitments, and we may have to take additional charges in the future if we are unable to use all of the products that we purchase from our suppliers. As of June 30, 2004, $27.0 million of purchase obligations were outstanding. Accordingly, variations in timing of sales can cause significant fluctuations in operating results. In addition, because a significant portion of our business is derived from orders placed by a limited number of large customers, the timing of such orders can also cause significant fluctuations in our operating results. Our expenses for any given quarter are typically based on expected sales and if sales are below expectations, our operating results may be adversely impacted by our inability to adjust spending to compensate for the shortfall. Moreover, our research and development expenses fluctuate in response to new product development, and changing industry requirements and customer demands.

     Additionally, the unit ASPs of our products declined considerably in 2002, 2003, and the first half of 2004, and we anticipate that unit ASPs of our products may continue to decline in the future. This has caused and will continue to cause a decrease in our gross margins if we are unable to off-set the decline in ASPs with cost reduction measures. In addition, the gross margins we realize from the sale of our products are affected by the mix of product sales between higher margin, lower volume head-end equipment, such as Cable Modem Termination Systems (CMTSs) and digital video management systems, and lower margin, higher volume Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) products, such as modems. In 2004, we expect that sales of our low-margin CPE products will continue to make up a significant portion of our revenues.

We are dependent on a small number of customers and our business could be harmed by the loss of any of these customers or reductions in their purchasing volumes.

     Our customers have undergone and continue to undergo significant consolidation in both North America and internationally, as a limited number of cable operators control an increasing number of systems. For example, the top nine cable operators in the United States operate systems that service approximately 90% of homes that receive cable services in the United States. As a result of the consolidation among cable operators, our revenue has been and will continue to be dependent on sales to the few leading cable operators worldwide. Two customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (25% and 12%) for the three months ended June 30, 2004. Two customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (23% and 10%) for the six months ended June 30, 2004. Five customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (16%, 13%, 13%, 13%, and 12%) for the three months ended June 30, 2003. Three customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (28%, 11%, and 10%) for the six months ended June 30, 2003.

     As is common in our industry, we typically do not enter into contracts with our customers in which they commit to purchase products from us. Typically, our sales are made on a purchase order or system contract basis, and none of our customers has entered into a long-term agreement requiring it to purchase our products. Moreover, we do not typically require our customers to purchase a minimum quantity of our products, and our customers can generally cancel or significantly reduce their orders on short notice without significant penalties. The loss of any of our customers can have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Further, any reduction in orders from a given customer can likewise have a material adverse affect on our results of operations.

     Also, we may not succeed in attracting new customers as many of our potential customers have pre-existing relationships with our current or potential competitors and the continued consolidation of the cable industry reduces the number of potential customers. To attract new customers, we may be faced with intense price competition, which may affect our gross margins.

29

The sales cycle for certain of our products is lengthy, which makes forecasting of our customer orders and revenue difficult.

     The sales cycle for certain of our products, such as our CMTSs, is lengthy, often lasting nine months to more than a year. Our customers generally conduct significant technical evaluations, including customer trials, of our products as well as competing products prior to making a purchasing decision. In addition, purchasing decisions may also be delayed because of a customer’s internal budget approval processes. Because of the lengthy sales cycle and the size of customer orders, if orders forecasted for a specific customer for a particular period do not occur in that period, our revenues and operating results for that particular quarter could suffer. Moreover, a portion of our expenses related to an anticipated order is fixed and difficult to reduce or change, which may further impact our revenues and operating results for a particular period.

There are many risks associated with our participation in industry standards.

     In connection with the development of the DOCSIS 2.0 specification by Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., a cable industry consortium that establishes cable technology standards and administers compliance testing (CableLabs), we entered into an agreement with CableLabs whereby we licensed to CableLabs on a royalty-free basis any of our intellectual property rights, including rights to our proprietary S-CDMA technology, to the extent that such rights may be asserted against a party desiring to design, manufacture or sell DOCSIS based products, including DOCSIS 2.0 based products. This license agreement grants to CableLabs the right to sublicense our intellectual property, including our intellectual property rights in our S-CDMA patents, to manufacturers that compete with us in the marketplace for DOCSIS based products. As a result of this license to CableLabs, our competitors that produce DOCSIS-based products have access to our technology without having to pay us any royalties or other compensation for the use of our technology. As a result of our contribution of technology to the DOCSIS intellectual property pool, we may have foregone significant revenue from the potential licensing of our proprietary technology, and we may be unable to recoup the investment in the research and development of intellectual property contributed to the DOCSIS technology pool.

     Additionally, the agreement that we signed with CableLabs to participate in the DOCSIS intellectual property pool may make it difficult for us to enforce our intellectual property rights against other companies. Certain cable equipment vendors manufacture and sell DOCSIS based and DOCSIS certified and qualified products without sublicensing from CableLabs the technology in the CableLabs intellectual property pool. Due to the interests of cable operators in having as many equipment vendors as possible, we may feel constrained by competitive pressures from pursuing the enforcement of our intellectual property rights against our competitors that have not entered into sublicenses with CableLabs. Moreover, if we seek to enforce our intellectual property rights against other equipment manufacturers that access technology from the CableLabs intellectual property pool, our license to the technology in the pool may be jeopardized. Certain contributors of technology to the CableLabs intellectual property pool are our competitors and may elect to revoke our license to their technology if we attempt to enforce our intellectual property rights against them.

     We may have lost any competitive advantage that our proprietary S-CDMA technology may have provided us in the marketplace by licensing it to CableLabs, and we may face increased competition because our competitors have the ability to incorporate our technology into their products. We believe that this increased competition could come from existing competitors or from new competitors who enter the market and that such competition is likely to result in lower product ASPs, which could harm our revenues and gross margins. Additionally, because our competitors will be able to incorporate our technology into their products, our current customers may choose alternate suppliers or choose to purchase DOCSIS-compliant products from multiple suppliers. We may be unable to effectively compete with the other vendors if we cannot produce DOCSIS compliant cable products more quickly or at lower cost than our competitors.

30

     DOCSIS specifications have not yet been accepted in Asia, although an increasing number of Asian cable operators are requiring product to be DOCSIS qualified or certified. An alternate specification for cable products, called the Euro-DOCSIS specification, has been formalized by TComLabs, a cable technology consortium of European cable operators, and European and some Asian cable operators have embraced it. We have contributed certain of our technologies, including our proprietary S-CDMA technology, to the Euro-DOCSIS specification. We may develop and sell products that comply with the Euro-DOCSIS specification, and we may be unsuccessful in these efforts. Even if we are successful in our efforts, we may face some of the same risks associated with our contribution of intellectual property to the CableLabs DOCSIS intellectual property pool.

We need to certify and qualify our new and existing products to meet industry specifications in order to remain competitive.

     Major cable operators worldwide have endorsed the DOCSIS, Euro-DOCSIS and PacketCable specifications and rarely purchase equipment that is not certified or qualified as compliant with these specifications. Cable operators have chosen to purchase only products meeting industry specifications because the specifications enable interoperability among products from multiple vendors, which leads to increased competition among equipment manufacturers and consequently lowers product ASPs. Consequently, our future success depends on our ability to compete effectively in this marketplace by developing, marketing and selling products that are certified and qualified to industry standards in a timely fashion and in a cost effective manner.

     The DOCSIS and PacketCable specifications are promulgated by CableLabs. Currently these specifications have been widely adopted by cable operators in North America and by some cable operators in Asia, Latin America and Europe. The Euro-DOCSIS specifications have been developed by TComLabs specifically to meet the requirements of European operators, and have found some acceptance in China as well. There is no guarantee that our products will be DOCSIS, EuroDOCSIS or PacketCable certified or qualified. If we are unable to certify or qualify our products as DOCSIS, EuroDOCSIS or PacketCable compliant in a timely manner, we may be unable to sell our products and may lose some or all of any advantage we might otherwise have had, and our future operating results may be adversely affected.

     Although we sell certified and qualified products, there have been and may continue to be instances where our existing customers and potential new customers elect to purchase products from one or more of our competitors rather than from us. In response to this situation, we have reduced our prices and continue to experience customer demand to further reduce our prices in order to promote sales of our current products. This has had and may continue to have an adverse impact on our revenues, operating results and gross margin.

     Developing products to meet these various industry specifications has several risks. The first is the cost and effort to engineer standards-based products and to then prepare them for compliance testing. Not only do we have to certify or qualify new products, but any of our currently certified or qualified products must be re-certified or re-qualified should they be changed in any way. Second, there is no guarantee that these products will be certified or qualified as meeting these specifications in a timely fashion, if ever. Because most cable operators purchase only those products that have been certified or qualified as meeting these specifications, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to sell our products until they achieve certification or qualification, which can be a lengthy process. As a result, we may incur significant research and development expenses to develop new products that may not receive certification or qualification and we cannot recoup the costs of these research and development expenses by marketing uncertified or unqualified products. Moreover, a consequence of cable operators only purchasing products certified or qualified as meeting industry specifications is the increased competition between equipment vendors, which has resulted in a steady and ongoing decline in equipment prices as vendors compete for cable operators’ business. Third, there is no guarantee that we will be able to support all future cable industry specifications, which will likely have an adverse impact on our future revenues.

31

Average selling prices of broadband equipment continue to decline, which is decreasing our gross margins.

     The broadband equipment market has been characterized by erosion of product ASPs, particularly for CPE devices. We expect this erosion to continue. The ASPs for our products are likely to continue to decline due to competitive pricing pressures, promotional programs and customers possessing strong negotiating positions who require price reductions as a condition of purchase. In addition, we believe that the widespread adoption of industry specifications, such as the DOCSIS and EuroDOCSIS specifications, is further eroding ASPs as cable modems and other similar CPE products become commodity products. Decreasing ASPs could result in decreased revenues even if the number of units sold increases. Decreasing ASPs may also require us to sell our products at much lower gross margin than in the past, and in fact, we may sell products at a loss. The primary reason that our gross profits have declined year-over year is the decline in product ASPs. As a result, we may experience substantial period-to-period fluctuations in future revenue, gross margin and operating results due to ASP erosion. Therefore, we must continue to develop and introduce on a timely basis and a cost-effective manner new products or next-generation products with enhanced functionalities that can be sold at higher gross margins. Our failure to do this could cause our revenues and gross margin to decline further.

We must achieve cost reductions or increase revenues to attain profitability.

     In prior years, we have experienced a decrease in revenue, which was, in large part, due to declining product ASPs and a drop in CMTS sales volume due to our transition from a proprietary platform to the DOCSIS standards platform. This has resulted in increased losses and made it difficult for us to attain profitability. In order to achieve profitability, we must significantly increase our revenues, reduce the cost of our products, and maintain or reduce our operating expenses.

     Although we have implemented expense reduction and restructuring plans in the past, including the latest restructurings in the first and second quarters of 2004, that have focused on cost reductions and operating efficiencies, our operating expenses are still higher than our gross margins. A large portion of our expenses, including rent, and operating lease expenditures, is fixed and difficult to reduce or change. Accordingly, if our revenue does not meet our expectations, we may not be able to adjust our expenses quickly enough to compensate for the shortfall in revenue. In that event, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

     As product ASPs rapidly decline, we need to reduce the cost of our products through design and engineering changes. We may not be successful in redesigning our products, and, even if we are successful, our efforts may be delayed or our redesigned products may contain significant errors and product defects. In addition, any redesign may not result in sufficient cost reductions to allow us to reduce significantly the prices of our products or improve our gross margin. Reductions in our product costs may require us to use lower-priced components that are highly integrated in future products and may require us to enter into high volume or long-term purchase or manufacturing agreements. Volume purchase or manufacturing agreements may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all, and we could incur significant expenses without related revenues if we cannot use the products or services offered by such agreements. We have incurred significant cancellation charges related to volume purchase and manufacturing agreements in the past and may incur such charges in the future.

Broadband services delivered by cable operators have not achieved widespread market acceptance, and other competing service providers exist.

     Our success will depend upon the widespread acceptance of broadband services delivered by cable television operators. The markets for these services are growing, but are not fully developed nor exploited. Additionally, these markets may not grow as cable operators may elect not to increase available bandwidth over which they can offer new services, such as high-speed Internet access, High Definition Television (HDTV), Video on Demand, and internet telephony. Cable operators may elect not to provide any or all of these new services to their customers or may not aggressively market these services to their customers. If cable operators elect not to deploy such new services or if customers elect not to subscribe to such services,

32

it may affect our ability to sell products to cable operators as their existing equipment may meet their current infrastructure demands. We depend on cable operators to provide new services and maintain their infrastructure in such a manner that allows us to continue to sell products to them.

     Cable operators must also compete with other service providers in the delivery of services to their customers. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Incumbant Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), satellite TV and other broadband service providers are aggressively competing with the cable industry to deliver broadband services via Digital Subscriber Lines or satellite broadcast technologies. We cannot accurately predict the future growth rate or the ultimate size of the market for broadband services delivered via cable. The success of RBOCs, CLECs, ILECs, satellite TV and other broadband service providers may slow or hamper the continued acceptance of cable operators in delivering broadband services, which in turn may impact demand for our products by cable operators.

We need to develop additional distribution channels to market and sell our products.

     The vast majority of our sales are to large cable operators. However, we currently have limited access to smaller or geographically diverse cable operators. Although we intend to establish strategic relationships with leading distributors worldwide to access these customers, we may not succeed in establishing these relationships. Even if we do establish these relationships, the distributors may not succeed in marketing our products to their customers. Some of our competitors have established, long-standing relationships with these cable operators that may limit our and our distributors’ ability to sell our products to those customers. Even if we were to sell our products to those customers, it would likely not be based on long-term commitments, and those customers would be able to terminate their relationships with us at any time without significant penalties.

We depend on cable industry capital spending for a substantial portion of our revenue and any decrease or delay in capital spending by cable operators would negatively impact our operating results and financial condition.

     Historically, almost all of our sales had been derived from sales to cable operators, and we expect these sales to constitute a significant portion of net sales for the foreseeable future. Demand for our products will depend on the magnitude and timing of capital spending by cable television operators. These capital spending patterns are dependent on a variety of factors including:

     In recent years, the cable market has been characterized by consolidation. For example, Comcast acquired AT&T Broadband in 2003. Furthermore, cable operators may undertake additional business combinations to expand their business. We cannot predict the effect, if any, this will have on overall capital spending patterns by cable operators. The effect on our business of further industry consolidations and combinations also is uncertain.

33

We may fail to accurately forecast customer demand for our products.

     The nature of the cable industry makes it difficult for us to accurately forecast demand for our products. Our inability to forecast accurately the actual demand for our products may result in too much or too little supply of products or an over/under capacity of manufacturing or testing resources at any given point in time. The existence of any one or more of these situations could have a negative impact on our business, operating results or financial condition. We had purchase obligations of approximately $27.0 million as of June 30, 2004, primarily to purchase minimum quantities of materials and components used to manufacture our products. We may be obligated to fulfill these purchase obligations even if demand for our products is lower than we anticipate.

We may not be able to manage expenses and inventory risks associated with meeting the demand of our customers.

     From time to time, we receive indications from our customers as to their future plans and requirements to ensure that we will be prepared to meet their demand for our products. If actual orders differ materially from these indications, our ability to manage inventory and expenses may be affected. In addition, if we fail to meet customers’ supply expectations, we may lose business from such customers. If we enter into purchase commitments to acquire materials, or expend resources to manufacture products and such products are not purchased by our customers, our business and operating results could suffer.

We may have financial exposure to litigation.

     We and/or our directors and officers are defendants in a number of lawsuits, including securities litigation lawsuits. As a result, we may have financial exposure to litigation as a defendant and because we are obligated to indemnify our officers and members of our board of directors for certain actions taken by our officers and directors on our behalf.

     In order to limit financial exposure arising from litigation and/or our obligation to indemnify our officers and directors, we have historically purchased directors and officers insurance (D&O Insurance). However, the availability of D&O Insurance is becoming more difficult for companies to attain as a number of insurance underwriters no longer offer D&O Insurance and the remaining insurance underwriters offering D&O Insurance have significantly increased the premiums of such coverage. In recent years, we have experienced a significant increase in the cost of our D&O Insurance. Although the cost of our D&O insurance decreased in fiscal year 2003, our coverage amount did as well. There can be no assurance that D&O Insurance will be available to us in the future or, if D&O Insurance is available, it may be prohibitively expensive. Additionally, some insurance underwriters who offered D&O Insurance in the past have been placed into liquidation or may be, at some future point, placed into liquidation. In October 2001, one of the insurance underwriters from which we purchased D&O Insurance, Reliance Insurance Co. (Reliance), was placed into liquidation by the state of Pennsylvania. Reliance was the underwriter for one excess layer of our D&O Insurance for the period covering the claims made against us and our officers in the pending securities litigation. Because Reliance is in liquidation, in 2003 we paid for the amount insured under the Reliance policy, which was $2.5 million.

We are dependent on key third-party suppliers and any failure by them to deliver components could limit our ability to satisfy customer demand.

     We manufacture all of our products using components or subassemblies procured from third-party suppliers, including semiconductors. Some of these components are available from a sole source and others are available from limited sources. A majority of our sales are from products containing one or more components that are available only from sole source suppliers. Additionally, some of our components are custom parts that are produced to our specifications, and it may be difficult to move the manufacturing of such components from one vendor to another vendor.

     Any interruption in the operations of our vendors of sole source or custom product parts could adversely affect our ability to meet our scheduled product deliveries to customers. If we are unable to obtain a sufficient supply of components, including semiconductors, from our current sources, we could experience difficulties in obtaining alternative sources or in altering product designs to use alternative

34

components. Resulting delays or reductions in product shipments could damage customer relationships and expose us to potential damages that may arise from our inability to supply our customers with products. Further, a significant increase in the price of one or more of these components, such as our semiconductor components, could harm our gross margin or operating results. Additionally, we attempt to limit this risk by maintaining safety stocks of these components, subassemblies and modules. As a result of this investment in inventories, we have in the past and in the future may be subject to risk of excess and obsolete inventories, which could harm our business. In this regard, our gross margins and operating results could be adversely affected by excess and obsolete inventory.

We may be unable to migrate to new semiconductor process technologies successfully or on a timely basis.

     Our future success will depend in part upon our ability to develop products that utilize new semiconductor process technologies. These technologies change rapidly and require us to spend significant amounts on research and development. We continuously evaluate the benefits of redesigning our integrated circuits using smaller geometry process technologies to improve performance and reduce costs. The transition of our products to integrated circuits with increasingly smaller geometries will be important to our competitive position. Other companies have experienced difficulty in migrating to new semiconductor processes and, consequently, have suffered reduced yields, delays in product deliveries and increased expense levels. Moreover, we depend on our relationship with our third-party manufacturers to migrate to smaller geometry processes successfully.

Our ability to directly control product delivery schedules and product quality is dependent on third-party contract manufacturers.

     Most of our products are assembled and tested by contract manufacturers using testing equipment that we provide. As a result of our dependence on these contract manufacturers for the assembly and testing of our products, we do not directly control product delivery schedules or product quality. Any product shortages or quality assurance problems could increase the costs of manufacturing, assembling or testing our products. In addition, as manufacturing volume increases, we will need to procure and assemble additional testing equipment and provide it to our contract manufacturers. The production and assembly of testing equipment typically requires significant lead times. We could experience significant delays in the shipment of our products if we are unable to provide this testing equipment to our contract manufacturers in a timely manner.

We are dependent upon international sales and there are many risks associated with international operations.

     We expect sales to customers outside of the United States to continue to represent a significant percentage of our revenues for the foreseeable future. For the three months ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003, approximately 50% and 42%, respectively, of our net revenues were from customers outside of the U.S. For the six months ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003, approximately 49% and 41%, respectively, of our net revenues were from customers outside of the U.S. International sales are subject to a number of risks, including the following:

35

     If our customers are affected by currency devaluations or general economic downturns their ability to purchase our products could be reduced significantly. Payment cycles for international customers typically are longer than those for customers in North America.

     While we generally invoice our foreign sales in U.S. dollars, we invoice some of our sales in Europe in Euros and other sales in the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, China and Brazil in local currencies. Since we have also elected to take payment in Euros from our customers in local currencies and may elect to take payment in other foreign currencies in the future, we are exposed to losses as the result of foreign currency fluctuations. Additionally, we have an Israel based operation whose expenses are denominated in Israeli NIS. We currently do not engage in foreign currency hedging transactions. We may in the future choose to limit our exposure by the purchase of forward foreign exchange contracts or through similar hedging strategies. No currency hedging strategy can fully protect against exchange-related losses. In addition, if the relative value of the U.S. dollar in comparison to the currency of our foreign customers should increase, the resulting effective price increase of our products to those foreign customers could result in decreased sales.

     Furthermore, foreign countries may decide to prohibit, terminate or delay the construction of new cable infrastructures for a variety of reasons. These reasons include environmental issues, economic downturns and availability of favorable pricing for other communications services or the availability and cost of related equipment. Any such action by foreign countries would reduce the market for our products.

Our business may be affected by conditions in Israel.

     We have significant operations in Israel. Our operations in Israel consist primarily of research and development, and to a lesser extent sales and manufacturing. Revenues generated by our business in Israel were $7.1 million and $4.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003, respectively. Revenues generated by our business in Israel were $12.6 million and $5.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003, respectively. Our research and development operations may be significantly affected by conditions in Israel. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a number of armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and its Arab neighbors and a state of hostility, varying in degree and intensity, has led to security and economic problems for Israel. Hostilities within Israel have continued over the past year, which could disrupt some of our operations. We could be adversely affected by any major hostilities involving Israel. As a result of the hostilities and unrest presently occurring within Israel, the future of the peace efforts between Israel and its Arab neighbors is uncertain. A number of our employees based in Israel are currently obligated to perform annual military reserve duty and are subject to being called to active duty at any time under emergency circumstances. We cannot assess the full impact of these requirements and the hostilities on our workforce, business or operations if conditions should change, and we cannot predict the effect of any expansion or reduction of these obligations or the hostilities.

We may be unable to provide adequate customer support.

     Our ability to achieve our planned sales growth and retain current and future customers will depend in part upon the quality of our customer support operations. Our customers generally require significant support and training with respect to our products, particularly in the initial deployment and implementation stages. Spikes in demand of our support services may cause us to be unable to serve our customers. We may not have adequate personnel to provide the levels of support that our customers may require during initial product deployment or on an ongoing basis especially during peak periods. Our inability to provide sufficient support to our customers could delay or prevent the successful deployment of our products. In addition, our failure to provide adequate support could harm our reputation and relationships with our customers and could prevent us from selling product to existing customers or gaining new customers.

36

The deployment process for our equipment may be lengthy and may delay the receipt of new orders and cause fluctuations in our revenues.

     The timing of deployment of our equipment can be subject to a number of other risks, including the availability of skilled engineering and technical personnel, the availability of other equipment such as fiber optic cable, and the need for local zoning and licensing approvals. We believe that changes in our customers’ deployment plans have delayed, and may in the future delay, the receipt of new orders. Since the majority of our sales have been to relatively few customers, a delay in equipment deployment with any one customer has in the past had, and could in the future, have a material adverse effect on our sales for a particular quarter.

Our industry is highly competitive with many larger and more established competitors.

     The market for our products is extremely competitive and is characterized by rapid technological change. Our direct competitors include Ambit Microsystems Corporation, Cisco Systems, ADC, Arris, BigBand Networks, Motorola, Scientific-Atlanta and Toshiba. Additionally, we face competition from early stage companies with access to significant financial backing that improve existing technologies or develop new technologies. The principal competitive factors in our market include the following:

     Some of these factors are outside of our control. Conditions in the market could change rapidly and significantly as a result of technological advancements. The development and market acceptance of alternative technologies could decrease the demand for our products or render them obsolete. Our competitors may introduce products that are less costly, provide superior performance or achieve greater market acceptance than our products.

     Many of our current and potential competitors have greater financial, technical, marketing, distribution, customer support and other resources, as well as better name recognition and access to customers than we do. The widespread adoption of DOCSIS and other industry standards has and is likely to continue to cause increased price competition. We believe that the adoption of these standards have resulted in and are likely to continue to result in lower ASPs for our products. Any increased price competition or reduction in sales of our products, particularly our higher margin head-end products, has resulted and will continue to result in decreased revenue and downward pressure on our gross margin. These competitive pressures have and are likely to continue to have an adverse impact on our business.

We are dependent on key personnel.

     Due to the specialized nature of our business, we are highly dependent on the continued service of, and on our ability to attract and retain, qualified senior management, engineering, sales, and marketing personnel. The competition for some of these personnel is intense. The loss of any of these individuals may significantly disrupt and be harmful to our business. In addition, if we are unable to hire qualified personnel as needed in a timely manner, we may be unable to adequately manage and grow our business.

     Highly skilled employees with the education and training that we require, especially employees with significant experience and expertise in video, data networking and radio frequency design, are in high demand. We may incur additional expenses to attract and retain key personnel. We cannot assure you that the additional expenses we may incur will enable us to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the development of our business. We do not have key person insurance coverage for the loss of any of our

37

employees. Any officer or employee can terminate his or her relationship with us at any time. Although a few of our executive officers have limited non-competition agreements with us, our employees generally are not bound by non-competition agreements.

     Additionally, turnover in personnel, and the recruitment and retention of a new senior management staff, could create a number of transitional challenges for us. We have experienced and may continue to experience turnover in key personnel. We recently announced the resignation of our former Chief Executive Officer and the appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer, effective in September 2004 as well as the resignation of our Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer. These transitional issues have caused, and may cause, disruptions to our business. We have established an interim executive committee of the Board of Directors to oversee the general operation of our business until the new Chief Executive Officer comes into office in September 2004 and have appointed a cable industry consultant to serve as interim head of our data business until no later than August 31, 2004. We cannot assure you that the steps we have taken will succeed in establishing a smooth transition of our senior management staff, or result in the orderly continuation of our operations during the interim period. Further, we cannot assure you that the integration of our new senior management staff will occur in a timely manner, or that such integration will not present additional transitional challenges for us.

Our business is subject to the risks of product returns, product liability and product defects.

     Products like ours are very complex and can frequently contain undetected errors or failures, especially when first introduced or when new versions are released. Despite testing, errors may occur. Product errors could affect the performance or interoperability of our products, delay the development or release of new products or new versions of products, adversely affect our reputation and our customers’ willingness to buy products from us and adversely affect market acceptance or perception of our products. Any such errors or delays in releasing new products or new versions of products or allegations of unsatisfactory performance could cause us to lose revenue or market share, increase our service costs, cause us to incur substantial costs in redesigning the products, subject us to liability for damages and divert our resources from other tasks, any one of which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Although we have limitation of liability provisions in our standard terms and conditions of sale, they may not be effective as a result of federal, state or local laws or ordinances or unfavorable judicial decisions in the United States or other countries. The sale and support of our products also entails the risk of product liability claims. We maintain insurance to protect against certain claims associated with the use of our products, but our insurance coverage may not adequately cover any claim asserted against us. In addition, even claims that ultimately are unsuccessful could result in our expenditure of funds in litigation and divert management’s time and other resources.

We may be unable to adequately protect or enforce our intellectual property rights.

     We rely on a combination of patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark laws and contractual restrictions to establish and protect proprietary rights in our products. Even though we seek to establish and protect proprietary rights in our products, there are risks. We cannot be assured that any patent, trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights owned by us will not be invalidated, circumvented or challenged, that such intellectual property rights will provide competitive advantages to us or that any of our pending or future patent applications will be issued with the scope of the claims sought by us, if at all. We cannot be assured that others will not develop technologies that are similar or superior to our technology, duplicate our technology or design around the patents that we own. In addition, effective patent, copyright and trade secret protection may be unavailable or limited in certain foreign countries in which we do business or may do business in the future.

     Our pending patent applications may not be granted. Even if they are granted, the claims covered by any patent may be reduced from those included in our applications. Any patent might be subject to challenge in court and, whether or not challenged, might not be broad enough to prevent third parties from developing equivalent technologies or products without a license from us.

     We believe that the future success of our business will depend on our ability to translate the technological expertise and innovation of our employees into new and enhanced products. We have

38

entered into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, and we enter into non-disclosure agreements with many of our suppliers, distributors and appropriate customers so as to limit access to and disclosure of our proprietary information. These contractual arrangements, as well as statutory protections, may not prove sufficient to prevent misappropriation of our trade secrets or technology or deter independent third-party development of similar technologies. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States. We may, in the future, take legal action to enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could negatively affect our business, operating results, financial position and liquidity.

     CableLabs DOCSIS 2.0 specification includes two modulation techniques, S-CDMA and A-TDMA. In connection with the development of the DOCSIS 2.0 specification by CableLabs, we entered into an agreement with CableLabs, on a royalty-free basis, whereby we licensed to CableLabs many of our intellectual property rights to the extent that such rights may be asserted against a party desiring to design, manufacture or sell DOCSIS-based products, including DOCSIS 2.0-based products. This license agreement grants to CableLabs the right to sublicense our intellectual property, including our intellectual property rights in our S-CDMA patents, to manufacturers that compete with us in the marketplace for DOCSIS based products.

     We pursue the registration of our trademarks in the United States and have applications pending to register several of our trademarks throughout the world. However, the laws of certain foreign countries might not protect our products or intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Effective trademark, copyright, trade secret and patent protection may not be available in every country in which our products may be manufactured, marketed or sold.

Third party claims of infringement or other claims against us could adversely affect our ability to market our products, require us to redesign our products or seek licenses from third parties, and seriously harm our operating results and disrupt our business.

     As is typical in the industry in which we operate, we have been and may from time to time be notified of claims that we may be infringing intellectual property rights owned by third parties. We also have in the past agreed to, and may from time to time in the future agree to, indemnify a customer of our technology or products for claims against the customer by a third party based on claims that our technology or products infringe patents of that third party. We further believe that companies may be increasingly subject to infringement claims as distressed companies and individuals attempt to generate cash by enforcing their patent portfolio against a wide range of products. These types of claims, meritorious or not, can result in costly and time-consuming litigation; divert management’s attention and other resources; require us to enter into royalty arrangements; subject us to damages or injunctions restricting the sale of our products, require us to indemnify our customers for the use of the allegedly infringing products; require us to refund payment of allegedly infringing products to our customers or to forgo future payments; require us to redesign certain of our products; or damage our reputation. Our failure to obtain a license for key intellectual property rights from a third party for technology used by us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to suspend the manufacturing of products utilizing the technology. Alternatively, we could be required to expend significant resources to develop non-infringing technology with no assurances that we would be successful in such endeavors. The occurrence of any of the above events could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

39

Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial condition; we may incur substantially more debt.

     As of June 30, 2004, we had approximately $68.2 million of long-term obligations of which $65.1 million is long-term debt associated with our Notes. This level of indebtedness may adversely affect our stockholders by:

     We may incur substantial additional debt in the future. The terms of our outstanding debt do not fully prohibit us from doing so. If new debt is added to our current levels, the related risks described above could intensify.

We may not be able to raise additional funds to continue operating our business.

     Our main source of liquidity continues to be our unrestricted cash on hand. In addition and as a result of our history of operating losses, we expect to continue to use our unrestricted cash to fund operating losses in the future. Our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments decreased to $116.3 million at June 30, 2004, from $138.6 million at December 31, 2003. If our operating losses are more severe than expected or continue longer than expected, we may find it necessary to seek other sources of financing to support our capital needs and provide available funds for working capital. Given the current condition of the capital markets, there are few sources of financing available to us. Commercial bank financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms. Accordingly, any plan to raise additional capital, if available to us, would likely involve an equity-based or equity-linked financing, such as the issuance of convertible debt, common stock or preferred stock, which would be dilutive to our stockholders. If we are unable to procure additional working capital, as necessary, we may be unable to continue operations.

     On October 7, 2003, we filed a registration statement on Form S-3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This shelf registration statement, which was declared effective by the SEC on November 4, 2003, will allow us to issue various types of securities, including common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and warrants to purchase common stock, from time to time up to an aggregate of $125.0 million, subject to market conditions and our capital needs. On November 7, 2003, we filed a prospectus supplement with reference to our intention to offer 10,800,000 shares of common stock, which would have result in gross proceeds of $75.0 million. On November 14, 2003, we withdrew our previously announced public offering of 10,800,000 shares of common stock under the shelf registration statement.

Our restructuring efforts and recent changes in senior management could result in the erosion of employee morale, legal actions against us and management distractions, and could impair our ability to respond rapidly to growth opportunities in the future.

     As a result of the significant economic downturn and the related uncertainties in the technology sector, we have implemented a number of restructuring plans, including the most recent in the first and second quarters of 2004, which has resulted in personnel reduction. We also have experienced a number of recent changes in senior management and other key personnel. These employee reductions and changes, as well as future changes in senior management and key personnel, could result in an erosion of morale, and affect the focus and productivity of our remaining employees, including those directly responsible for revenue generation, which in turn may affect our revenue in the future. Additionally, employees directly affected by the reductions may seek future employment with our business partners, customers or competitors. Although all employees are required to sign a proprietary information agreement with us at the time of hire, there can be no assurances that the confidential nature of our proprietary information will be maintained in the course of such future employment. Although a few of our senior executive officers have limited non-competition agreements with us, our employees are generally not bound by non-competition agreements. Additionally, we may face wrongful termination, discrimination, or other claims from employees affected by the reduction related to their employment and termination. We could incur substantial costs in defending ourselves or our employees against such claims, regardless of the merits of

40

such actions. Furthermore, such matters could divert the attention of our employees, including management, away from our operations, harm productivity, harm our reputation and increase our expenses. We cannot assure you that our restructuring efforts will be successful, and we may need to take additional restructuring efforts, including additional personnel reduction, in the future.

We may dispose of existing product lines, which may adversely impact our future results.

     On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our various product offerings in order to determine whether any should be discontinued or, to the extent possible, divested. Moreover, the worldwide downturn in the telecommunications industry led us to reassess our business strategy, which in turn caused us to discontinue investment in certain product lines. Specifically, we have reduced our investment in the telecom and satellite spaces. Beginning in July 2003, we entered into two transactions to further decrease our telecom business. In July 2003, we discontinued our Mainsail line of products and entered into an agreement with a third party to supply warranty services for the Mainsail products.

     In July 2003, we entered into an agreement with Verilink Corporation (Verilink) to sell certain telecom assets associated with the Miniplex product line to Verilink. Additionally, Verilink agreed to purchase related inventory from us and assume all telecom warranty obligations with the exception of $2.4 million, which will continue to be our responsibility. To date, only nominal claims have been made against this warranty obligation and we believe that the likelihood of any material claim being made against us is remote.

     On April 2, 2004, we sold all of our ownership in Radwiz, Ltd., Ultracom Communications Holdings Ltd. and Combox Ltd. to a third party for a cash payment of $150,000. In connection with this disposition, the acquirer received obsolete inventories with no book value, $0.2 million of selected net assets, and $1.35 million of net liabilities related to these subsidiaries. We recorded a net gain of $1.3 million on this transaction in the second quarter of 2004.

     We cannot assure you that we correctly forecasted the right product lines to discontinue or that our decision to discontinue various investments and product lines is prudent if market conditions change. In addition, we cannot assure you that the discontinuance of various product lines will reduce our operating expenses. Furthermore, future plans to discontinue existing product lines entail various risks, including the risks that we will not be able to find a buyer for a product line or the purchase price obtained will not be equal to the book value of the assets for the product line.

We need to develop and introduce new and enhanced products in a timely manner to remain competitive.

     The markets in which we operate are characterized by rapidly changing technologies, evolving industry standards, frequent new product introductions and relatively short product life. The pursuit of necessary technological advances and the development of new products require substantial time and expense. For example, we made ten acquisitions during the period between 1999 and 2000. Due to various economic conditions, none of the products from our acquired businesses have achieved the level of market acceptance that was forecasted at the time of their acquisitions. Additionally, certain product groups have not achieved the level of technological development needed to be marketable or to expand the market. As a result, we recorded an aggregate of approximately $576.8 million related to impairment charges and write-down of in-process research and development related to the acquired technologies, both of which negatively impacted our operating results in 2001 and 2002.

     To compete successfully in the markets in which we operate, we must design, develop, manufacture and sell new or enhanced products that provide increasingly higher levels of performance and reliability. However, we may not be able to successfully develop or introduce these products, if our products are not (i) cost effective, (ii) brought to market in a timely manner, (iii) in accordance with evolving industry standards and architecture or (iv) fail to achieve market acceptance. There is no assurance that the technologies we are currently developing or intend to develop will achieve feasibility, or that even if we are successful, the developed product will be accepted by the market. We may not be able to recover the costs of existing and future product developments and our failure to do so may materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

41

We are exposed to the credit risk of our customers and to credit exposures in weakened markets, which could result in material losses.

     Most of our sales are on an open credit basis, with payment terms of 30 to 60 days typically in the United States, and because of local customs or conditions, longer in some markets outside the United States. Beyond our open credit arrangements, we have also experienced a request for customer financing and facilitation of leasing arrangements, which we have not provided to date and do not expect to provide in the future. We expect demand for enhanced open credit terms, for example, longer payment terms, customer financing and leasing arrangements to continue and believe that such arrangements are a competitive factor in obtaining business. Our decision not to provide these types of financing arrangements may adversely affect our ability to sell product, and therefore, our revenue, operations and business.

     Because of the current condition in the global economy, our exposure to credit risks relating to sales on an open-credit basis has increased. Although we monitor and attempt to mitigate the associated risk, there can be no assurance that our efforts will be effective in reducing credit risk. Additionally, there have been significant insolvencies and bankruptcies among our customers, which have and may continue to cause us to incur economic and financial losses. There can be no assurance that additional losses would not be incurred and that such losses would not be material. Although these losses have generally not been material to date, future losses, if incurred, could harm our business and have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

We have and we may seek to expand our business through acquisitions; acquisitions could disrupt our business operations and harm our operating results.

     In order to expand our business, we may make strategic acquisitions of other companies or certain assets. We plan to continue to evaluate opportunities for strategic acquisitions from time to time, and may make an acquisition at some future point. However, the current volatility in the stock market and the current price of our common stock may adversely affect our ability to make such acquisitions. Any acquisition that we make involves substantial risks, including the following:

     Acquisitions may also cause us to:

     Mergers and acquisitions of high-technology companies are inherently risky, and no assurance can be given that our future acquisitions will be successful and will not materially adversely affect our business, operating results or financial condition. Failure to manage and successfully integrate acquisitions we make could harm our business and operating results in a material way. Even when an acquired company has

42

already developed and marketed products, there can be no assurance that product enhancements will be made in a timely fashion or that all pre-acquisition due diligence will have identified all possible issues that might arise with respect to such products.

     We made ten acquisitions during the period between 1999 and 2000. Due to various economic conditions, none of the products from our acquired businesses have achieved the level of market acceptance that was forecasted at the time of their acquisitions. Additionally, certain product groups have not achieved the level of technological development needed to be marketable or to expand the market. We recorded impairment losses of approximately $4.0 million and $572.8 million of intangible assets related to these acquisitions in December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. As of June 30, 2004, no intangible assets from these acquisitions remained.

Our products are subject to safety approvals and certifications.

     In the United States, our products are required to meet certain safety requirements. For example, we are required to have our products certified by Underwriters Laboratory in order to meet federal requirements relating to electrical appliances to be used inside the home. Outside the United States, our products are subject to the regulatory requirements of each country in which the products are manufactured or sold. These requirements are likely to vary widely. We may be unable to obtain on a timely basis or at all the regulatory approvals that may be required for the manufacture, marketing and sale of our products.

We are vulnerable to earthquakes, disruptions to our power supply, labor issues and other unexpected events.

     Our corporate headquarters, as well as the majority of our research and development activities and some manufacturing operations are located in California, an area known for seismic activity. In addition, the operations of some of our key suppliers and manufacturers are also located in this area and in other areas known for seismic activity, such as Taiwan. An earthquake, or other significant natural disaster, could result in an interruption in our business or the operations of one or more of our key suppliers. Our California operations may also be subject to disruptions in power supply, such as those that occurred in 2001. Our business may also be impacted by labor issues related to our operations and/or those of our suppliers, service providers, or customers. Such an interruption could harm our operating results. We may not carry sufficient business interruption insurance to compensate for any losses that we may sustain as a result of any natural disasters or other unexpected events.

Various export licensing requirements could materially and adversely affect our business or require us to significantly modify our current business practices.

     Various government export regulations may apply to the encryption or other features of our products. We may have to make certain filings with the government in order to obtain permission to export certain of our products. In the past, we may have inadvertently failed to file certain export applications and notices, and we may have to make certain filings and request permission to continue exportation of any affected products without interruption while these applications are pending. If we do have to make such filings, we cannot assure you that we will obtain permission to continue exporting the affected products or that we will obtain any required export approvals now or in the future. If we do not receive the required export approvals, we may be unable to ship those products to certain customers located outside of the United States. In addition, we may be subject to fines or other penalties due to the failure to file certain export applications and notices.

New laws and regulations affecting corporate governance may impede our ability to retain and attract board members and executive officers, and increase the costs associated with being a public company.

     On July 30, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The new act is designed to enhance corporate responsibility through new corporate governance and disclosure obligations, increase auditor independence, and tougher penalties for securities fraud. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Nasdaq have adopted rules in furtherance of the act.

43

This act and the related new rules and regulations will likely have the effect of increasing the complexity and cost of our company’s corporate governance and the time our executive officers spend on such issues, and may increase the risk of personal liability for our board members, chief executive officer, chief financial officer and other executives involved in our company’s corporate governance process. As a result, it may become more difficult for us to attract and retain board members and executive officers involved in the corporate governance process. In addition, we have experienced, and will continue to experience, increased costs associated with being a public company, including additional professional and independent auditor fees.

Our stock price has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile.

     The trading price of our common stock has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile. Our stock price could be subject to extreme fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:

     In addition, the stock markets in general, and the Nasdaq National Market and the stock price of broadband services and technology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume volatility. This volatility and decline has affected many companies irrespective of or disproportionately to the operating performance of these companies. Additionally, industry factors may materially adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

We have adopted a stockholder rights plan, which, together with provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law, may delay or prevent an acquisition of us, which could decrease the value of our stock.

     We adopted a stockholder rights plan pursuant to which we distributed one right for each outstanding share of common stock held by stockholders of record as of February 20, 2001. Because the rights may substantially dilute the stock ownership of a person or group attempting a take-over of us, even if such a change in control is beneficial to our stockholders, without the approval of our board of directors, the plan could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, or a significant percentage of our outstanding capital stock, without first negotiating with our board of directors. Additionally, provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation and our Bylaws could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us in a transaction not approved by our Board of Directors, and we are subject to the anti-takeover provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which could also have the effect of delaying or preventing our acquisition by a third party.

44

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Interest Rate Risk.

     Our exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates primarily to our investment portfolio. The primary objective of our investment activities is to preserve principal while maximizing yields without significantly increasing risk. This is accomplished by investing in widely diversified short-term investments, consisting primarily of investment grade securities, substantially all of which mature within the next twenty-four months. A hypothetical 50 basis point increase in interest rates would result in an approximate $17,000 decline (less than 1%) in the fair value of our available-for-sale securities.

Foreign Currency Risk.

     A substantial majority of our revenue, expense and capital purchasing activity are transacted in U.S. dollars. However, we do enter into transactions from Belgium, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Korea, China and Israel denominated in local currencies. A hypothetical adverse change of 10% in exchange rates would result in a decline in income before taxes of approximately $445,000.

     All of the potential changes noted above are based on sensitivity analyses performed on our financial positions at June 30, 2004. Actual results may differ materially.

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

     As of the end of the period covered by report, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective in timely alerting them to material information required to be presented in this report.

     There has been no change in our internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect our internal controls over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

     See “Litigation” under Part I, Item 2, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION

     As reported in a recent Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we have determined to defer the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders, originally scheduled for August 10, 2004, for a brief period of time. We are committed to move forward with the annual meeting process as soon as practicable and will provide further information about the date of the 2004 annual meeting, the anticipated mailing of the proxy materials and revised deadlines for stockholder proposals as soon as reasonably practicable.

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K

     (a) EXHIBITS

45

46

     (b) REPORTS ON FORM 8-K

The Company furnished the following Current Reports on Form 8-K during the three months ended June 30, 2004: