Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : FRANKLIN TELECOM (FTEL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Al Krasberg who wrote (39371)	11/21/1998 1:43:00 PM
From: STK1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41046

Al I agree and may I add,I got here because I believed in the tech not the company or the management at the time,I realized that the management would change and it has.I believed that the Focus would change and it has,I believed that the stock would suffer and it has,I also believed that the company would become a different kind of supplier of different eq and it has.The IPO/PP and Series C are needed business matters that will always have to be addressed. I Also know that the company is much different then what it was ,We now have a good supporting product and we are in the Focus of a one company provider.That is good.WE have billing we have transport we now have the best security and we have a two ended fork in the industry,EQ provider and a Telco Integerator and Sustainable and recurring revenue base that is going to exponentially grow with the market trends and industry.Several more qtrs will show added revs and maybe some added losses,But as the expenditures ease and the infracture is in place those rec revs will far out strip the temporary expenses.Bingo Profit time. I also have to depart and be a bit speculative here and to the interest that could have possibly been in Franks mind regarding World Com.With the testing and network setup from FL to AZ to Westlake,What does this mean?With WCOM at this time wanting to gain entry into VOIP and never at all giving any hint to any type of process and or Plateform and or tech It makes sense that at the right time FNET is going to be in many many WCOM POPs,Its just a card I believe is still worth more then what can be imagined at this time. I Have only heard of Rumors of any possible ATT or TCI interest in Vocaltec ,,Asend and BAY as a provider though the interest they have in v is already known to many,Sprint and GTE have expressed interest in some of the smaller eq providers but more in mergers in exsiting isps.Wcom has never said anything about any vendors or have they looked at eq at a distance. DT on the other hand is looking at going into the US in the biggest possible way as early as 99 and wanting to provide several levels of service. There is not a thing wrong with insiders selling other then many believe that it is wrong and and the shareholders suffer The thought that insiders sell cause they know the company is not worth that much is ludicrous.It may happen but as we all know its a daily thing to buy and sell,If I owned several mill shares of FTEL and it ran to 10 I'd sell , so would you. All in all the bashing that recures here in the form of continues negativity is in itself inspiring,IT makes me readdress the actuall progress of the company in the smallest of instances and shows me that the company is indeed moving ahead,That is what matters to me,I believe that as long as we move technically ahead and prepare for the market we will win,If we start selling Three wheeled battery cars in NY I will get out,So I advise VS to chk out BAAT and the hydralic pogo stick and leave the investors in tomorrows technology alone,It was not long ago I remember Him asking If a DVG carries Data,Am I wrong or should we not Humble Him for his inability to understand not only The tech but the History of telcom and tech in general as it pertains to historic industrial revolution.

To: Al Krasberg who wrote (39371)	11/22/1998 4:02:00 AM
From: William Harvey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41046

Al, I usually agree with almost everything you say, but let me make an addendum to your comments. ValueSpec's been right all along: This doesn't mean to say that the FTEL bunch 'from the P* days' sold you anything spiritually misleading or harmful. And yet why draw another line in the sand? If ValueSpec has been bashing the stock to drive the price lower, why hasn't he gotten on board for the ride back up? How many times has somebody said they were going to hold him accountable? It's not an original idea. One of the biggest problems of "The Thread" (not necessarily this place) is that scorecards get lost. Mental horizons do not extend indefinitely. I can't believe people so willingly blow up these so-called agendas without realizing that FTEL and FNet have different agendas and Frank could probably 'relieve' us of the burden of FNet for pennies, at any moment. Let's get along. The Bible says, "Don't set your heart on your wealth, but never say, 'I have enough'." It's hard to believe that, by drawing another line in the sand, you will prove you've had enough. Like the Bible says, there's no good reason to say it. Seems to me like investors have been keeping score mentally because that's the only way it works. Nobody's going to steal your potato. By the same token, emotional tactics don't work for Franklin investors either. One of the worst things you can say about this company is that it will double in one day for no reason. There's no good reason to sell because tomorrow the others will talk about how stupid the sellers were. You've all lost the right to reason about selling. That simplifies things. Simplify things too much and hamburgers eat people. Simplify things too much and you won't have harmony. WH

To: Al Krasberg who wrote (39371)	11/23/1998 8:26:00 AM
From: VALUESPEC	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 41046

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