Wednesday, October 21. 2009Eventually Your Public Statements, And Actions.....John Linton .....catch up with you. I wrote yesterday about some of the ludicrous 'facts' surrounding a For those of you To say that I dislike Eftel/aanet Several I actually quoted the cited sources yesterday so I am not "Preliminary 2009 Final Report" and "Full Year Presentation"
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1303172&p=15 "There is hardly a fact in that screed. He didn't intend there to be any. It is pure marketing noise." I
In their figures submitted to the While every other communications company reported healthy profits - what did Eftel do? It reported a LOSS So, if indeed these Eftel is a Right Far from not "quoting facts" I ONLY quoted the 'facts' I have met the two Ehrenfelds and John Lane - in In case PS: I see from an email overnight that John Lane is still selectively quoting from and excising my blogs to misrepresent what I say - so the actual full quote of my "apology" almost two years ago can be found here: http://johnl.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/2007/12/14.html That post noted the local newspaper report of the antics of the Eftel board of directors calling each other crooks at a public meeting and the fact that the auditors qualified Eftel's accounts by saying their audit had revealed that the company may not continue in business because of its financial situation. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I can't believe that there is an ISP smaller than exetel, I thought exetel was the smallest ISP in Australia!
How does that work? Obviously, not very well eh! Comment (1)
The ABS claims there are several hundred ISPs in its six monthly report.
My rough estimate of the largest ISPs is: Telstra Optus TPG iinet AAPT iPrimus Internode Adam Internet Dodo M2 I don't know how big Netspace is and I have probably 'forgotten' some companies that have grown quietly over the past year or so. The rankings of the last five may wel be in the wrong order - it is a rough guide. Comments (6)
There's a Seinfeld comedy routine where he points out how silly it is to barrack for a footy team. Players come and players go until, eventually, all you're really cheering is a colour.
Same goes for hating a company. From what you've described you were, no question, very shoddily treated back in 2005. But natural justice seems to have been served here. The original company went bankrupt, the actual perpetrators have long gone (whatever happened to Lorraine Rose?) and Exetel has not only survived, but continued to go from strength to strength. So what's to be served by hating the current incarnation of aaNet/Eftel? If it goes bellyup and a bunch of innocent, hardworking people lose their jobs, how is this going to improve your lot in life? Is there still an active culture within aaNet to do Exetel harm? Will Exetel become a better company for aaNet failing? Will Lorraine Rose be poorer for it? What, exactly, is all this bile and spittle going to achieve? Nuthin' My point is all this bitterness directed towards people (and I'm not just talking about aaNet, but other ISPs and other CEOs that you like to target) that don't intend, and haven't done you, or Exetel, any injury is, most probably, misdirected and, almost certainly, a waste of your time. Maybe it's time to put all this crap behind you and just get on with your very successful life? Surely there are more enjoyable things you could be doing with your day. Comments (3)
Good Advice Stanley,
But there is such a thing as Karma and when Eftel / aaNet fall it's definitely worth at least opening a good bottle of red to celebrate that. Too bad for the shareholders though, lying directors and dishonest management and accountants have conned them thoroughly. I hope John has a plan ready to capture as many of their customers as possible when the company goes down. That would be justice that go someway to helping make up for the 12 month set back all those years ago on Exetel's business. Regards, Michael. Comments (3)
Stanley,
1) It takes me around 20 minutes to write a blog so no "major time investment' is required. 2) The Seinfeld reference is inapposite and wrong even in its context. I first went to a Geelong game in 1967 at a suburban oval. Nothing remains of that oval nor do any players or administrators of the time any longer play any active role in the club - many are dead. I, and two of my daughters still live and breathe every up and down of Geelong's seasons as we have since I, and subsequently they, first saw the team of the day play....it has nothing to do with the "colour" of the clothing as anyone would know. 3) I will never forget the pain and distress caused to thousands of people by that deranged piece of sh** nor the people who supported her and encouraged her to take the actions she did. That's just the way I am. 4) If a tiny part of my day can be spent attempting to address the imbalance on that 'ledger' then it is an irrelevant "investment". 5) If reading my random thoughts is distasteful/offensive to you - only you can address that situation and you can do that easily. Comments (6)
Your random thoughts are not distasteful/offensive to me. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The point I was trying to make, badly apparently, was that the aaNet of 2005 isn't the aaNet of 2009. The people that meant to do you harm have gone. You're directing your anger at a memory, a ghost, a shadow. aaNet is just the name on the door. If they go bust tomorrow all that happens is a lot of good people lose their jobs and you profit, in reality, nothing. It's not even worth the schadenfreude. Your anger is totally justified, just pointed in the wrong direction. That's the waste of time, not your blog. Comments (3)
Stanley,
Schadenfreud is not remotely the correct description of what motivates my feelings about the people involved in the despicable actions of April 2009. I take no pleasure from the demise of the first iteration of "aanet" which, I hope I contributed to in a minor way. Whether or not I believe what either Lorraine Rose or an ex-Eftel 'senior' employee said about Eftel's involvement in that scurrilous conspiracy is not relevant - the fact remains that the name 'aanet' is still in existence and that is anathematic to me. Like the boring and dyspeptic (from the expression on his 'bust') Marcus Porcius I will not feel that justice has been done until that despicable entity ends its days in the final bankruptcy it deserves. If I can do anything to bring that day forward then it is an obligation for me to do that - the small amount of time any such effort may take is irrelevant. Comments (6)
You're not planning on changing the name of Exetel to The Pequod, are you?
Comments (3)
As someone committed to conservation I couldn't imagine associating the company with a reminder of a barbaric remnant of 19th century insanity only practiced today by the latter day barbarians that were capable of the Nanjin Massacre and the annual Taiji dolphin slaughter:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/end-dolphin-slaughter-in-japan and the brain dead Scandinavians whose view of life generally results in the highest level of teen suicide on the planet. Comments (6)
I was happy when Eftel/Aanet took over Let’s Go and destroyed their pricing; it meant that I could get out of the contract and move to Exetel (like I had wanted to for some time) a whole month early.
Let them put their prices up all they like. Their switched on customers will find the contract clause which sets them free so thy can go in search of better options. Comment (1)
Could it be business costs other than data limits that contribute to that loss?
I have a few friends who are now employed with Eftel. That mean they're expanding their team and assciated business costs. Comment (1)
Hi John,
That whirlpool thread you linked to is very interesting, I thought you'd love this post: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1303172&p=18#r352 In which Jone Lane says (and I quote): MissMuffitt writes... Going with the No frills 8000/384 $60.00 6Gig peak 12 gig off peak (excess 50c per Gig) An amazing deal. The Telstra Wholesale cost of the tail is close to $50 (inc. GST) even on a discounted deal. There is simply no profit in that plan for the provider. Sorry aanet, but it will be saving me nearly $15 a month. Understood, and if you paid us $15 per month more than $60 for that plan you describe, we would be happy to have you stay. Thank you very much for your past custom. It really was appreciated and we hope that we have given you what you wanted up until now. Regards, John Lane. John sounds like a nice enough fellow and he agrees Exetel is much better value so he can't be completely dishonest or stupid (unless of course you count actually posting that reply on a public forum!) Michael. Comments (3)
Explanation for ADSL1 application surge?
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1303172&p=19#r370 Ray writes... All the AAnet customers churning could explain the surge in ADSL1 new connections at Exetel as mentioned in JL's blog That will be where many of those who churn away will go, so it wouldn't be surprising. Regards, John Lane. Comments (3)
IThe increase started to happen more than two months ago now - so that would not be the case.
Comments (6)
I think I like John Lane, but at the prices he's charging I'd never use him as an ISP.
This post is particularly well written: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1303172&p=20#r388 I'm happy with Exetel as an excellent value provider, if I wanted to pay more I'd go back to iiNet or over to Internode who I've had dealings with for business internet services. Maybe Stanley's right, your beef is probably with Mrs Rose and aaNet, not John Lane and Eftel. Regards, Michael. Comment (1)
"Maybe Stanley's right, your beef is probably with Mrs Rose and aaNet, not John Lane and Eftel."
I never associated Eftel with Lorraine Rose's actions until I had a visit from an Eftel employee (who was acting for Eftel trying to make an offer to buy Exetel). It was his comment that lead me to believe that Eftel had been involved in the Rose actions. Now, the public record shows that Eftel's directors accuse each other of all sorts of things (including misrepresenting the truth) so it's not for me to determine which Eftel employee is lying about that situation. At the time I wrote that blog I had the words of one Eftel employee - John Lane subsequently denied what that employee said. Then again, the public record shows that John Lane says a lot of things that don't appear to be accurate. Comments (6)
What a lovely bunch of people;
http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/68429/Family-feud-dominates-EFTel-meeting Family feud dominates EFTel meeting 19-November-08 by Denice Rice AS spectacular shareholder stoushes go, EFTel's extraordinary general meeting held today had it all: disallowed proxies; a bitter family feud; disputed legal opinions; all topped with allegations of lies and dirty tricks. The meeting, which was called by the company's second largest shareholder, Mathew Bretherton, in a bid to oust the company's largest shareholder and CEO Simon Ehrenfeld from the board, degenerated into a bitter family feud between Simon Ehrenfeld and his older brother Daniel Ehrenfeld, who is the third largest shareholder. The tone of the meeting was set when EFTel director Jurgen Steinert, who chaired the meeting, said in his opening remarks that the company had received legal advice that all proxies that had been lodged with Security Transfer Registrars, according to Mr Bretherton's instructions in the notice of meeting, were invalid and he was ruling that they be disregarded in any vote. Mr Steinert then refused several requests from the floor during the meeting to reveal how many proxies had been ruled invalid and how these proxies had voted. After the motion to remove Simon Ehrenfeld was put to the vote and failed, Mr Steinert said that the disallowed proxies would not have changed the result and said he would allow supporters of Mr Bretherton to inspect the proxies. Speaking for the motion before the vote, Daniel Ehrenfeld fired the first sibling salvo, saying he agreed with the concerns raised by Mr Bretherton in his notice of meeting and that in his six years as CEO Simon Ehrenfeld had failed to deliver to shareholders. Referring to the disallowed proxies he said it was "disingenuous of the board to produce a stunt to protect Simon Ehrenfeld". Daniel Ehrenfeld also questioned the independence of the board, claiming family links, either by birth or marriage, existed between all four current board members. Simon Ehrenfeld told the meeting that he was glad his brother had finally spoken for himself and had stopped getting other people to "do his dirty work". He accused his brother of "scurrilous, dishonest behaviour" and said shareholders should be in no doubt that the motion to remove him from the board had nothing to do with company performance or governance but was the result of a bitter and ongoing feud between him and his older brother. Mr Bretherton said he was outraged that EFTel would deny shareholders the right to vote and that Simon Ehrenfeld failed to address the issues raised in the notice of meeting. "Simon Ehrenfeld made a number of incorrect statements today in relation to why this meeting was called all highly personal and none related to the issues raised about poor governance, performance and transparency of the company," he said. "We have a glaring example of why we need changes to the board of EFTel." Comment (1)
Where to start....
Who in their right mind would buy an ISP that trades on the premise of value (as aaNet always claimed to), only to increase prices? If Eftel do have as excellent a network as they claim to sell and have the sort of capacity their website lay claim to, then their opportunity cost should be quite low, meaning they would bring additional efficiencies to aaNet's operation (and LetsGo's, and the other groups they have bought). One or more of three conclusions is realised here: Eftel does not have a network of the size and capacity claimed No additional efficiencies are brought to the supply side of the companies acquired by Eftel * The companies purchased by Eftel are unsustainable in their purchased forms Exetel manages to improve their cost base, whilst "apparently" being smaller (according to Eftel's claimed position). Something doesn't add up here with Eftel's numbers it would seem. It's unfortunate in a way - Australia has a relatively competition free market in many segments compared to the rest of the world. Eftel claim to be servicing a whole range of those segments, but the lack of basic things like pricing and coverage information of their website shows a lack of unique approach - Exetel make it a lot easier to do business for companies like the one I work for. Comment (1)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |