E-mail correspondence with John Howell:
The words are EXACT. Nothing changed except that I put this in order.
*****************************************************************
Hello John! At the presentation in San Diego, you put out the following timelines:
1) Theory Modeling: aug. - sept. 2001
2) Simulation: sept. - oct. 2001
3) Prototype System Design: nov.2001 - feb. 2002
4) Prototype Implementation: dec.2001 - feb. 2002
5) Carrier Trials: march - july 2002
6) Design Review: jan. 2002 forward
7) Gen 1 Asiic Development: dec. 2001 forward
Are we now on step 4 (prototype implementation)? Is in-house testing a part of this step? Will New Visual be revising any of these timelines? It is my opinion that it is VERY important that investors are kept abreast of any possible delays so that we are not left wondering what is going on at any given time.
Keep up the good work John.
Thank you,
Michael Wolf
Michael,
The timelines are a slowly moving tartget and have been revised in various ways for each presentation. The Salem timeline page has just been printed and has some adjustments to reflect the best estimates. We are not at all interested in suggesting timelines as a form of appeasment and if adjustments are warranted, we will make them without apology.
John
John,
I wasn't asking for an apology. I was asking for a revision of the timelines if available. I have a good bit of my hard earned money tied up and I have also lured 9 others into this stock. They made their decision to buy on my word and will do the same on the sell side. They have been asking me about the status for a few weeks now so in order to help calm them I decided to write a simple e-mail to the person responsible for IR. If you are not interested in answering my question I hope that you can direct me to someone who is. And if you are not at all interested in suggesting timelines as a form of appeasement then I wonder why you put them out in the first place!
Michael
Michael,
Sorry if my response was inconsiderate of your question, it was not intended that way. In general the timelines have not shifted much. In future documents we will refrain from including the timeline page to avoid confusion. While the list you have reproduced addresses items that must be completed before the final product hits the shelf, the manner in which they may drift one way or the other will not substantially affect the final completion date. For example, if we shift the carrier trials to accommodate either a specific carrier or a specific product, that does not mean that the testing has not yielded the results to allow us to move forward on the final product. The carrier trials are more for public relations than for substance.
I appreciate your involvement in our company and your consistent communication. I also appreciate that you feel a responsibility to those who have trusted you to be shareholders. I share that feeling and am determined to do my best to insure that neither you nor your friends are ultimately disappointed.
John
John,
Thank you for your response. I'm not concerned in the least about a little PR. I realize that you have things going on at this time that prevent you from disclosing information that you'd otherwise be more than willing to share. Press releases are a natural result of progress made by the company and I do not expect you to release one to satisfy the short term expectations of shareholders. I focus more on results and will likely check in from time to time to see how things are coming along. It's just my nature as I have a company of my own and I like to know what's going on at all times. Whether the timelines shift one way or the other is of little concern as long as I am kept informed of any major delays. I will stick with this company due to many factors one of which is your ability to shoot straight as FD allows now as well as in the past. You do a lot for the little you get in return and I appreciate it. I believe you will be rewarded!
Kind regards,
Michael
Michael,
I genuinely appreciate your desire to keep current on any changes that are made. As with any business, we try our best to balance current information with best guess estimates for milestones. We are not always accurate on our guesses. Does that make us wrong? I believe that those who have dialed into our process will recognize the inexactness of the science of guessing and will be tolerant of adjustments. Unfortunately we currently have only one thing for our investors to focus on and that is monitored hour by hour. What is perceived as the most important elements of our future, announcements of white papers, field trials, alliances, etc., are really only outward manifestations of our focus. We will develop a product and it will solve a problem in the last mile. It will be adopted by players within the telco industry. To get there is often circuitous with complex dynamics that appear to be delays but often are strategic adjustments. Carrier trials are an example. The date of those trials is somewhat academic, but that is not what the shareholders perceive. However, because of the many political implications of those trials, we will offer a wide window of future dates to avoid being caught in a vise. In so doing, we frustrate those who have specific agendas for performance.
I need to go to a conference call, so will need to conclude this later.
John
AI
