When two individuals have points to make, occasionally their fervent zealousness to express these points cloud their ability to fully comprehend what the other is saying. If you feel that is the case, then I'm sorry, but allow me to recount the facts:
"But if memory serves me correctly, it was clearly stated in the notice that went out to everyone that a new plan was in the making and we would be hearing from IP in the next few days."
Sorry, in this case memory doesn't serve. Here's what was clearly stated, verbatim:
"The new program will be usage sensitive and not on a flat rate basis. There will be a gap in delivery of service for our regular, local dial-up nationwide access areas. During this transition period, you will need to find another method of internet access."
This after finally being clued in that it was a pilot program all along, is what I meant by being left to "hang in the balance"
If you were simply a customer and not so deeply vested in this company I believe it would not be so easy to gloss over this issue. As it stands we were guinea pigs in a game to see if AOL, PRODIGY, MSN, ATT etc. did their homework when they refused to get involved with unlimited 1-800 access. Only difference is WE paid for it. In the real world, a handful of selected users are asked to participate in a "pilot program" at severly discounted rates (usually free of charge) so that data can be gathered
And Informed decisions can be made from that data about rates, types of usage, types of access, etc. without inconviencing the customers .
I don't care how you slice it, This reeks of bad business practices and I for one expressed my concern as a customer and a shareholder. I appolgize if this causes you heartburn but it is my right.
I'm not going to get into a drawn out debate here, just pointing out some things that have a lot of people, rightfully so, on edge.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Wyenn needs a course in "Customer Relations 101"
Maybe if S. Marcioni has a few minutes-
Which leads me to my next point.
"See, no flaming, just more spreading of negataivism based on assumptions rather than fact"
The next release, after 2 full days of bickering, was masterfully created by V.P. Marcioni to clear the air and calm the fears. It was professionally arranged, with a clear and consise information. If this were released first there would probably be 400 less posts on the thread and whole lot less wasted time, wouldn't you agree?
Interesting that my praise for Mrs. (Ms.?) Marcioni's work was omitted from your two page attempt to paint me as a negative thread basher who gets some sort of sick thrill in watching his investment tank. Still haven't figured that out.
"Dan, you said that you find it appalling that these people were accused of being responsible for the decline"
No, I said I find it unconscionable. Feel free to to misquote me with a synonym at least. Try Unscrupulous.
I'm not appalled at anything I read on the net and have come to expect the worst a lot of the time.
I disagree completely with your assessment that I along with others were somehow even remotely responsible for starting this decline.
"No, you're right, they are not entirely responsible for the decline, they kicked just the first snowball down the avalance zone"
If anyone panic sold it sure as hell wasn't my fault and I resent the insinuation !!
I have supported this stock from the day I found out about it on AOL. I have done my own DD on this stock and still hold a fair percentage of my portfolio with it. For the record I have sold and bought back in a few times.
The decline is/was due directly to poor planning by the company, plain and simple. It is not my fault, it is not James', nor Bill's, nor Judith's fault.
This is where the judgement is getting clouded. A whole string of deals (WEB TV, 1-800 ISDN,) hinged on the 800 service being a sucess. What made FNet unique( and drove FTEL's price up in the first place) is that they were able to do something no one else could- FLAT RATE 1-800 ACCESS. Well now we now know they can't. It is time to regroup and come up with a better plan B.
You keep saying that the answer is equiptment, equiptment, equiptment.
Yet there wasn't one press release related to equiptment involved in the price going from 1.81 to 5.50. What drove the price up was a unique service that no one else had and what drove it back down was the inability to deliver said service. Period. Not me or anyone else.
Sorry this is so long winded but when my character is under attack I will defend myself.
Have a Good Day and Good Luck to you,
Dan |
