Al, I will be surprised if revenues are higher for the quarter about to end, than the previous quarter (excluding one-time sources).
Both FTEL and FNET are losing money quickly. If one does not have a PP, in my opinion, it will be because of "creative accounting" rather than for lack of necessity. Remember, FNET is essentially (78% or so) FTEL's as evidenced by the SEC's requirement that they be consolidated on the SEC documents. There is a lot of room for "Peter to lend Paul" money. However, if FTEL and FNET have increased revenues this upcoming quarter compared to the most recent quarter, I may be impressed to some degree (I'd have to see the SEC document to determine the quality of the revenue source).
I think it is a good idea to hold me accountable for my opinions.
Regarding the DVGs, I meant to ask about video being carried, not voice. I think it should have been obvious that I made a mistype.
Voice will be free, according to many experts including the CEO of Cisco Systems (CSCO). Companies like Lucent, CSCO, IBM, and ATT will provide the technology to provide free voice and they will profit from the ownership of the information lines, sale of computers, and sale of other hardware to make the internet and free voice (telephone calls) possible.
Yes, in theory FTEL could provide some of the hardware to provide the free phone calls for everyone, but why would you, if you were a CEO of a company, go with a peanut company that might not exist in a couple years, when you could go with a market leader? With a market leader, you could know that your company's communication lines will probably not be worthless in a few years.
Many companies also prefer completely secure lines to do business on, so many companies will resist service from "internet-type" phone companies. This will not stop the growth, of course, but it will make it harder for companies like FTEL to sell, IMO.
My over-riding concern with FTEL, however, is the company's history. History has a tendency to repeat itself. I expect shareholders to continue to be disappointed.
In a recent SEC document, Frank is listed of lending FTEL money in exchange for that money being convertible into stock at 1/2 market value. That seemed odd to me considering the loan amount was less than $200,000 and the company had over $ 5 million. I wonder if the recent "share purchase" wasn't related to the conversion of that questionable agreement with the company.
In the next SEC document, I will see if the convertible loan was converted. If so, why did FTEL even need the money? How did the average stockholder benefit from Frank's convertible?
FTEL: $ .82
VALUESPEC
|
