Dear Mr Wallace,

Many have attempted to communicate with you on the matters I will outline
below. Few have received a satisfactory reply. Your habit is to ignore
repeated letters without so much as the courtesy of confirmation. I have
taken some time to construct this letter, and hope that you at least verify
that you have read it, even if, as is usual, you decide not to respond
further.

To the matter at hand: ex-Videotron subscribers and the ambiguities
surrounding their future treatment by Cable and Wireless Communications
(referred to hereafter as CWC). My phone-line was installed by Videotron in
February 1997. It now appears the merger was in process at that time. I am
certain you have examined Alastair Scott's Cable and Wireless Watch website
(http://www.unmetered.org.uk/watch/) and are well aware of the issues
presented therein. I am not going to attempt to convince you that the
removal of unmetered local calls is a commercially silly decision. I am sure
you will discover that for yourself in time, if indeed it the course of
action upon which you settle. I will therefore simply issue a list of
questions surrounding ex-Videotron subscribers. I would appreciate, for
once, some unambiguous and authoritative replies.

1. I have in my possession several Videotron marketing leaflets. They were
distributed up to (and even a short while after) the CWC take-over last
year. They are peppered with "Free Local Calls" logos. They include explicit
claims that the free local calls package is "no catch or gimmick", is "not a
short-term offer" and is a "permanent benefit". The Concise OED defines
permanent as "Lasting, intended to last permanently". Does your definition
of permanent concur with the dictionary's?

2. It has been suggested that upon taking over Videotron, and in the lengthy
discussions leading to it, there was some doubt in the minds of the
Directors as to the veracity of the above claim of permanence. If so, why
were the aforementioned leaflets distributed as inducements right until (and
after) the last minute? Why, if the future course was less than certain,
were salespeople and company representatives still giving repeated cast-iron
guarantees that the Videotron local-calls package could never be abolished?

3. The Videotron contract attempts to award the company carte-blanche powers
to modify the terms of service at any time. Are you aware of how dubiously
such a claim would be treated in court, especially after the inclusion in
British Law of the European Directive on Consumer Contracts?

4. I have another Videotron brochure. It contains clear inducements to
subscribers to encourage their friends and family to subscribe. This
inducement is based entirely on the permanent free-local-call offer. Are you
aware in what light a court of law would view such inducements, particularly
if it was found that while such inducements were being made, the company's
true emerging beliefs were rather different to those presented in brochures
such as this?

5. Before 1 June last year, CWC gave the Consumer's Association what was
termed a "100% assurance". It stated that ".. existing Videotron customers
would continue to have free Internet access if their ISP had a Videotron
line". It continued: "the tariff change to only 100 free minutes per month
would only affect new customers". So far, this is consistent with the
written promises made to Videotron subscribers above, do you not agree?

6. After the merger, Ex-Videotron subscribers Emailed CWC in some anxiety
following rumours that they would be forced to new packages. Several
received the following form reply from one Caroline D'Monte of your Customer
Liaison Department: "I can confirm that whilst we have decided to cease
offering Free Local Calls to new customers, existing customers will remain
on their current tariffs. They will have the option to migrate or change
their services to one of our packages that suit their requirements. However
this decision will not be forced on them". As a promise is a promise is a
promise, do you adhere to this crystal-clear pledge, made on behalf of your
company?

7. Further to this, Debbie Annand, a Customer Liaison Manager, confirmed
that "all existing Videotron telephone customers will, for the foreseeable
future, continue to be able to make use of the free calls offering." Do you
agree that to all intents and purposes, this is consistent with the above,
or would you rather now circumscribe your foresight?

8. In November last year, I received a reply to one of my Emails to your
company: a rare occurrence. In it, Graham S Wallace, a Sales Support and
Development manager, stated that "it currently looks likely that during 1998
the free local calls policy will be replaced with a free minutes-per-month
policy." Explain in what way this might be considered consistent with the
promises and assurances outlined above, not to mention the countless
unwritten mollifications given by your staff during the take-over?

9. In January 1998, you sent leaflets to most, if not all, of your
ex-Videotron subscribers. A letter was included amongst the colourful dross
which detailed the 11% monthly line-rental increase and the removal of the
joint-services discount. An encouragement was made to switch to one of CWC's
new packages. Nowhere within this inducement is the proviso that the new
packages will entail the loss of the Videotron free-local-call terms, which
they will. Is this an indication of the true hue of the "openness and
honesty" with which you have attempted to paint your company in your various
advertisements? Speaking of which, are you aware of the concerns the
Advertising Standards Authority has with your company?

10. There is an audiovisual "interview" with you on your company's
web-pages. In it, you focus several times on how important you believe is an
effective and proficient customer liaison and services department. Up to and
including the time of writing, though, the departments in question are still
characterised by well-meaning inconsistent muddle at best, and deceptive
subterfuge at worst. Can you explain why, despite your assurances, these
departments are now worse than ever? Were you aware, for example, that one
of the many inconsistent justifications given for the proposed abolition of
the free local calls package (given to several enquirers by your employees)
was that OFTEL has forced your company so to do? As you are aware, this is a
utterly untrue. OFTEL have confirmed it as such. How do you explain such
extraordinary statements emanating with such fecundity from your
customer-facing departments? How do you account for statements made by your
customer services department like "customer services is always the last to
know" and "the managers are never in"? Would you like to justify the phrase
"Oh, push off sir" and the slamming down of the telephone as the final
answer to my question to your sales department concerning why I was being
refused a second line on the Videotron tariff?

11. Further, considering most people with whom I have conversed have given
up attempting to communicate with your company directly, would you like to
justify the poor quality of your web-page offerings? The so-called weekly
column has now not been updated for a month, there is little contact
information, the webmaster never replies to urgent Email, the press releases
end in November 1997, for a long while the visitors' book was being used for
entertaining anti-CWC abuse (indicating how carefully you monitor feedback),
and the whole thing has the appearance of a cobweb site. Are you aware of
how damaging this kind of neglect is to your image amongst technically
literate individuals?

12. Your company's chaotic flurry of contradictory information followed by a
reticence to communicate further lead to much confusion. Perhaps, it was
thought, a national newspaper could distil some sense out of the jumble. The
Times, in February 1998, after much deliberation by your company, finally
received several carefully considered statements on two separate occasions.
The fully-quoted gist of these statements was to promise that CWC  "..have
no plans to remove (the free local calls that operated on the old Videotron
package). Customers who signed up to that package can keep it for as long as
they want indefinitely". An extract from this interview was published in the
Times on 18 February 1998. Similar statements were made to the Consumer's
Association for publication in Which? Magazine. The phrase "as long as they
want indefinitely" is remarkably clear and unambiguous, do you not agree?

13. The twice-confirmed statements mentioned directly above echo the
original Videotron promises. They appeared, for a brief moment, to be the
resolution of the turmoil. At the very time they were being made, though,
you sent a signed letter to one of your customers containing this statement:
"... we have taken the decision, in principle, to convert customers to our
new tariff packages. This will, of course, mean the removal of free 'cable
to cable' calls ... No final decision has been taken on when or how we will
make the change ...". How do you explain this direct contradiction to the
assurances made by Videotron's marketing leaflets, your customer-service
staff, and the above-mentioned newspaper statements being made concurrently?
Considering the machinations described above and below, how do you square
the claim in the same letter that dealings with ex-Videotron subscribers
need to be handled "with sensitivity"? Is sensitivity here merely a synonym
for patronising disdain?

14. Several of your subscribers who phoned customer services after The
Times' publication were informed that the article was a "distorted
misquotation". They were then informed in no uncertain terms that, contrary
to the report, free local calls were being forcibly removed. I have been
informed that this claim of distortion has subsequently been retracted by
CWC. Do you confirm that retraction?

15. If you have retracted the claim of distortion by The Times, you must
agree that the statements printed therein are a true reflection of what your
company representative told the experienced journalist. Do you wish now,
therefore, to confirm them as representing the truth of the matter, or do
you wish somehow to disown these correctly-reported statements made and
confirmed to two national publications? If you do feel the need to retract a
correctly-reported, published public statement days after it has been made,
do you realise the message about your competency as manager this sends?

16. Are you aware that over 300 Videotron subscribers who have seen Alastair
Scott's website have signed a public pledge. This confirms that if at any
stage the signatory is forcibly removed from the free local call terms
without an adequate substitute (and the rather pitiful LocalCall package is
not considered as such, I can assure you), he or she will respond by
cancelling his or her whole CWC subscription forthwith. Does this concern
you or do you see it as an unfortunate but minor casualty of the merger?

17. Further, are you aware that in Mr Scott's survey of 210 people, the
average monthly CWC bill (even with free local calls) is #51? Do you
consider it a trivial matter to lose these individuals (and the much larger
proportion of people they represent) if you try and force through the
abolition?

18. Are you aware how bad a reputation CWC has in an area of the market it
needs credibility the most keenly?

19. In your online interview (mentioned earlier) you claim that your belief
in CWCs future success is partly predicated on your conviction that you have
a superb and resourceful management team. Whatever your opinions on the
rights and wrongs of the items discussed above, do you agree that the whole
affair smacks of managerial incompetence at all levels?

20. Would you be prepared to discuss and attempt to come to some kind of
communication about this debacle in a face-to-face meeting at a place of
your choosing with myself and other members of the Cable and Wireless Watch
mailing-list? I cannot overestimate what ill-feeling there is about your
company at the moment, and a large proportion of that is directly connected
with your personal failure in communicating your company's evolving
strategies publicly and consistently. The facts: a significant proportion of
your customerbase is becoming angrier and angrier needlessly. The buck stops
with you. Are you ready to say mia culpa? You have nothing to lose. After
all, with the apologies for a little more Latin, Qui iacet in terra non
habet unde cadet.

There you have it. Twenty questions. I hope you will feel able to answer
them, and that the increasing group of individuals now in regular
communication about these matters can begin some kind of dialogue with you.
This whole affair has gone on long enough. You can contact me at the above
address. You can send me electronic mail. You can phone me on my above BT
number (as you will note above, I was refused, rather rudely, a second CWC
line under my current terms) or at work. We want to get to know you. We want
to know what you can do for  us. We extend this final opportunity. Remember
the 300 signatories: for your sake, please don't slam down the phone on us
again, literally or otherwise.

Yours sincerely,



Nick Mailer