Concerns with Rodny Direct

[Dottie Atwater]

I paid for the Rodny Direct services not long ago. Now just recently the following was posted on local (Volcan) groups and also sent to Rodny. I don't know if there has been a response. I find it concerning.

Quote

"The other day  we and a large fire next to my house, I called both your numbers and you were unavailable.

So I called a friend, who was able to reach you. You were kind enough to call back.

 

Now there is another fire almost as close, again much smoke, but with two numbers I cannot reach you.

 

There is no electricity, I am not sure how much longer my backup will allow Internet. So I am writing hoping you can respond, because I am again unable to reach you by phone. It is late in the evening to wake friends and ask that they help keep calling until you can be reached.

 

I hope you can have fire trucks sent, the fire may be close to other homes, it is hard to tell for sure in the night from here.

 

If you can call, again my thanks to you!

-David Burnet"

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Admin_01
added quote formating for the referenced text

[Bonnie]

Ummm. Rodny Direct has only one number. AAC has two. Might Mr. Burnet be mistaken about which hotline he was calling?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Bonnie

[Keith Woolford]

Have you tried the number yourself?

[Bonnie]

Dottie, the Rodny Hotline number is 6646-8850. The AAC Hotline numbers are 6477-6662 and 6917-0011. Please check with Mr. Burnet to determine what number(s) he called. If he called twice and got no response, and between those two attempts a neighbor called and reached Rodny, one might logically assume that Mr. Burnet called the wrong number(s), particularly since he said he called two numbers while Rodny has only one.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Admin_01
Blocking out incorrect information. See next post.

[Hazel Bowling]

According to Rodney Direct, their phone number is 6446-8850.

[Bonnie]

My mistake: failure to proofread.

[Rodny Direct]

This is Mark in tech support. First, Rodny wants to apologize to Mr. Burnett for the trouble that he experienced. 

Rodny was on duty and taking calls on both occasions when Mr. Burnett attempted to call. Indeed, the first time, his friend was able to reach Rodny promptly and the Bomberos were dispatched. Rodny assumed that Mr. Burnett was having cell phone connection problems of some kind. 

Mr. Burnetts statement mentioned that he called two hotline numbers - but Rodny Direct only has one number and there were no messages or calls logged on either occasion. 

Working with Mr. Burnett this afternoon, Rodny verified that the Rodny Direct Helpline number programmed into his phone does indeed work correctly. Apparently, in the heat of the moment, Mr. Burnett simply called the wrong number, a mistake that any of us could make. 

Once again, we apologize to Mr. Burnett and look forward to continuing to serve him as a valued member of Rodny Direct. 

[Bonnie]

Since his friend was able to reach Rodny, Mr. Burnet should have had a clue that he had the wrong number. It's my understanding that he had both the AAC number and the Rodny Direct numbers programmed into his phone and that the number he dialed that went unanswered was the AAC number. It would have been preferable to have checked this out with Rodny before posting that his call went unanswered. Dottie too might have checked further before posting here and leading Rodny subscribers to believe that he isn't doing his job. I just hope that everyone who read the original post also has read or will read the follow-up comments.

[Keith Woolford]

"Hello, this is  ____  in tech support" usually means I'm dealing with someone in Mumbai.

[Bud]

An interesting sequence of events as discussed above. Based on limited information, and perhaps flawed logic on my part, there also appears to be confusion on the part of Mr. Burnet going on here. With phone calls (plural) being unsuccessful, I find it unusual that a person would send an email in the hope that someone would see the need for assistance and summon the bomberos on behalf of Mr. Burnet. I obviously am not seeing the whole picture here. Personally speaking, I never would summon help in such a scenario via email; if telephoning did not work, then I would physically go to the bomberos unless I were desperately involved in extinguishing the fire myself.

i am pleased that Rodny's tech support was able to fill in details on the telephone communications issue that is the main topic here. However, noting that Mr. Burnet never explicitly said it was Rodny that he was calling, I would like to see an AAC response to this topic as well. And why did Dottie presume the phone calls by Mr. Burnet were to Rodny rather than AAC?

Going a bit further, what hasn't been addressed in this topic so far is the matter of multiple fires being in close proximity to at least one home. I presume from what I read that the fires were not of nearby homes or structures, but rather brush or field fires, likely set by someone who was clearing land. If they in fact were fires involving structures, then is there a chance of a pyromaniac being involved? Granted that they could have been fires from lightning strikes, but I really discount that possibility.

To use Dottie's words, "I find it [multiple fires] concerning." What if Mr. Burnet had not been at home to protect his property? Would we now be reading requests for donations to repair/replace a burned out home?

I am not trying to make more of this situation than warranted, but some aspects just are puzzling to me. And so my question is, can someone provide more details about the two fires?

[Dottie Atwater]

Here's the followup email from David Burnett. I find both of his emails somewhat confusing. It seems pretty obvious that David did either have phone problems or called the wrong number. I apologize for posting anything that could reflect negatively on Rodny. I had no way of checking to see if David's comments were correct. It's just that as a subscriber, David's email concerned me. I'm glad to see that the fault was no doubt David's.

 

Quote

I was about to lose power when I wrote this email, my uninteruptible backup batteries were beeping wildly. I did not have time to edit.

It did work, a friend saw the email, called, and got through; and in less than an hour after I called 
Rodney, firemen had arrived.
 

My email had the effect that I hoped for: help came.
 

And I just received an email from Mark Heyer who tells me that my comments may be damaging to Rodney for his reliability. I had and have now no such intention of doing such a thing. I wanted help, was running out of options, and sent a message out explaining what happened.  It's just what happened, not an accusation or intended to malign Rodney.  And the good news is that it worked, and worked well: a friend who was awake saw my email, called and reached Rodney, and Rodney did well - he got firemen to come to the scene.
 

Just so everyone knows, Rodney was kind enough to call after I was unable to get through the first day, I think it was Thursday or Friday night.  He called again today, wanting to check that I had a right number. The good news is that I did, it was one of the numbers I called, and I called him back after he called me - and I was able to reach him.
 

Rodney suggested to me each time that the problem was likely just "technical difficulties", and he should know better than anyone, since he uses this system all the time.  So he is no doubt correct, and no fault of himself that he did not answer my calls. I hope this sets the record straight to everyone's satisfaction: I am not in any way saying, nor have I said, that Rodney is not reliable. Anyone who says that I have said or suggested such a thing is mistaken, and not fully aware of the facts: I never said or suggested such a thing. I merely wrote what happened, so the situation could be understood and so that someone might help.  It worked, and worked well, a friend saw my email, called, and then Rodney called for firemen who did arrive.

 

Mark Heyer wanted me to go on record, so as to make clear I had no intention of damaging Rodney's reputation for reliability, and so he could avoid having to embarrassing me to protect Rodney's reputation for reliability, which of course is very generous of him. Mark, I have no wish to impugn Rodney's reputation: I wrote about what happened because late at night, under pressure of a battery about to go out, I didn't think of anything else or better to do.  It worked; Rodney called the firemen, and they came.

Publicly, I say, thank you, Mark Heyer, for giving me a chance to clear the record so that Rodney's reputation for reliability is not damaged - which I in no way had any intention of doing.  I just wanted to get help, and with no response by phone and electricity backup battery power running out, and only a short time to write before I lost power and Internet - I simply did the best to reach out in a way I was able to think of at the time.
 

I in no way wished to damage his reputation for reliability. I was reaching out for help, using the only option I could think of quickly at that moment - and it worked well.  Someone else called Rodney and he responded well.  It worked, I got help; and Rodney called for firemen who did arrive. 

 

Mark, I hope this meets to your satisfaction a need to clarify so that Rodney's reputation is not damaged and so that you do not need to embarrass me in public. I thank you for your generosity in warning me first and so I could set the record straight.
 

And again, it all worked, and it worked out well: Rodney called and got help to come. 

-David Burnet
 

P.S. I'm pretty tired, very short of sleep, and I felt I had better respond to Mark's request quickly before things escalated.  If I were not short of sleep or felt I had more time to respond, the editing of this email would no doubt be lots better.

 

 

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Admin_01
added quote formating for the referenced text

[Penny]

I read David Burnett's post shortly after he made it. I would have been willing to help him out and make the call but it was totally unclear to me who David was trying to reach. I don't think anywhere in his post he said he was trying to reach Rodny. He was obviously very distraught. Apparently someone saw it and figured out that it was Rodny he was trying to reach and made the call. In his apparent state of panic, it seems logical he wasn't calling the correct number.

 

[Bud]

Happy to read that everything worked out well for David Burnet. Apparently his home was not affected by the fires.

I'm still hoping for more details about the fires, but that is up to someone with first hand knowledge who is willing to share. I do see that David Burnet is a registered member of CL. Perhaps he could add the details?

[Bonnie]

There also have been fires around Boquete. We encountered a lot of smoke on our return from David on Wednesday. Maybe this merits a new topic, Bud.

[Bud]

3 hours ago, Bonnie said:

There also have been fires around Boquete. We encountered a lot of smoke on our return from David on Wednesday. Maybe this merits a new topic, Bud.

Bonnie, sounds like a good idea. If someone is experiencing fires close to their residence, or just an abnormally high number of field fires in general, then maybe they could start a new topic here.

[Bob G]

This is an old topic that I just happened to see.  But I want to point out that the caller was in Volcan where only Rodny Direct offers services.  It would be quite unlikely that anyone in Volcan would even have the numbers for Alto al Crimen's Hotline.

[JudyS]

7 hours ago, Bob G said:

This is an old topic that I just happened to see.  But I want to point out that the caller was in Volcan where only Rodny Direct offers services.  It would be quite unlikely that anyone in Volcan would even have the numbers for Alto al Crimen's Hotline.

Couldn't Mr. Burnet have looked at his phone to see what number he called?  Why all the confusion about it?