Mixed Signals: Is There A Broadband Price War? Is It A New Thing?

from the depends-on-who-you-ask dept

Remember just two years ago, when there were all sorts of stories about a supposed "broadband price war" in the US, where prices of DSL were even dropping below the cost of dialup lines? While that was somewhat misleading, it's difficult to see how the Wall Street Journal can suddenly claim that the idea of cut rate promotional pricing for broadband is suddenly new. That seems to go against what was being reported just a few years ago. Broadband providers have had such promotions going for quite some time -- and while the specifics of the promotion (and the ease of actually getting the promotion pricing) change over time, it's hard to see how the latest efforts are all that different. And, in the meantime, just as the WSJ is claiming that broadband prices are in some sort of freefall due to this competition, Richard Bennett is trying to make the case that we're all about to get broadband price increases thanks to the FCC's wrist slap on Comcast.

So, apparently, broadband providers are extending all sorts of promotions with cheap pricing to get people onto their network, but if you actually want to use the network, you should expect much higher pricing. That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Of course, the truth is somewhere in between. The so-called "price war" is exaggerated for effect -- as it's often nearly impossible to get the actual advertised prices in many cases. Meanwhile, Bennett exaggerates the claim that we're seeing price increases due to caps. Broadband caps will eventually be recognized as a hindrance to innovation, but they're hardly a price increase in most cases. And, if they really do end up being a huge price increase for users, then won't that create incentives for the other providers (the ones that the WSJ claims are itching to steal customers away) to get rid of the caps or change them? That is unless there really isn't competition in the market -- and Bennett himself was just suggesting that there's plenty of competition in the broadband market.

So, based on these various stories, it seems that, thanks to the FCC's deregulatory efforts, we have tremendous competition in the broadband market that is driving down prices, except for the fact that it's driving up prices due to the lack of competition in the market created by bad FCC rules. Clear?

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

For Just The Cost Of A (Starbucks) Coffee A Day, You Could Save A Pay Phone Booth...

from the save-the-booths! dept

It's been nearly a decade or so since the rise of mobile phones began to impact the payphone industry -- and we've seen all sorts of creative attempts to save payphone booths in one form or another -- from turning them into music download stations or WiFi hotspots. Then, there's the idea of simply changing phone booths into places for mobile phone callers to go, so they're not quite so annoying, talking on the phone where everyone can hear them. Over in the UK, things are even worse, as the distinctive red iconic telephone booths has a much stronger cultural connection that has many upset at the demise of the phone booth.

So, what BT has come up with a different sort of strategy for rescuing the red phone booths: getting local gov'ts to pay out of sympathy. Yes, BT is telling local councils that they can "adopt" a red phone booth and keep it alive for just £500 per year (about $1,000). I'm almost surprised they didn't open up the offering to individuals as well. I'm sure there are some folks who would pay to keep the phone booths alive.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will The Android Market Be More Appealing To Developers Than The App Store?

from the let-freedom-ring dept

In the past month, it has become clear that Apple, through their App Store, is going to exercise a lot of control over the programs that iPhone users download. The list of removed App Store downloads include Tetris clones, harmless but expensive novelties, movie listings and useful wireless applications. Although many have sung the praises of the new system, this trend of contingent generativity - Jonathan Zittrain's term for intermediaries exerting control over new creativity - has some worrying implications. An ecosystem with perfect enforceability of rules will come to preempt the creativity which comes from the edge (and even piracy). If developers worry that their applications will be shut down by an overzealous enforcement organization (there is no evidence Apple is pulling applications after anything more than a third-party complaint), then innovation will stagnate.

Google seems to understand this. In announcing their competing service, the Android Market, the Android team notes "We chose the term "market" rather than "store" because we feel that developers should have an open and unobstructed environment to make their content available." Application creators will be as free to post information as videographers are to post to YouTube. Although the lack of review before posting doesn't mean Google will not remove applications if complaints are made, their ethic of freedom suggests they see mobile applications in the same light as the Internet: creators will build unanticipated, useful applications if given the chance to experiment freely.

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Opening Amazon's Walled Garden Could Prove Tricky

from the wireless-worries dept

Mike Arrington offers some unsolicited advice to Amazon about how to expand the market for the Kindle. In a nutshell, he thinks Amazon should aggressively license the Kindle hardware specs to third parties, and allow authorized vendors to use the Kindle brand. Amazon would require licensees to use the Kindle store, and would share the associated revenues. There's a lot to be said for a plan like this. The key to long-run dominance of many high-tech industries is to be the platform around which other firms build their products. Amazon's got a solid product with a fair amount of buzz at the moment, but that could easily evaporate if another company comes along with a more compelling product. Getting a lot of third-party vendors to build products around the Kindle ecosystem could help establish it as the standard e-book platform.

The difficulty with opening up the platform is that the Kindle business model—particularly the wireless aspect—depends on limiting the Kindle's functionality. Amazon is able to offer free cellular access for the life of the product in part because it controls the applications that will run on it, and can therefore guarantee to cell carriers that users won't start running bandwidth-hogging applications on it. And Amazon is willing to pick up customers' bandwidth bills in part because it charges premium prices for content, some of which is available for free off the open Internet. So if Amazon licensed the Kindle name to third parties, it would have two choices. It could tell the vendors they're on their own in terms of negotiating their own wireless plans, which would be a headache for the vendors. Or, if Amazon wants to bring third parties in under its own wireless umbrella, it will presumably need to impose some draconian restrictions on the functionality of the Kindle clones. And how many vendors are going to want to sell Kindle clones that have all the same limitations as the original?

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

In Trying To Capture The Moment, Do We Risk Missing It Altogether?

from the watch-the-moment,-not-the-screen-of-your-camera dept

Earlier this year, in writing about a musician complaining about fans with mobile phones in the audience, we noted that he seemed to be overreacting, but did raise some interesting points about whether people get so focused on documenting an event that they miss experiencing it. Now a columnist at the Toronto Globe & Mail, Ivor Tossell, makes a similar point in worrying about the effort he goes through to capture "events" like beautiful sunsets, when he's not even sure what to do with the photos afterwards. While much of the column focuses on the question of whether or not these digital momentos will last at all, an equally reasonable question is how many special moments are "lost" in the effort of trying to capture them with recording equipment.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mobile Phones Being Used To Bring Fairer Elections To Africa

from the good-news dept

We report on so many stories where technology is used in bad or oppressive ways, that it's important to note when it's being used in positive ways as well. Technology, itself, is just a tool that can be used in both good and bad ways (not to mention neutral ways), but somehow the good ways don't always get as much attention. CNN has an article detailing how the rise of mobile phones throughout Africa is helping in making elections that are more fair. It's certainly not perfect yet, but the ability to communicate has allowed citizens to report abuses of the election process and get the word out when they see any kind of cheating happening.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

But Why Does Apple Wants To Take On The Role Of Content Gatekeeper?

from the how-does-this-benefit-anyone? dept

Following the recent post we had about Apple taking down popular games from its App store, the latest buzz in on Apple denying a comic book reader entrance to its iPhone app store because the primary comic book being offered was too violent. This has created quite an uproar -- though, again, Apple has been upfront about the fact that this is a closed system from the beginning. So, it's not entirely clear why people are pissed off at Apple. It hasn't mislead anyone about the fact that it will block and censor content and apps.

Still, it does make you wonder why Apple is bothering? All it seems to do is piss off people. It takes extra work and effort on Apple's part and it's hard to see who benefits. Plenty of other systems out there allow anyone to develop apps and content, and they get by just fine, often using user feedback systems to make sure that "bad" content and apps get weeded out fast, without any complaints from users. Having Apple set itself up as the ultimate gatekeeper isn't "censorship" -- it's just pointless.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Telus Kicks Customers Off Of Unlimited Plan It Sold Them Not Too Long Ago

from the how-dare-you-use-what-we-sold-you! dept

For the last few years, various connectivity providers sold "unlimited" data plans when the reality was the plans weren't unlimited at all. Many providers are now changing the plans and instituting more clear caps, but it still seems a bit ridiculous to have marketed unlimited data plans and then pulled the rug out from under those who bought exactly what you sold them. Up in Canada, it seems that TELUS is taking it a step further. Not only did it sell people "unlimited" plans that it now regrets, it's exercising some vague language in its contract that allows them to simply cancel the plans of those who had bought into the "unlimited" plan even just a short while ago. The company is forcing users to switch from a $75 unlimited plan to a $65 plan that is limited to just one GB per month, and dumping anyone who won't switch. That would seem to be a pretty strong bait-and-switch claim. Sure, perhaps the telcos oversold these unlimited plans, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be required to live up to what they sold.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Flexible Spectrum Markets Would Improve The Wireless Marketplace

from the spectrum-for-sale dept

Mathew Ingram notes that Google is continuing its campaign to use television "white spaces" for Internet connectivity, a promising concept that hasn't panned out so far. I think the most interesting tidbit in Ingram's post comes from an interview with Richard Wiley, the guy who chaired the committee that developed what became the current digital television standard. Ingram says Wiley told him that one of the broadcasters' criteria for the new standard is that it use as much spectrum as possible. That sounds backwards, but it made sense for the broadcasters, because they knew they'd have to give back any spectrum they didn't use. And it's consistent with past experience; we've written before about the broadcasters' spectrum-hoarding tendencies.

Perverse incentives like this are an inevitable consequence of the FCC's Soviet-style process for assigning spectrum usage. As long as the uses for spectrum are decided by fiat by the FCC, current licensees are going to play these kinds of games to ensure they get the biggest slice they can, even if they waste spectrum in the process. A better way to handle the transition (and still a good idea today, for that matter) would have been to give the broadcasters a fixed spectrum allocation and then allowed them broad flexibility on how to use it—including the right to lease or sell unused portions to third parties. That way, if they found a way to transmit television signals with less spectrum, they would have been able to lease out the unusued portions to third parties who could put it to more productive use.

In addition to promoting more efficient spectrum use in the short run, putting more spectrum on the market (as they're doing in the UK) would have positive effects on the overall telecom market. By driving down the price of spectrum it would make it easier for new firms to get into the wireless market. So far, the relatively small number of licenses that have been put on the market has allowed incumbents to snapped them up and keep out new entrants. Putting more spectrum on the market would make this strategy a lot more difficult to pull off.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nebraska Forces City To Stop Advertising Free WiFi

from the how-dare-they! dept

I'm actually on a road trip across the US this week, still working along the way with a mix of EVDO and WiFi. I'm writing this post while connected to some WiFi in Cheyenne, Wyoming (nice town) and I'll be on my way into Nebraska shortly. That's why this story caught my eye: apparently the small town of Louisville, Nebraska has set up a free WiFi zone in their downtown and smartly decided to advertise that fact on the main highway that runs by the town. Yet, the State of Nebraska Roads Department has forced them to take down the sign, worried that other towns across the state might also demand that the state put up signs advertising free WiFi. Considering that the signs in Louisville weren't installed by the Roads Department in the first place, this seems like a totally misplaced worry. If other cities demand such signs, why not just tell them to put up their own signs if they want to? I might just have to swing by Louisville myself and post something using their WiFi.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Voice Is Data: Tech Won't Be Able To Stop VoIP In The Air

from the of-course-not dept

With increasing attempts to turn internet access on in the sky, there's been some concern about people making VoIP calls from airplanes, just as there is a concern over mobile phone use in the sky being too "annoying." Some of the companies providing internet-in-the-sky have claimed that they would block VoIP calls, but that's going to be pretty difficult. As we've pointed out in the past voice is just data and you can always find a way to disguise the data, such that it won't be blocked. And, indeed, that seems to be exactly what's happening. Andy Abramson talks about how he got around AirCell's VoIP blocking when talking to a friend who was on one of these wired airplanes. There's always going to be away around those things, so unless Congress really decides to ban all voice calls on phones, why not wait and see if people chatting really is a problem?

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Orange Pays Actors To Stand In Line For The iPhone

from the losing-its-magic? dept

When the disco era was dying, the story was that the famed Studio 54 in New York had to start paying people to stand out front in line, so that it still look the club was still a happening place. Is the same thing happening with the iPhone? Over in Poland, mobile operator Orange is happily admitting that it's paying actors to stand in line to wait for the launch of the new iPhone: "We have these fake queues at front of 20 stores around the country to drum up interest in the iPhone." That seems like a rather blatant admission that the phone itself isn't enough to drum up interest. Somehow, though, I don't think the iPhone is going the route of disco just yet.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Press Starting To Notice WiFi-In-The-Sky Claims Not Being Supported In Reality

from the keep-on-waiting dept

Over the last year or so, a number of airlines have announced that they (finally! really!) will be installing internet access on airplanes for customers to use. Some have announce very aggressive rollouts, but Joe Brancatelli over at Portfolio has noticed that the rollouts all seem way behind schedule -- and quotes an exec at American Airlines (one of the airlines who promised an aggressive rollout) saying that there's clearly something wrong with the technology. Brancatelli tries to get Airgo, one of the main providers of WiFi-in-the-sky service to comment on the delays and: "Aircell isn't talking and refused repeated requests for an interview. Instead, its public-relations agency referred me back to its press releases, most of which said Aircell would be operating by now." He also notes that, despite public claims from various airlines that they'll aggressively wire up a bunch of airlines, those same airlines either haven't submitted an application to the FAA to wire up certain aircraft, or only just submitted them. In other words, despite public posturing, your WiFi connection in the sky may take a bit longer to arrive.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Has Anyone At AT&T Ever Called AT&T Tech Support?

from the welcome-to-the-soviet-ministries dept

While the FCC and certain broadband companies like to insist that there's real competition in the broadband market, right here in the heart of Silicon Valley, there's little evidence that this is true. If there were real competition, they might take customer service seriously. In the past few days I've had two separate issues with AT&T that suggests that the company treats customer service as not just an after thought, but something to effectively be shunned. Given my long history in killing off broadband providers who give me service, perhaps it's only fair that they do their best not to serve me, but these two experiences seemed worth shining some light on.

First, a quick history. That link above goes through all the broadband providers I went through (and killed off) in the 2001 time frame. After that, I ended up with Comcast cable modem service until 2004. In October of 2004, Comcast turned the cable modem service to my house off every day at 10am for no clear reason. Every day I would call, and the response would be: "Oh, this is scheduled maintenance. Service will be back by 4pm." I would ask if I should expect the service to go down the next day as well, and be told that they had no idea. Apparently, the "schedule" for scheduled maintenance was a tightly held secret -- but it went on, every single day, for at least the month of October. I moved in November of that year, and swore off Comcast after that experience. My only other option was AT&T. I ordered AT&T DSL and was promised it would be installed within a week. A week came and went, and I called AT&T. They told me the order had been canceled because (despite what the first person told me) DSL wasn't actually available at my location (right in the middle of Silicon Valley). Why they didn't call to let me know of the cancellation was not explained.

I asked why the first person had told me service was available, and the woman told me to hold one while she checked her other computer. That computer told her that DSL was available at my location, despite what the first computer said. Apparently, AT&T does not have a single map of DSL availability, preferring to load a series of different local availability maps on every computer.

A year ago I moved again, and DSL has been working more or less okay at the new location. However, last Thursday it died in the afternoon and was down until around midnight. When it came back it was super slow -- maxing out around 64 kbps. I waited until Friday afternoon and decided I should call to ask what's up. That's when I discovered that AT&T makes it damn near impossible to find a phone number. The AT&T website has no phone numbers listed at all. When I clicked on the "contact" link, I was given a one-line form to discuss what my problem was. When I hit submit, I received a blank page. No matter how many times I tried, I always got the blank page. Eventually, and I don't remember how, I got to an error page that listed a bunch of phone numbers. I called the one listed with "Residential: 1-877-737-2478" since this is a residential account.

Thus began a rather insane process. After waiting on hold, the call proceeded as follows:

• Automated system demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• AT&T Rep asks me for my account number (despite having punched it in already). She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). She tells me she needs to put me on hold.
• Rather than putting me on hold, she actually transfers me. I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• The woman asks me (again!) for my account number. Then she asks why I've called her. She works in sales. Tells me she needs to transfer me, but tells me in the future to call 888.321.2375 for tech support. She transfers me.
• I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• The next woman asks me (again!) for my account number. She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). I say California, and she says she doesn't serve California, only a region of 9 southern states (hasn't it been more than a year since AT&T & BellSouth merged?). She transfers me -- after personally promising me the next person I speak to will be the correct person. She also tells me that, contrary to the earlier person (and the AT&T website) the real number to call is: 800.310.2355.
• I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• By the way, at this point, I've had the "hold voice" repeatedly pitch me on upgrading my service, mentioning that if I do, I can get access to "AT&T's award-winning customer service." I am getting curious as to exactly what "award" this is.
• Before the next woman can say much beyond hello, I explain the saga, and mention that she is the 4th person I'm speaking to and ask her please, if she is the right person to help me fix my slow DSL in California. She says she will try, and (again!) asks for my account number. She does some searches and then admits: she really wants to help, but she's in billing, not tech support. She promises to transfer me (and kindly gives me a small credit on my account). She also tells me that the proper phone number to call in the future is none of the above, but 877.722.3755.
• Unlike the last few people, she actually says on the line and answers the same exact questions in the automated system for me. This is something of a consolation, though I've gotten good at entering the info.
• Finally, tech support! I give the guy my account info (again!) and he logs into my modem and he diagnoses: your connection is slow. I could have told him that. Wait, actually, I did tell him that. He doesn't know what to do, but says that tech support will call me back later. I thought he was tech support, but whatever.
• An hour later, I get an automated call from AT&T tech support, telling me to call them back at (yes, a different number): 888.312.2450.
• I call back, and amazingly am put in contact with a competent tech, who doesn't treat me like an idiot, who even gets me logged into the DSL modem myself, explains the different system readings, and notes that my modem seems to have capped itself at 64kbps. He says it could be a few different things, but the most likely is a broken phone cable from the jack to the modem. I switch the cables, and voila, it's working again.

Total elapsed time since the first phone call, about 3 hours, but only about 1.5 hours total on the phone. It was definitely a bit of a hassle, but eventually I found someone smart and competent, and I figured that maybe I just had a bad experience with AT&T. Little did I know. By Monday evening, my Friday experience would seem fast and simple.

I have some travel coming up, and was realizing that I may not be in EVDO coverage for some of it. So I thought it might be good to make use of the AT&T WiFi that's included as a part of my account. It's supposed to work at McDonalds, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble and some other places as well. While I had signed up and used the WiFi service a few years ago, it's probably been at least two years since I last tried. On Monday, I figured I'd hit up a McDonalds at lunch and test it out, to work out any "kinks" if there were any. I honestly figured it would be fine.

I got my chicken sandwich (sans mayo) and sat down to login. Yippee. I even was sitting next to an outlet, but quickly discovered that the outlet had been turned off (boo). Okay, so I get the (extremely slow) proxy server that asks me to login. I type in my login info, and it gives me a message: "We're Sorry - Your Login Has Been Rejected." Then it tells me to call: 888.888.7520 "for further assistance." So here's how that call went:

• Dial the number from my mobile phone. It rings for a while and then says "I see you're calling from..." and repeats back a phone number I don't recognize, starting with a 512 area code (which is Austin, Texas). I'm in California on a California mobile phone, so I have no idea where that comes from. I say no.
• It asks for my account number. I'm not at home, so I don't have my bill to read off the account number. I don't have internet access so I can't log in to get my account number. The system tells me my only options are to say my account number or to say I'm trying to sign up for service. I say "neither" a few times, and the system gets impatient with me, and then demands I answer from a specific list of problems what my issue is. All of the issues have to do with home DSL, not WiFi hotspots -- which seems odd, given that this is supposedly the WiFi hotspot support number.
• Finally, it transfers me to a human who again asks my account info. I give it to her. She cannot find my account. She puts me on "hold" which again is actually a transfer. I again go through the dance with the automated call system -- which demands I choose between giving my account number or signing up for service, followed by a list of service options that have nothing to do with WiFi hotspots.
• After a while on hold, I get another person, who also insists my account does not exist. She transfers me to tech support (or so she says).
• I go through the same pointless questions, and speak to another person. I explain the situation, noting that she's the 3rd person I spoke to. She explains that she's not in tech support, but in customer retention.
• I have now come to the conclusion that AT&T's "call transfer" system is actually a big roulette wheel that will dump you on any random person with a phone. I doubt most of them even work for AT&T.
• I am transferred again. The fourth person I speak to, after going back and forth, tells me that she does not handle California customers (this sounds familiar).
• I am transferred again. More messing with the annoying automated system, and I eventually get a guy who tells me that he cannot help me unless I can tell him my account number. He insists that when he looks up my user name, he gets a different account owner and a different address than the one I tell him. That's comforting.
• Rather than transferring me, he says he can only give me the phone number to call for billing, where I should see if they can actually tell me my account info over the phone. Phone number: 800.288.2020. I ask him what number I should call after that to get back to him once I have the account number. He says to just ask to be transferred to DSL tech support.
• I call the billing number, and speak to my 6th person of the day. After a great deal of effort, she finally reveals to me what my account number is (thank you!). She then, as requested, transfers me to DSL tech support.
• My seventh customer support person of the day, after I've been on hold and have entered the proper account number, asks me for my account number anyway -- and then explains to me that DSL tech support has nothing to do with WiFi hotspots, but he will transfer me.
• My eighth customer support person tells me that the WiFi access on my account was canceled twice. Once last September and once in January. Why twice when I don't think I ever canceled it even once? He has no clue.
• Well, can I sign up to have the service included on my account? No. That's not his department. He needs to transfer me to customer support instead of tech support.
• Transferred again. On hold again. Enter my info again. Now speaking to my 9th AT&T rep. After explaining the situation, I am told that it is impossible for them to add WiFi hotspots to my account over the phone. Instead, I need to (get this) sign up via the web at home.
• I hang up, and notice another open WiFi network -- so I login, and go to the website he pointed me to: FreedomLink.com to sign up. Once there, I am directed to a page where I am told: "AT&T Wi-Fi Basic service is FREE and already included if you subscribe to AT&T High Speed Internet.... No ordering required! Simply use your AT&T high-speed Internet membership ID and password at any AT&T Wi-Fi Basic hot spot."
• That seems to conflict with what the last few folks told me, so I pick up the phone again and call. After the same old process of entering info and being put on hold, I explain my situation to the 10th representative I am speaking to. She says she will get everything solved and puts me on hold. Every five or 10 minutes she comes back and says she's "getting the info I need" and will be back soon.
• I begin to notice the batteries on both my laptop and my cell phone are on their last legs.
• After nearly half an hour on hold, the woman comes back and tells me that she has found the phone number I really need to call. It's 877.722.3755 (the second time I've heard this number!) but that when I reach it, I need to ask for "Tier 2 support." She promises that she will take care of this part for me and will get me to the right person.
• I mention to her that my batteries are almost dead anyway, and she says "Isn't that always how it is?" to which I respond: "No. Normally, it does not take 2.5 hours and 10 people to get me the info to log into my account."
• Eventually, she gets me on the line with another woman, and tells her I need Tier 2 support and then hangs up. This new representative (the 11th I'm speaking to) asks me to repeat the whole situation to see if I really need Tier 2 support. I tell her my batteries are dying, and I really need Tier 2 support, and I need it as fast as possible.
• She puts me on hold for 25 minutes -- where the hold message is pure silence, punctuated ever 10 seconds by the most annoying voice in the world commanding: "PLEASE WAIT."
• She finally comes back, says: "I have connected you to tier 2 support" and hangs up. Except she hasn't connected me to Tier 2 support. She has transferred the call, so I'm in another hold queue.
• Ten more minutes go by and someone finally picks up. As he finishes saying hello, the battery in my mobile phone dies and the call is over.
This is now 4:10pm. I had arrived at the restaurant at 1pm.
• I drive home. I pick up my home phone and call one more time. After waiting on hold and inputting my information, I speak to my 13th customer rep of the day. He insists that the information is wrong on my account, and that I have the wrong username, though it's the same username that I had used to log into my AT&T account as I was speaking to him (now that I'm on my home WiFi, which since Friday, has been working fine).
• He says that my username is actually different, but he refuses to tell me what my actual username is. Apparently, that's not allowed. Instead, he has me dig out my last AT&T bill, and buried on page 4 there is a username which is different from my regular username. He insists that this username will allow me to log into the WiFi hotspots
• I'm no longer at McDonalds so I cannot test it, but perhaps I can now log into WiFi. I will have to go back to McDonalds later this week to try.

This is AT&T customer and tech support at work. I am left wondering if anyone who works at AT&T has ever called its "award winning" customer service line to get actual support. If there were actual competition in the broadband market here in the heart of Silicon Valley, I would switch providers. But my choice now is to go back to Comcast, who might kill service every day for a month for unscheduled scheduled maintenance or deal with AT&T's roulette wheel of customer and tech support.

110 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Killing The iPhone Kill Switch

from the inevitable dept

Well, it was really only a matter of time. After Steve Jobs confirmed that Apple had included an application "kill switch" in the new iPhone to disable any app it wanted remotely, someone was bound to kill the kill switch. And, indeed, apps are popping up that will let you disable the kill switch -- though only on a "jail broken" iPhone. Still, it does make you wonder how useful the kill switch really is when it can be so easily disabled.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

We're Still Debating Whether Or Not Free WiFi Is Good For Business?

from the wasn't-this-settled-already? dept

We thought that the whole debate over whether or not free WiFi helped businesses like restaurants had been settled years ago when restaurants like Panera shared some data on how much more business it drove. However, it seems some are still resisting this, so we get yet another series of articles asking whether or not free WiFi is good for business. There are definitely more businesses offering it these days, so that should be something of an answer itself. But it's surprising to see someone in the article include that old line about how restaurants are worried about people clogging up its tables. We've seen reports in the past showing that free WiFi actually tends to bring in people during off-peak times. As for the peak times? While there may be some freeloaders, it's not all that pleasant for them to hang out in a crowded restaurant or cafe either.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Once Again: People Just Aren't That Interested In Mobile TV

from the no,-really,-we-swear dept

For years and years we've wondered why various companies were spending billions on building mobile TV systems that simply mimic traditional broadcast TV to mobile phones. In an age of time shifting and place shifting there's little reason for a mobile broadcast TV system that's separate from your other ways of accessing television. People don't want to have to buy into a whole different (expensive) mobile subscription service when they already have a cable subscription at home which they can save via their TiVo. And, if they really want to access it on the go, they can just pick up a Slingbox and not have to pay for an entirely separate subscription. But that hasn't stopped billions from being poured into various mobile TV systems, even though pretty much every test shows very little interest in paying for mobile TV.

Of course, sometimes when we talk about this, people tell us that the experiences in Asia -- specifically Korea and Japan -- show that there really is a market for fee-based mobile broadcast TV. Turns out that's not true. A new study in Korea points out that the highly touted mobile broadcast system there gets very, very little usage. In the meantime, Toshiba is backing off plans to offer a fee-based mobile TV subscription service in Japan. So much for those "success" stories.

What's really stunning about this is that it wasn't hard to predict that this would happen years ago, before billions were wasted on such systems. None of this means that video alone isn't an interesting space in the mobile market, but it has to be allowing users to access what video they want -- not taking us back in time to an old live broadcast system, and adding yet another subscription fee for the privilege.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is The iPhone App Kill Switch Really Such A Surprise?

from the this-is-Apple-we're-talking-about dept

There was a lot of fuss last week as some folks discovered a secret "kill switch" in iPhone software that allows Apple to retroactively "kill" an app that it allowed you to "buy" (but apparently, not really buy). Steve Jobs admitted over the weekend that the kill switch exists, with this gem:

"Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull."

Irresponsible? Really? That's why no other platform has a similar switch? Apparently, everyone else is irresponsible. The truth is more along the lines of this being a standard Steve Jobs offering, where he wants full control over how things are done -- even if it means removing apps you thought you had bought.

But the question is whether this is really a surprise or even a bad thing? While some are screaming "bloody murder" (or at least asking why people aren't screaming that), as others point out, if this is such a big deal, don't buy the iPhone. I agree that this isn't very smart on the part of Apple or Jobs. It certainly opens up an opportunity for competitors to point out that they don't maintain such a closed system, but it's hardly the end of the world. The more Apple makes decisions like this, the more likely people will be more open to alternatives that are coming to market -- and that's exactly what should happen. There's no "bloody murder" to scream. There's just a chance for the competition to come up with something better that doesn't give Steve Jobs the ability to pull a lever and make apps you thought you had bought disappear.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

California The Latest To Try To Outlaw Cyberbullying: Send A Mean Txt, Get Kicked Out Of School

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

You want to know how to basically clog up the administration of various high schools across the state of California? Pass a law that would kick kids out of school for sending a "cyberbullying" text message. Yet, that's exactly the type of bill that's been introduced in the state, as it rushes into following others in trying to make it illegal to be a jerk online. Yes, cyberbullying is an issue for the targets of such bullying. But the answer is not to create laws that try to legislate manners, nor to suggest that it's okay to kick kids out of school for sending a bullying message. All that's going to do is have overly sensitive kids complaining any time anyone sends them a mean message.

63 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIM Pays Off Wi-LAN To Get Rid Of Another Patent Suit

from the losers-litigate dept

Wi-LAN is a Canadian company that did some early work in the wireless field, but was unable to actually make much of a business out of its work, so it took the loser's route: it started suing lots of companies for patent infringement. It's the same old story: winners innovate, losers litigate -- and litigate seems to be about all that Wi-LAN does these days. Recently, Wi-LAN targeted RIM, another Canadian company, who famously was pressured to cough up hundreds of millions in another patent battle to NTP a few years ago. These days, RIM seems to have learned an unfortunate lesson: it's easier to just pay up whoever sues you for patent infringement, no matter how legit (or not) their claim is.

So, it should come as no surprise that RIM has agreed to pay off Wi-LAN to make the lawsuit go away. No details were released, but given that Wi-LAN put out a separate press release saying that its "earnings" (a misnomer if there ever were one) for the quarter should be between $24.5 million and $25.5 million from the previous guidance of $15 million to $20 million you can take a guess how much this cost RIM. Definitely cheaper than a lawsuit, though this will only encourage two bad results: Wi-LAN will keep suing companies that actually do something, and more companies with questionable patents on wireless technologies will line up to get some cash from RIM. This isn't encouraging innovation. It's encouraging extortion.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..