Archive for corporation

The Consumerist blasts Google (and Google Voice in particular) for lack of customer service

This is icon for social networking website. Th...

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve said it before and I will say it until the day I die — the larger a corporation is, the more evil it becomes, and that’s true even if your corporate motto is “don’t be evil.”  Mottoes don’t necessarily translate into actions.  Well, I think maybe people are finally starting to see through the “don’t be evil” snow job that Google’s been shoveling at us — consider today’s article in The Consumerist:

If you’re considering porting your mobile phone number to Google Voice instead of to a new carrier, consider this: free or inexpensive phone services have a hidden expense: customer service. When Peter’s number port didn’t work, Google’s customer support structure left him with no real-time support options and no way to get the attention of anyone who could actually help him.

Full story here:
Google Has Great Services For Customers, No Customer Service

Many users will put up with a lot of shinola out of a company when they are getting something for free.  But if Google Voice ever becomes non-free, the shinola is going to hit the fan, and I’ll bet that in no time at all there will be several state regulators and possibly the FCC breathing down their necks, as customers complain to those regulators about the abysmal customer service (or what passes for customer server at Google, which means you might as well put your complaint in a hermetically-sealed mayonnaise jar and leave it on Funk & Wagnalls’ porch).

Comments off

Before you even think of signing up for Frontier DSL service you might want to read this (link)

Volcanic material thrust high into the atmosph...

Image via Wikipedia

From Stop the Cap!:

Exclusive: Frontier’s California Confuse-o-rama: Residents Victimized by Frontier’s Changing Stories

And when I read something like that, my thought is, if they are willing to pull this shit in California today, what’s to say they won’t try it in other states in the near future? If it were me, until they come to their senses and stop doing this, I’d avoid Frontier like a village infested with bubonic plague on the side of a hill next to an active volcano with an active nuclear waste dump at the center. But, that’s just me and my personal opinion — what you do is up to you.

Comments off

Another good reason we should stop eating (and selling) foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

About 2½ months ago I posted an article entitled, Why we should stop eating (and selling) foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Well, just in case you need yet another reason, ConsumerAffairs.com today posted an article entitled, Kids with Unexplained Stomach Pain May Have Fructose Intolerance.  The article notes that in a study of “245 patients with unexplained chronic abdominal pain (alone or associated with constipation, gas or bloating and/or diarrhea)”, a whopping 53.9% tested positive for fructose intolerance. I’m guessing that this affects many more children than other food allergies we often hear about (such as peanut allergies). But the article also notes:

Despite the simple fix, cutting fructose from a diet, especially that of a child’s or teen’s, is easier said than done.

“With fructose in everything from fruit to pre-packaged products, soft drinks and honey, it is difficult to avoid so the challenge is finding those foods without fructose and still maintain a healthy nutritional balance,” said Dr. Lustig.

Unfortunately, the way our society seems to work nowadays, with big corporate conglomerates controlling most of our food supply (and much of our government), and a powerful corn lobby that wants to fool you by renaming HFCS as “corn sugar”, I still think that the only thing that’s going to cause manufacturers to get rid of HFCS is when it starts to hit them in the pocketbook.  Since consumers really don’t have much choice in foods when nearly everything contains HFCS, I still suspect it’s going to take something drastic, like a class-action lawsuit against these companies, to make them just say NO to HFCS. But with every passing day, it becomes clearer that HFCS is very bad for you, or at least for many of us.

Comments off

Why we should stop eating (and selling) foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

It’s in so many of our foods that we’ve probably lost track of all the things we have in our pantries and refrigerators that contain it, and yet there is increasing evidence that it’s one of the more dangerous substances we can ingest. Part of the problem is its abundance; it’s hard to buy foods in certain categories that don’t have it. People who drink a lot of pop (soda to you folks who live in other parts of the country) probably get far too much of it, unless you go out of your way to find a brand that doesn’t contain it. It is put into our foods and drinks by big corporations, mostly to save money. It is High Fructose Corn Syrup, often abbreviated HFCS.

People have been saying for years that HFCS is bad for you, that it’s been linked to everything from diabetes to cancer. The soft drink industry pooh-poohs this and has tried to sweep these concerns under the rug. Well, now there’s evidence of how bad HFCS is. Please go read this Reuters article, “Cancer cells feed on fructose, study finds” and note that HFCS contributes to the growth of pancreatic cancer cells.  Pancreatic cancer is probably one of the most deadly forms of cancer there is; if you get it you’d better go make out your will and say your goodbyes to your loved ones because (barring some miracle) you aren’t going to be around much longer.

Another thing I noticed in the article: “Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.” So let me get this straight, they want to keep selling the food that contains the HFCS and then they want to sell you a drug to take away the effects of the HFCS?  Only in America would anyone think that is a good approach.

The article does not mention that part of the problem is that the United States has a high tariff on sugar.  Americans “have been forced to pay twice the world price of sugar on average since 1982.”  Just Google “sugar tariff” and you’ll find a huge number of articles, all of which pretty much say the same thing: That the sugar tariff is bad for American consumers and American business. But one side effect is that it causes food producers to elect to use HFCS instead of regular sugar in their foods.  It’s why Mexican Coca-Cola contains sugar, while the U.S. variety contains HFCS (and why some people will pay a premium price for the imported variety – well, that and they say the stuff made with sugar tastes a lot better).

If our politicians placed any value on the health of Americans, they would act swiftly to ban HFCS from foods, and/or eliminate the sugar tariff so there would not be any financial incentive to use HFCS.  Of course, there are those who believe that the group that’s really in power (which, they would tell us, are not the people we directly elect) have a goal of significantly reducing the population (ever heard of the Georgia Guidestones?), so they’d welcome any substance in our food that can kill us off quicker, especially if they can sell us expensive drugs at the end of our life that will drain our financial reserves. I’m not saying that I necessarily believe that, just that there are those who do.

I am certainly not what you call a health nut (I have often said I’d rather enjoy what I eat than add five or ten extra years to my life by eating stuff that tastes like cardboard, or worse) but this is a case where food manufacturers have a choice — they can use real sugar, which most people say tastes better and which does not have the same adverse side effects, or they can use HFCS to save a few pennies on each product they sell.  However, such companies should keep in mind that they are not immune to product liability lawsuits.  If I had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and read the above article, I’d certainly be talking to a lawyer, and believe me, I’d probably not only consider bringing suit against the manufacturers of the foods I’ve eaten that contain HFCS, but possibly also the distributors and supermarkets that sold those foods — basically anyone that profited from the sale of HFCS.  Until this research came out, you could say that those folks had some plausible deniability, but now that we know that HFCS can hasten the growth of pancreatic cancer, I would say that manufacturers ought to treat it as if it were lead or PCB or some other toxic substance and stop using it immediately, and customers should refuse to buy it.

You know all those ads you see on TV from lawyers wanting to take on mesothelioma cases? I don’t imagine it will be all that long before you start seeing ads from lawyers that say something like, “Did you develop pancreatic cancer after drinking soft drinks or eating foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup?  If so, contact the Dewey, Cheatum and Howe law firm…”

EDIT: Every time I make a new post on this blog, a Twitter “Tweet” is automatically sent out announcing it.  Would you believe that within two hours of posting this article, I received a notification that a law firm specializing in class action lawsuits is now following my tweets on Twitter?  Specifically, their Twitter page describes them as “Bio Class action attorneys with a record of winning multimillion dollar cases.”  So, food and soft drink industry, it appears that perhaps my post has been noticed by someone with the power to hit you squarely in the pocketbook.  Seriously, I’d get rid of the HFCS in your products now, if I were you.

EDIT 2: And just in case you need another reason HFCS should be banned: Kids with Unexplained Stomach Pain May Have Fructose Intolerance

Comments (1)

United Airlines fliers must now ask yourselves: If I speak to a flight attendant will I get thrown off the plane?

Saw an item on The Consumerist site today, entitled “United Removes Passenger From Flight After He Asks Whether A Meal Will Be Served.” It contained a link to an original blog post that details the story of one Joe Sugarman, an Internet marketing consultant who was on his way home from a seminar in Austin, Texas (why does this sort of crap always happen in Texas or Florida?).  And his blog post tells the story:

I get to the airport, boarded my plane and I’m sitting in first class. The flight attendant was right in front of me and was curious if they were going to serve meals onboard. So I asked her, “Are you serving any meals during our flight?”

She looked at me kinda funny and said, “I can’t answer that for security reasons.”

A little puzzled, I wondered how it affected security but I let it pass as she went into the cockpit. About three minutes later, two armed Austin police officers boarded the plane, looked at me and said, “Sugarman, follow us.”

Picking up the story a bit further down…

Finally a United representative approached me with my bags and said “We are taking you off this flight for security reasons.”

“Why” I asked.

“You apparently asked the flight attendant if the Police were onboard,” said the United representative. We’re not taking any chances and the captain asked that you be removed.”

“But I only asked her if a meal was being served,” I said. Only to be told that it was her word against mine and the Captain was not going to take any chances based on what the flight attendant claims I said.

Thrown off the plane for asking if a meal was being served was ridiculous. And why would I care if there was a policeman onboard anyway?

Strangely, United had a customer service representative ready and willing to book Mr. Sugarman on the next flight, so apparently at least someone in United has common sense. But, as The Consumerist said about the incident,

… WTF, seriously flight attendant? You couldn’t even say, “I beg your pardon” or “Would you repeat the question” to confirm that you had an evil ‘sploding terrorist on board?

Then there is the lazy Captain, who apparently could not be bothered to go talk to the passenger and do his own assessment of the situation.

Mr. Sugarman further comments,

Another thing that puzzles me is that I am what is called a 1K flyer on United flying over 100,000 miles a year at a minimum. I have flown 2.5 million miles on their airline through the years as well. Couldn’t they use common sense and realize that I didn’t suddenly go off my rocker after being such a good customer of theirs. And why did they believe the flight attendant over me when they let terrorists on board with bombs in their suitcase? Can you make sense of this?

Now, when I read Mr. Sugarman’s blog post, I scrolled down and viewed some of the comments, and noticed this one by Robert Clay:

This reinforces something I have observed for some time. It is often said that the United States is the land of the free, and at gatherings people are often asked to celebrate their freedom. But I wonder if this is all really brainwashing. After all, for all it’s many excellent qualities America right now has the largest percentage of its population in prison of any country on Earth. One out of four people, one out of four humans in prison in the WORLD are Americans, imprisoned in America. This excellent TED talk by Chris Jordan really makes the point” http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_jordan_pictures_some_shocking_stats.html

The ridiculous experience you had is another symptom of this. Interestingly I saw a TV program where Russians were being interviewed about why they were seemingly so disinterested in “democracy,” and what came out is that they just don’t need democracy. Nobody bothers them. They get on and can live their lives without interference.

That said, I don’t suppose the authorities would be too impressed if you were a political activist pushing views that oppose their own. But it’s no different in the US. Or Singapore. Or China.

But I agree with you, it’s right to ask what America is coming to when the average person really isn’t as free as they’ve been brainwashed to believe, and freedom and America are far from being synonymous for millions of people.

Mr Clay sort of verbalizes a feeling I’ve had for a long time. When I was a kid, our teachers tried very hard to brainwash us into thinking that America was the greatest country on earth. Of course, the way they framed it was that if we didn’t love America, our only other option was to live in a place like the “evil” Soviet Union, where people might be shot for asking for a loaf of stale bread to feed their families (seriously, you can’t begin to imagine the lies we were told about the Soviet Union as kids – it actually came as quite a shock to me when I finally realized that Moscow was a major city with modern buildings and electricity, even if not exactly up to U.S. standards).

But the worst thing about the old U.S.S.R., or so we were taught, is that the people there had no freedom – the government basically dictated their every move, morning, noon, and night. The U.S.A. was the closest thing to heaven on Earth, while the Soviet Union was the closest thing to hell, and if there were other choices our teachers sure weren’t about to mention any of them.  We weren’t even taught anything about our closest neighbors, Canada or Mexico, except perhaps in passing references. According to our educational experience, the only countries that mattered were the United States, England (primarily for historical reasons), Germany and Japan (primarily because of their involvement in then-recent wars), and the U.S.S.R.  Occasionally we’d be taught about what we now call a third-world country, like Malaysia (where the natives were still slaving over rice paddies or running around using blow darts to get their food when they weren’t dying of malaria, according to my elementary school education), but probably only to reinforce how lucky we all were to be living in the United States.

This kind of teaching occurred with some regularity throughout elementary and junior high schools, and didn’t really even begin change until about the time I got into high school, when the VietNam War basically divided the country and started causing many people, including some of my teachers apparently, to start questioning whether the U.S.A. always took the most noble course of action. The fact that we had two fairly awful presidents in a row (Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, followed by Richard Nixon, a Republican) probably didn’t help matters any. But then the war ended and the Bicentennial came along in 1976, and that invoked a new wave of patriotic fervor.

But back in 1967, just about the time that our teachers were starting to sound a bit more enlightened, a movie called “The President’s Analyst” came out. It’s probably one of the few movies I ever saw in a theater (suffice it to say that I am not a big fan of the “theater experience”). And at the time, there was a line in the move that impressed me as being somewhat prescient, at least for the U.S.A.  No, not the one about everyone hating the phone company, although I did get quite a chuckle out of that one.  I actually could not recall the exact line until I went to the The Internet Movie Database, and right there it was, posted in a user review by Merwyn Grote, who wrote,

My lasting view of Soviet-U.S. relations was clearly defined after watching THE PRESIDENT’S ANALYST. Soviet spy/assassin V.I. Kydor Kropotkin, played by Severn Darden, explains to kidnapped American psychiatrist Dr. Sidney Schaefer, played by the irrepressible James Coburn: “Logic is on our side: this isn’t a case of a world struggle between two divergent ideologies, of different economic systems. Every day your country becomes more socialistic and mine becomes more capitalistic. Pretty soon we will meet in the middle and join hands.” Beautiful, simple logic, clearly stated in a whacked-out, slightly psychedelic satirical farce about Cold War paranoia. A gem of genius in a world gone mad.

The trouble is that, in my opinion, we’re not just becoming more socialistic – we’re also beginning to take on some of the negative attributes that our generation was warned about, only we were warned they would happen if we allowed the “evil Communists” to take over our country.  Well, virtually all the recent laws that have seriously curtailed our freedoms were passed during the junior Bush administration, and I don’t think the Republican party is quite ready to take on the mantle of “socialist” or “communist”, though at times they seem to approve of actions that seem not too far removed from something Joseph Stalin would have approved of. Admittedly, the current administration doesn’t seem to be in any big hurry to give us back our stolen freedoms, and that worries me a lot – if we can’t trust either of our political parties to do the right thing, what hope do we have as a nation?

The incident with Mr. Sugarman and United Airlines is certainly not the worst thing that’s happened to an air traveler in our post-9/11 society, but it is symptomatic of how wacko our nation has become, both in that this sort of thing could happen and that most who read about it will think, “Well, that’s just what you have to put up with when you fly nowadays.” Most people in the U.S.A. don’t even blink when TSA screeners do full body scans on children (as this article explains, “In the United Kingdom, scans are not performed on anyone under 18 because they would violate child pornography laws”). And the people of the former U.S.S.R. are probably saying, “Welcome to our world.”

Comments (2)

None-of-your-damn-business-dept: Christian Groups Want To Know How Much Comcast Makes From Porn

This is from The Consumerist:

As the government continues to pretend that it cares what anyone thinks about Comcast’s merger with NBC Universal, a coalition of Christian media watchdog groups are asking the cable giant to publicly divulge how much money it makes from porn channels and pay-per-view.

The coalition, which also includes the supposedly non-religious Parents Television Council and the always level-headed Focus on the Family, have asked the FCC to consider Comcast’s xxx-rated income when evaluating whether or not the merger is in the public interest. …

Full article here

Now, I have to say up front that I’m not at all in favor of this merger, not that the FCC or anyone else probably cares what you or I think — this is big business, after all, and since we have turned into a nation of, by, and for the large corporations, they are probably going to get their way, and I don’t like it one little bit.  But, having said that, who do these groups think they are?  Maybe they would like the government poking into their finances — you know, the income they collect from their members under threat of hell-fire or something like it, to use in campaigns of hate against people who are not like them. At least Comcast and NBC Universal pay taxes on their income, which is more than can be said of groups that operate under the cloak of religion.

If there is one group I would like to see vanish from the face of the earth even more than huge corporations, it is the so-called “religious right.”  They are still trying to hook our kids, but fortunately for all of us, the kids aren’t buying the same old tired religious crap anymore, especially the hateful invective of the religious right.

One of my deep regrets in life is ever getting involved in fundamentalist religion. Not only because they do preach intolerance and hate, something I could never stand in any other context, but because so much of religion is based on lies and half-truths (I’ve seriously considered writing a series of articles about that, except that I know that the people who most need the truth the most will not accept it, and even if by some miracle they would, they probably wouldn’t accept it from me). But one thing I know from all those years is that the people behind these types of groups truly believe that every spare dime you have should go to them. If you are spending money on entertainment, that’s money that’s not going into their hands, so they can print more hate-filled literature and produce more hate-filled videos. Most everything the church does is ultimately out of self interest — they want to control people and they want wealth, and the former is a stepping stone to the latter. Oh, they may preach love, but try joining them and then disagreeing with them (even if you can show them Bible verses to back up what you say) and see how much they love you… you’ll be lucky if they don’t condemn you to hell* right from the pulpit! Their love is entirely conditional on you doing what they want you to do, and saying only what they want you to say.  If they can’t control you, you’re not going to feel very loved. And if you don’t take their advice on how to raise your children (of course you WILL have children, won’t you?) you’re going to hear their disapproval as well.

Anyway, to me it take a lot of nerve for groups like this to ask that anyone else answer their questions.  They should be the ones being grilled about their operations.  Here’s a question I’d like them to answer, just for starters:  How many gay people have been killed, injured, or placed at a disadvantage because of your literature and media productions?  How many women have they treated as second-class citizens, particularly if those women did not find fulfillment in raising children and being subservient to a man?  How many kids are growing up thinking it’s okay to hate certain kinds of people, because their parents are raising them using your teachings (I would hope damn few, but I don’t underestimate the influence groups like these have). Okay, that’s three questions, but I bet we will never get a straight answer to any of them.  Therefore, Comcast should not feel obligated to provide any answers to these folks.

*If you are part of a religion where they are even suggesting that there is a possibility you might go to hell, I suggest you read this – it explains, in a rather colorful way, exactly why the whole fundamentalist concept of hell is a lie (although Hell, Michigan, is quite real, and in the fall it’s a very nice place, actually).  And once you realize that they lie about one thing, can you really trust them on any topic?

Just to mention another one they lie about: Tithing.  If a religious leader tells you that you are required to tithe, or in any way suggests that giving is anything other than a strictly voluntary act, he is lying to you — and don’t let him string unrelated verses in the Bible together to create a doctrine out of thin air; that is what the fundamentalists DO! When they try to prove something from the Bible, if you are at all inclined to listen in the first place, then do this: If they want to read just a verse, you read the entire chapter (especially the verses just before and after the ones they are directing your attention to), find out the whole story, who it applied to, the circumstances under which it happened, and then whether it applies to you (here’s a hint: if it’s in the Old Testament, and you’re not Jewish, it doesn’t – and even if you are Jewish, there’s a good chance it doesn’t, unless you fall into a very specific group). If they tell you to move from verse to verse to verse in completely different chapters, they are fabricating a lie, and you should not let them get away with it!

Comments off

The end of the United States as we know it: Supreme Court makes worst decision of the past century!

I have long argued that corporations should not be treated as persons under the law, for the simple reason that corporations have no souls.  They can therefore do evil with impunity. Even if they are convicted of a crime — which, because they can afford high-paid lawyers, is far less likely to occur than if you or I were to perform some evil act — in most cases the only penalty that can be imposed is a financial one.  After all, you can’t pick up the corporate headquarters and put it in a jail cell, or anything like that.  And of course, any financial penalty is often simply passed on to customers in the form of increased costs, so the corporation really doesn’t suffer at all (and worse yet, the CEO’s still get their perks and golden parachutes).

So, to give a corporation all the rights of a person, when they effectively cannot be penalized as a person might when they choose to do wrong (and it seems like they make that choice a lot these days) is just insane.  And that’s why today’s Supreme Court decision makes no sense. By a 5-4 vote, the court said that corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence elections.  In effect, they can drown out an opposition view, and in many cases put their own hand-picked candidates in office. Read the Associated Press story for more details.

In my opinion, this marks the beginning of a major change in the way that the United States is governed. We won’t really start to see the full effect until the next election cycle, but in five or ten years the USA could be a totally different country than the one we know today (and, I might add, nothing at all like the founding fathers envisioned, not that most people seem to care what they thought anymore).

Just as one example, if corporations can seriously influence elections, do you really think they are going to allow legislators that are pro-consumer to get into office?  Think about the recent credit card reforms – now, if the banking industry had been able to buy elections in key districts, do you think there’s any hope those reforms would have passed? How much chance do you think we will ever have of getting true health care reform if big pharma and the big medical corporations can influence elections?  Yes, I know that to some degree this has already happened (and I think that’s just plain evil when it does) but now the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates, and from now on there will be almost no limit on how much corporations can control the government.

It’s not like some of the science fiction films over the last few decades haven’t warned us that corporations might someday run the country, but we never took them seriously – it was just entertainment, right? Maybe not so much.

One of the biggest flaws in the American system is that nine people in robes (used to be nine old men in robes, but now there are women among the ranks) can make horrible decisions that will adversely affect this country for decades.  But honestly, I don’t think the Supreme Court has made this bad a decision since Dred Scott. I honestly feel that today’s decision marks the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it, and I for one don’t think I’m going to much like what come out of today’s decision.  As always, in situations like this, I really hope I’m wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Edit: Apparently it’s not just me that sees this ruling as disastrous — see the New York Times editorial, The Court’s Blow to Democracy.

Comments (4)

Is Michigan going to get screwed on broadband mapping? (UPDATE 3)

Crain’s Detroit Business reports today that Michigan is going to get $1.8 million from the feds “to launch an initiative to map and plan broadband service.” Now, you should be wondering about the timing of this announcement: December 23, just before most reporters take a long weekend. When news like this is released on a day like today, my first thought is, “Why do they want to bury this?”

The answer is in the last sentence of the article:

“Michigan is working on the project with Washington-based Connected Nation, a national non-profit organization that does broadband mapping.”

What’s wrong with that? I refer you to this article from DSLreports: One Last Warning Before America Screws Up Broadband Mapping.

EDIT: Also see “Privatizing the Public Trust: A Critical Look At Connected Nation“, a report issued by Public Knowledge, Common Cause, The Media and Democracy Coalition, and Reclaim the Media.

EDIT: Somehow I missed today’s post on DSLreports: “Connected Nation Wins Huge Chunk Of Taxpayer Money – And will likely use that money to fight against your interests…

Do your research on Connected Nation, folks. Google is your friend.

Is Michigan going to get screwed on broadband mapping? In my humble opinion, the odds are very high. I HOPE that the Michigan Public Service Commission is smart enough to know who they’re dealing with, but even if they know, will they have any authority to alter any results that might be misleading?

Happy holidays. By the time the “watchdog media” (more like a sleeping chihuahua) gets back from the holidays, they’ll probably consider this old news, and totally ignore it. If you don’t have broadband now in your area and you want it, maybe you should think about moving to another state!

EDIT: I posted the above at around 2:30 PM. I then had to leave for a couple of hours, and by the time I got back, I found the following in my e-mail:

[Begin quote:]

From: “Ditto, Jessica” [e-mail address redacted]
To: “michigantelephone…”
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:10:40 -0800
Subject: Michigan Broadband Mapping Project

To Whom It May Concern:

In regards to your post about Michigan’s broadband mapping project I would caution you not to believe everything you read on the Internet. The timing of the announcement is nothing but the result of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration having just released the awards for 14 states and 1 U.S. territory late yesterday – Michigan being one of them. This is exciting news for Michigan as the state works to create jobs and opportunity in a technology-based economy. The Connect Michigan program has been developed over the past few months in close collaboration with the Michigan Public Service Commission. These funds will allow the state to collect critical broadband data needed to identify the unserved and underserved areas of the state. Connected Nation is proud to be lending our experience and expertise to that effort. What you may not realize is that Connected Nation has mapped eight states prior to this grant program. No other organization in the country has mapped broadband on such a comprehensive scale. We do this because our mission is to promote digital inclusion by addressing both the supply and demand for high-speed Internet.

Your blog can be a positive voice in this effort by spreading the word about the need for broadband in Michigan’s unreached areas. I hope that you will afford me the opportunity to let you know more about who we are so that we can work with you in a constructive way going forward.

Regards,

Jessica Ditto
Communications Director
Connected Nation
877.846.7710 – Office
[Mobile telephone number redacted]
[e-mail address redacted]
www.connectednation.org

[End quote]

My response: Ms. Ditto, I would guess that you are probably paid by your employer to attempt to counteract negative publicity that appears in blogs such as mine, and I understand you are probably just trying to earn a living. However, the problem as I understand it is twofold. First, and feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong, I have read that your organization was created by, and/or receives significant funding from AT&T. If that is true, then it gives the appearance of conflict of interest. Also, I have read editorials and articles that indicate that there is a belief that in states where your organization has previously done mapping, it has overstated the actual availability of broadband.

I freely admit that I did not do the original research on this (which is why I referred my readers to an article at DSLreports.com) but over the past year or so, I have read more than just one or two articles that question the circumstances under which your organization was started (was it a creation of AT&T, or any third-party organization hired by AT&T, or did AT&T have any hand in it?) and its source of funding (in other words, does AT&T contribute directly or indirectly to your organization’s operating expenses?).

There is a large area of Michigan that does need broadband, but let’s make sure we define broadband properly. My question to you would be, what is the minimum upload and download speeds that fit your organization’s definition of broadband? AT&T and Verizon seem to think that customers should be happy with minimal DSL speeds (particularly when they are not close to the telephone central office). For many customers that’s not true today, and in the future it won’t be true for anyone. If you are defining anything over dial-up modem speed as “broadband”, then that will not present a true picture of where broadband is available in Michigan. Today and in the future, customers will expect to be able to upload and download high-definition video without having to wait forever. Does your organization have the ability to change your definition of broadband to keep pace with the times and with customer expectations, or do you have to use a definition that has been imposed on you by someone else, and if so, who might that someone else be?

I’m sorry, but I just can’t help but think the timing of today’s announcement was a bit suspicious. Maybe there was a valid reason for it, maybe not, but I’m quite aware of the fact that companies tend to issue press releases on Friday afternoons and before holiday weekends, when the hope is that they will not get much exposure or commentary. Maybe that was not the intent here and it was just unfortunate timing, but if so, it was indeed unfortunate.

If you would care to comment on the above, I will publish your response. I want to be fair to everyone, but at the same time, I’ve had a bad experience in the past with a public relations firm hired by a major telephone company, so I’m not going to just let statements slide by without asking some questions, where I feel it is appropriate.

Thank you for your response, and happy holidays to you!

EDIT 2: I received another e-mail reply from Ms. Ditto. Basically, it seems that for some reason she wants to engage me further on this topic at some point next week, after she returns from the Christmas weekend. The meaningful part of her response was this:

“I will tell you one thing :) I am not with a public relations firm, nor was I hired to counteract negative publicity, although obviously my job is easier when I confront things head-on. I began working for Connected Nation because I wanted to work for a nonprofit that was doing something meaningful for others. I personally saw the impact they had in Kentucky and am excited about the work we are going to do in Michigan.”

But I didn’t say she was with a public relations firm, just that I’d had a bad experience with one. And I didn’t say that she was hired to counteract negative publicity, but I’ll bet her employer pays her while she’s attempting to do so.

I’m not even going to comment on her statement about the reason she began working for Connected Nation. I don’t want to turn this into something personal. This is not about Ms. Ditto — my whole point there was that she’s just doing her job and at this time of year, I’m not inclined to say anything negative against anyone if I can help it. But at the same time, if she’s going to try to sell me with an “Oh, shucks, we’re just a nonprofit from Kentucky” routine, there’s no way I’m buying into that. After doing just a very shallow Google search, I found the link to “Privatizing the Public Trust: A Critical Look At Connected Nation“, a report issued by Public Knowledge, Common Cause, The Media and Democracy Coalition, and Reclaim the Media. So if Ms. Ditto wants to set the record straight, it appears she has a lot more formidable opponents than I to deal with. Oh, and I found something interesting on Connected Nation’s own web site: Connected Nation Submits No Bid Response for Kentucky Broadband Mapping RFP.

Really, the only response I am interested in receiving from Connected Nation is an honest answer to the questions I asked above. To put it crudely, I want to know if, and to what extent, they’re in bed with AT&T and/or any other telephone company that has a presence in the state of Michigan. I’m certainly not going to be their sunshine pumper in the state (as if I had that kind of influence), nor do I intend at this point to carry out ongoing tirades against them (unless I’m provoked to do so). The point of this post was to alert you to this news item, and to express my personal opinion on the matter. I had frankly hoped that some other blog or news site with a lot more exposure would pick up on this, but to be honest I didn’t expect it, for the very reason I stated above — after the reporters (and the professional bloggers that blog for a living) return from the holidays, this will probably be considered old news.

And by the way, this is one of those occasions where I honestly hope I’m wrong… nothing would make me happier than to see Connected Nation produce a fair and accurate broadband map of Michigan, that accurately shows the actual upload and download speeds that people can receive at any given location in our state. One major problem with phone companies is that they advertise broadband speeds using the weasel words “up to”, so when they don’t deliver the advertised speed they can say they only promised to deliver “up to” that speed (often still charging the end user as if they were receiving the advertised speed!). A broadband map that shows only the advertised speeds available at any particular spot on the map will not only be useless, but disingenuous. Anyway, it concerns me when these other organizations — those that have actual funding, and probably a research staff — publish articles that are critical of Connected Nation. I don’t have funding and I don’t have a research staff, so I cannot fully investigate the claims made by those organizations, nor those made by Connected Nation. But I do form opinions based on what I read, and in this country I’m allowed to share my opinions with you. If my opinions are in error, well, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Please allow me to make a couple of further points: According to the original article, the federal government is spending $1.8 million dollars on this project (and that’s just in Michigan — DSLreports adds that the feds also awarded Connected Nation grants to the tune of $1.8 million for mapping and planning in Tennessee, $1.7 million in North Carolina, $1.4 million in Nevada, and $1.7 million in Minnesota) — dollars that probably came from you and I in one way or another. And what is the point? Wouldn’t it make more sense to use that money to enhance competition by actually giving zero-interest loans to small broadband providers that promise to serve an unserved or underserved area? You may say, well, we need to know where the unserved or underserved areas are located, but then I ask whether it’s really important to pinpoint those areas to the tune of $1.8 million dollars, especially considering that the existing facilities-based broadband providers ought to be able to provide maps showing where they are able to provide service. We require wireline phone companies to produce tariff maps showing exactly where their service is available — shouldn’t broadband providers be able to provide the same information, without it costing $1.8 million?

Also, there is a part of me that wonders if such a map might serve the purpose of inhibiting competition (whether as an intended or unintentional consequence). The reason is that once you know where broadband service is available, even if it’s lousy service in some areas, that information could be used to deny loans or grants to companies that want to overbuild in those areas. In other words, even if a provider’s service in unreliable, even if contacting their customer service department is like entering a level of hell, even if their own customer services representatives don’t seem to realize they have service in the area (a not uncommon problem!), or even if the provider wants to impose ridiculously small usage caps on their customers, on the map it would still show that broadband is available. Maybe customers would really like good quality broadband service with no usage caps and at a fair price, from a company that treats them as though customers really are important, but if this map says that Crappy Broadband, Inc. already offers service in your area, then perhaps nobody else is going to get a grant or loan to provide the type of service customers will want and expect in the 21st century.

My suggestion would be that if we must go through with this project, then a truly useful map would also include independently collected customer satisfaction data – how many area residents attempted to obtain service and were told they could not, and how many think the service is vastly overpriced, and how many are so frustrated with their provider’s service, or the provider’s customer service reps, to nearly want to “go postal” on that company? For that matter, will this map even take into account the prices charged? If it doesn’t then they could justifiably claim that broadband service is available, right now, to 99%+ of Michigan residents, because just about anyone can get a commercial data line from the telephone company (a DS1 or similar data circuit). You might have to sell your firstborn to get it (okay, I exaggerate slightly), but you can get it. Therefore, a map that only shows where broadband is available, without taking the issues of prices charged and customer satisfaction into account, won’t give a complete picture of broadband availability in Michigan.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the subject for the moment. Hope all of you will have the happiest of holidays!

Comments off

DSLreports.com: Wisconsin Data Shows AT&T’s ‘Franchise Reform’ Was A Joke – Now consumers get higher prices AND no consumer protection laws…

A long time ago, this blog had a somewhat different direction than it does today.  Part of what I tried to do was expose the abusive practices of the large phone companies, and (among other things) try to stop them from basically writing the communications laws that were supposed to regulate them. One of the reasons I shifted directions was because, basically, we customers lost, and I don’t enjoy beating a dead horse.  And only now, it seems, is the reality of what happened finally dawning on state officials, as indicated in Karl Bode’s article on the BroadbandReports.com/DSLreports.com site:

Wisconsin Data Shows AT&T’s ‘Franchise Reform’ Was A Joke — Now consumers get higher prices AND no consumer protection laws…

We’ve discussed how a significant number of states passed new state level video franchise laws at the behest of phone company lobbyists, but didn’t really realize what they were signing up for. Bills that consumers were told would result in lower TV prices by making it easier for phone companies to jump into the TV business, in many cases were little more than phone company wish lists — aimed at legalizing the cherry picking of next-gen broadband deployment, eliminating local authority (even eminent domain rights) and in some cases eliminating tough consumer protection laws.

The one thing the laws were supposed to do — lower TV prices — never actually happened.

One of the worst of these bills approved by duped lawmakers was in Wisconsin, where AT&T both wrote and lobbied for a bill that essentially gutted all consumer protections in the state under the auspices of cheaper TV. State residents used to have the right to prompt repairs, saw ensured refunds for service outages, mandated notice of rate increases or service deletions, and carriers had to provide a written notice of disconnection. Not any more. Now a new Wisconsin state audit shows that basic TV prices continue to skyrocket:
…..

One Wisconsin legislator (Representative Gary Hebl of Sun Prairie) has introduced a new bill that, he says, “puts people first, not corporations.” Well, if that’s really true, it’s about damn time (pardon my expressiveness, but it is!). All laws ought to do that.  Our Constitution ought to do that. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Rep. Hebl’s bill ever gets passed into law.

Here in Michigan, our legislators have been sold a similar bill of goods. About the only thing that did not happen here is that we did not completely do away with quality-of-service requirements.  But our wonderful Michigan legislators did pretty much eliminate all other consumer protections. They turned the Michigan Public Service Commission from an agency that was able to help consumers solve most any communications-related issue, to an agency that’s pretty toothless with regard to anything telecommunications-related. Unless you are subscribing to one specific landline service that virtually no one has or wants (PBLES), you now have very little protection against abusive practices by the phone company, unless you want to take them to court or file a complaint with the state Attorney General’s office (actually, I think aggrieved customers ought to complain to their state legislators – they made this mess, let them clean it up!).

(Just so as not to mislead anyone, I will say that complaints to the MPSC sometimes do still bring results, but only because the MPSC knows how to reach the top executives at some of the phone companies.  The MPSC usually can’t force the phone companies to help you anymore, but sometimes they can present your case to a high enough official that you’ll still get the desired results.  And, if you actually do have a quality of service issue – your phone doesn’t work and they tell you they can’t fix it for another month – then the MPSC does still have some authority in that type of situation).

One other point:  For nearly two decades, the Michigan Telecommunications Act had a “sunset” provision, such that it automatically came up for a rewrite every four or five years.  The phone companies always saw this as a chance to re-craft the law to be even more to their liking, while consumer groups and legislators that felt they’d been “hoodwinked” the last time around saw it as a chance to restore some previously lost customer protections.  But a funny thing happened on the way to the latest rewrite – a couple of years ago, the Michigan legislature quietly killed the sunset provision, making the current Michigan Telecommunications Act the one we’ll probably be stuck with for decades to come.  This indicates to me that the phone companies got what they really wanted last time around, and had no intention of letting the applecart be upset by disgruntled consumers or legislators in 2009.

Of course, any one of our legislators could, on their own initiative, introduce legislation that would attempt to undo the damage that was done in the last Michigan Telecommunications Act rewrite.  But unless they receive enough complaints from affected citizens, I doubt they’ll want to poke that particular beehive (the bees being the big telco lobbyists and lawyers, which would probably come into the state in full fury if there were ever any serious attempt at reform).

One way consumers could make an effective statement is to “vote with their feet”, and refuse to purchase any service from a large company that abuses their customers (especially when there are any other viable options available). But most customers don’t have that kind of willpower – all the “evil corporation” has to do is dangle a shiny enough carrot off the stick (in the form of a great “limited time promotional offer”) and we, like a bunch of stupid jackasses, subscribe to their services.

Like I said, I’m not into beating dead horses – once they’ve been dead long enough, they really start to stink — kind of like our Michigan legislature (and, presumably, their brethren in Wisconsin) when the big corporate interests come around.

Comments off

Killing the Golden Goose

I wonder how many folks saw this article yesterday on the Stop the Cap! site:

Cable Companies’ Big Internet Swindle: They Charge You $40 For Broadband That Costs Them $8 To Provide

I had sent this article to a friend and his response was, “if all these huge profit margins are true, then why is Charter in bankruptcy?” Well, a possible reason is that even what ought to be a hugely profitable company can be sunk by bad management and horrible customer service (and I have seen allegations of both with regard to Charter).  But in a way, Charter is the reason for this article. As I mentioned in a previous article,  Charter wants to move to what they call “consumption based billing.”

I just want to point out that while people may be slow to react, they are not stupid.  America is littered with the remains of once-great corporations that in their day were at the top of the heap, but then got greedy.  At one time, the American railroads controlled much of the country, especially the in the west.  It took a while, but shippers finally figured out that trucks were less expensive and more practical.  The thing is, the railroads at one time had all the advantages, including friends in government and economies of scale, but they just plain got greedy and priced themselves out of the market.

I’ve previously mentioned Western Union, which at one time owned electronic text-based communications within the U.S.A.  But even as they became more automated, moving away from guys pounding brass keys and into the age of teletypewriters, fax machines, and microwaves, they kept raising the per-word prices for telegrams. At the same time, the price of a phone call kept falling.  Had Western Uninion been a bit smarter, they might have been a major player in today’s world of electronic communications.

Then we have landline phone service.  While this is a bit of a unique story, since in part it’s a story of the landline business being cannibalized by the wireline side of the business, it still is an example of many customers finally getting sick to death of being overcharged for service.

So what do we have today? We have cable companies and phone companies that overcharge for service, particularly with regard to broadband and cable television. The cable companies complain that they are being practically held up at gunpoint by the broadcasters and content providers, who demand higher fees, and therefore they need to pss those fees onto customers – however, they won’t even consider the one easy solution that would virtually eliminate that problem – allowing customers to pick and choose the channels they want, rather than being forced to subscribe to tiers of channels they don’t want in order to get channels they do want.  If customers were allowed to vote with their wallets, a lot of the alleged extortion by content providers would quickly end.  Yet the cable companies fight the very idea of à la carte programming tooth and nail.

As for metered billing for broadband – it’s totally unnecessary and it leaves customers open to possible fraud by the provider (this is sometimes even a problem with utilities where you can physically see the meter, so how much more of a problem will it be when the meter exists only in software, and customers have no possible way to check the accuracy of that meter).

But what I see here is a convergence of a “perfect storm” that’s going to totally reshape communications in the U.S.A. Here are a few, somewhat related points:

  • Many other countries, particularly our competitors in Asia, are providing far higher broadband speeds to their customers, at a lower monthly rate.  Only so much of that can be explained by population density; I think a larger part is that in many of those countries it’s just not socially nor politically acceptable for companies to exhibit unbridled greed, and to gouge their customers for every penny they can get. The U.S.A. simply cannot afford to have its citizens giving up their broadband connections to avoid being gouged.
  • The much-hated Universal Service Fund should be abolished, but instead it’s going to be expanded to include broadband.  However, the possible silver lining is that any time the government doles out money, it gains more control.  If the government used that control in a beneficial manner — by, for example, imposing network neutrality and a prohibition on metered billing on those companies that receive USF subsidies — it could nip some of these gouging attempts in the bud.  That’s not a long-term solution, however, since those regulations can and do change depending on the party in power.
  • It looks like competitive broadband providers are finally going to be allowed to use “white space” (e.g. unoccupied television channels) to provide wireless service.  If the FCC can make sure that smaller providers get a fair shake, this could allow competitive wireless providers to offer broadband service at reasonable rates (note to such providers – PLEASE don’t assume your users will be happy with an upload speed only one-tenth of download speed.  People want to make and share thir own content, and you should allow them to do that without making them die of boredom).
  • Also, when the large cable and DSL companies start gouging their customers, it creates a market for all available competitive services delivered via more traditional means (competitive DSL, current-technology wireless, etc.)
  • Then there is “the ‘x’ factor” (see below).

What do I mean by “the ‘x’ factor”? I mean the new technology that’s not been fully explored yet.  Technology doesn’t stand still, and there may be a breakthrough soon that will cause all existing technologies to essentially become obsolete. Have you ever noticed that the SETI project, and other attempts to “tune in” to advanced civilizations “out there” haven’t met with any success? Maybe that’s because the aliens aren’t using old-fashioned radio waves. Our current forms of electromagnetic radiation are very inefficient and often, very power-hungry. I suspect that the world of quantum physics is going to provide us something much better, if our governments will allow it.

For example, Google “quantum entanglement” – now suppose there were a way to place two particles in a state of entanglement, such that when you change the state of one particle, the other changes instantaneously, withour regard even to the speed of light limitation on traditional electronic communications.  Imagine that you had a box at your ISP, and a companion box at your location, and each box contained two (or more) matched pairs of entangled particles (probably in some kind of plug-in module) – at least one pair of particles for transmitting data, the other for receiving.  These boxes wouldn’t use radio waves or the electromagnetic spectrum, so there would be no bandwidth limitations to worry about.  Furthermore, communications would be totally secure, because only the entangled particles would communicate with each other. That last part is why some governments would hate it – no more intercepting data mid-stream. But if that principle were developed commercially, your ISP could be on the moon for all you’d care, running off solar power and providing communications for half the planet – and if they started gouging their customers, someone else could set up a competing system, anywhere in the world. Maybe you could set one up in your basement, if you wanted to.

Sure, it sounds farfetched now – but so did the whole idea of radio before it was developed. We’re not talking some nebulous idea here, “quantum entanglement” is now a known principle of quantum physics. It’s just so new that either it hasn’t been commercially developed yet (much like the laser in the middle of the 20th century), or it’s being used in secret for totally secure communications, and the governments that are using it would rather you (and their enemies) didn’t know, not that there’s much an enemy could do about it.

My point here is that if today’s communications companies want to be around for the next revolution in technology (which will surely bring about opportunities that haven’t even been considered yet – who could have envisioned the opportunities the World Wide Web would create?), they had better re-think their ideas about alienating their customers. Sadly, American companies are notorious for not thinking ahead – as long as the current C.E.O. gets his golden parachute when he retires, what does he care what happens to the company in the future?  But the stockholders ought to care, and customers ought to care, and the government ought to care if they don’t want America to become a third-rate nation.

It will be interesting to see which companies survive the next few decades, and which ones kill the golden goose to get the immediate big windfall. But if I had to take service from one or the other, I’d rather get it from the one that plans on being around for the next century, and treats their customers accordingly.

Comments off

Opinion wanted on Hulu Desktop application’s End User License Agreement

(I resisted the urge to make the headline read: “Hulu EULA meant ta fool ya?”  You’re welcome.)

I’m aware that some people have raised an eyebrow at a portion of section 2 of the Hulu Desktop application’s EULA, where it states (in part):

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. Hulu grants you a license to install and use the Hulu Software on your personal laptop or desktop computer (“Personal Computer”) for the sole purpose of streaming content that is available on Hulu’s site located at www.hulu.com (“Hulu Content”) on your Personal Computer. You may not download, install or use the Hulu Software on any device other than a Personal Computer including without limitation digital media receiver devices (such as Apple TV), mobile devices (such as a cell phone device, mobile handheld device or a PDA), network devices or CE devices (collectively “Prohibited Devices”). You may not use any hardware, software or service other than the Hulu Software to stream, re-encode, project or transmit Hulu Content. …

But, that is not the part that concerns me.  I’m far more concerned about section 5, which states:

5. Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Hulu and its subsidiaries may collect and use technical and related information about your computer, including but not limited to system and application software and peripherals that you use to access the Services. This information is gathered to facilitate the provision of software updates, product support, and other services to you (if any) related to the Hulu Software. Hulu may use this information to improve our products or to provide services or technologies to you. (Emphasis Added)

First of all, why should I be required to tell Hulu anything at all about my computer?  Is this so they have a way to enforce the restrictions in Section 2? While this paragraph would concern me even without the inclusion of any “weasel words,” including the words “but not limited to” seems to change the entire tone of that paragraph. Let me put it this way: If you happen to read down this far, what I suspect they want your eyes to see is something like this:

You agree that Hulu (blah, blah) may collect and use technical and related information about your computer (blah, blah) software and peripherals that you use to access the Services. …

And that alone ought to put you on your guard, but many people wouldn’t notice. But if I am reading correctly (and bear in mind that I Am Not A Lawyer), what I think this really means is more along these lines:

You agree that Hulu and its subsidiaries, whoever they are may collect and use any damn thing they want to know about your computer.

So, again if I am reading this correctly, this license in effect gives Hulu and its unnamed subsidiaries blanket permission to take whatever information they can find on your computer.  Now, I have no idea what information they actually look at, but no way in hell would I knowingly give Hulu or anybody else blanket permission to let their software rummage around my computer and “phone home” with anything they happen to find interesting.

I’m really surprised that this hasn’t apparently hasn’t been noticed (yet) by those people who regularly look for this sort of thing.  Anyway, if anyone from Hulu happens to read this, my advice is that you strike Section 5 of your obnoxious EULA. Or, at least run it by someone who understands that users do not intend to give you the keys to their computer (or the right to take the keys at whatever future date you like) simply because you induce them to use your software, and then revise that section to explicitly state what you will collect (with no “weasel words”), and exactly who will have access to that data.

So my question is this: If we have any legal experts in the crowd, does this EULA section seem as offensive to you as it does to me? Or am I just taking this entirely the wrong way?

As for the Hulu Desktop software itself, I cannot comment on whether it’s any good or not, because I’ve never gone past that EULA screen!

Comments off

It’s no wonder some people hate AT&T

I just has the distinct displeasure of trying, unsuccessfully, to help a friend obtain AT&T DSL service at his home. Right now he has phone service from a competitive phone company, but what he wants to do is get the least expensive DSL service that AT&T offers (the variety they have been advertising on TV, that does not require the customer to have their dial tone), then use VoIP for his phone service — but he doesn’t want to disconnect his current voice service until everything else is up and working.  Apparently, he might as well be wanting a flying car or a time machine.  Even putting aside the issue of the competitive phone service, the first thing that needs to be done is to get the DSL installed, and if ever a company acts like they don’t want your business, it’s AT&T.

On his first attempt, he picked an AT&T number out of the phone book and called that.  That attempt apparently came to a screeching halt when AT&T told him they could not install DSL as long as he had phone service from the competitive phone company.  Actually, there’s no TECHNICAL reason that you can’t provide DSL from one company and voice from another on the same pair, but for whatever reason it’s apparently just not done.  I wasn’t listening in on that call so I don’t know all the details, but after that we did a three-way call to see if we’d have any better luck (and honestly, I wanted to hear if it was as bad as he’d described it).

The first thing we did was to call the number that is advertised on the AT&T commercials for $19.95 DSL.  That, apparently, is your ticket into the seven circles of telephone hell.  If I’d been playing a drinking game, taking a drink every time we heard the phrase “your call is important to us”, I would not be drunk – I’d likely be quite dead.  We heard it from female voices, male voices, and disembodied voices that sounded like they were continents away.  I’d guess we were transferred at least half a dozen times, sometimes by voice response systems that didn’t even wait for a response and just seemed to randomly transfer the call.  The last time we were transferred, it was by some guy with a distinct accent — it sort of sounded Indian, but by that time the quality of the connection was so poor it was hard to tell — who told us that if we got cut off, we could call the AT&T DSL department directly on 877-722-9337 (my friend repeated the number back TWICE to make sure he’d heard it right, and I copied it down also).  That number may have belonged to AT&T at one time, but now it apparently belongs to an “enhanced” directory service (that has a web site at http://www.callingten.com/).  When their recording first answers, it almost sounds like you are being charged $4.95 (or some amount, it was hard to hear) for the call (I think you actually have to call a different number for that to happen, but it wasn’t really all that clear).

Anyway, when we got cut off after talking to the guy with the accent, and then getting the recording at the directory service, I finally went prowling around AT&T’s web site and found another number for Internet service – 1-800-288-2020 – and again we had to go through a voice response system and several minutes of wait.  Finally we reached someone who actually tried to be helpful, but it took her several minutes to find my friend’s address in their system (he lives in an apartment complex, but still, they do offer service there, so it shouldn’t have been a major undertaking to find the address).  Then she asked a bunch of questions about his phone, Internet, and television usage (I would have probably politely declined to answer, but he went along), and from that she deduced that he should order a triple play package that, if I recall correctly, would have cost over $70 a month.  When he said he was just interested in the basic low-speed DSL, she then (after some more time passed) said that they could not put the DSL on the same pair as the existing phone service (well, she didn’t exactly say it that way, but that’s what we figured out that she meant, after some conversation). At least she didn’t say he couldn’t get it at all.

But the real deal killer was that apparently she wasn’t at all aware of a promotion my friend had seen online.  According to him, the deal was that if you made a one-year service commitment, you got a free DSL modem and $100 back (I’m a bit skeptical about the $100 for that class of service, but I could see the free DSL modem as a possibility, given that AT&T probably buys them in bulk).  However, this representative basically said he’d have to commit to service for a year or pay an early termination penalty if he dropped the service before the year was up, and she couldn’t give him anything free or in any way sweeten the offer — he’d still have to pay about $50 for a DSL modem, plus a shipping charge!  It sounded as though she had no idea what deals might be offered on the web site. My friend wasn’t willing to set himself up for a possible termination charge, if for some reason he had to discontinue service (and I’m betting he wouldn’t — he’s the kind of guy that doesn’t like change much, so once they had him as a customer they’d likely have him for years — but in an apartment situation you just never know.  If there is a fire or a pipe breaks or something, he could be forced to move out with very little notice). After having been on the phone for over three hours, and being told that “your call is important to us” when clearly it was NOT, his sense of humor had long since evaporated and to basically be told, “this is the deal, take it or leave it” was just a bit too much to take under the circumstances.

I don’t know if my friend will ever get DSL service now or not.  He was somewhat enthused about it before this morning, but that certainly wasn’t his attitude by the time he was going into the fourth hour of phone hell. I am SO glad I don’t personally live in an area where AT&T and Comcast are the only viable choices available (my friend lives in Gaines Township which is near Wyoming, Michigan, in the Grand Rapids metro area, but not close enough to downtown to be within range of any inexpensive wireless services, as far as we know).

Why does AT&T bother to advertise the service if they don’t want people to get it?  Is it just bait-and-switch – you can call in for the $19.95 offer but if they can’t upsell you to something more expensive then they don’t care if you take their service or not? I might be inclined to actually believe that, but then I realize that most of the “phone hell” occurred before they had even determined why my friend was calling.

I have three takeaways from this:  First, if Comcast would just offer an entry-level DSL service for people who are, shall we say, not wealthy, they could clean AT&T’s clock.  I know a lot of people don’t like Comcast and there is probably good reason for that, but I have a feeling that if my friend had been willing to pay their rate, he wouldn’t have been on the phone with them for more than ten or fifteen minutes tops.  He certainly would not have been transferred all over creation because a particular rep didn’t handle Michigan, or DSL, or whatever the excuse was. Now, I have no way to know what his actual installation experience might have been, but at least trying to sign up for the service probably wouldn’t have seemed something akin to a root canal. Comcast really shoots themselves in the foot by doing that “introductory rate” nonsense — by now everyone is on to that (ironically, in part due to AT&T commercials) so what they really need is a low rate option with limited connection speed, for people who don’t do much more than check e-mail and go to a few web pages.

Second, after all this time, AT&T still acts like they are the only game in town, and that they really don’t need to give a damn whether ordering a service is a pleasant, or at least non-painful experience. In my opinion, any time a customer hears a recording saying “your call is important to us”, that’s a massive fail on the part of a company.  If you really thought the call was important, you’d answer it, and to tell us the call is important to you when it clearly isn’t is a massive insult.  And you wouldn’t put numbers in your television ads that go to people who have no ability to help the customer with ordering service, and who must transfer them several times before finally losing the call completely (actually terminating with a bust of hold music played at about four times normal volume, just before the call dropped entirely).  And speaking of which, I thought AT&T was originally a phone company – so why is their own phone service so dreadful?

Third, the phone companies still do everything they can to inhibit competition.  As I said earlier, there’s no TECHNICAL reason you can’t have voice service from one company and DSL from another on the same pair (and the plan was to drop the existing voice service anyway, but only after the DSL was working).  But apparently AT&T can’t make that happen, for whatever reason. My friend doesn’t know how many usable pairs are run into each apartment (in particular, whether there’s more than one) and due to family circumstances it would be pretty difficult for me to go over there and trace out the wiring for him right now – it’s just a bit too far away, and I can’t be away that long right now.

I know from reading sites like The Consumerist that dealing with companies like AT&T is getting to be a really horrible experience, but until I listened in on my friend’s attempts to get DSL service this afternoon, I had no idea it was that bad.  Now I understand why the iPhone users are so upset that Apple forged an exclusive deal with AT&T in the U.S. – based on what I heard this afternoon, the “AT&T experience” is almost the exact opposite of what Apple users have come to expect from Apple.  Does AT&T have a death wish, or are they really just that incompetent?

Comments (14)

Breaking News: (BusinessWire:) Frontier Communications to Acquire Verizon Assets Creating Nation’s Largest Pure Rural Communications Services Provider

Just saw this press release:

STAMFORD, Conn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Frontier Communications Corporation (NYSE: FTR) today announced that it has signed a definitive agreement with Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) under which Frontier will acquire approximately 4.8 million access lines from Verizon. The all stock transaction is valued at approximately $8.6 billion. The transaction will create the largest pure rural communications services provider and the nation’s fifth largest incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) with more than 7 million access lines, 8.6 million voice and broadband connections and 16,000 employees in 27 states. Frontier will offer broadband, new bundled services and expanded technologies to customers across its expanded geographic footprint.

Under the terms of the agreement, Verizon will establish a separate newly formed entity (“SpinCo”) for its local exchanges and related business assets in 14 states. SpinCo will be spun off to Verizon’s shareholders and simultaneously merged with and into Frontier. The transaction has been approved by the Boards of Directors of Frontier and Verizon, and is expected to be completed within approximately 12 months.

[.....]

Verizon will establish a separate entity (SpinCo), which will hold the local exchange and related business assets in the 14 states that are the subject of the transaction. SpinCo will carry approximately $3.333 billion of debt consisting of a combination of newly issued debt as well as assumed debt already issued by entities that are being contributed to SpinCo. Verizon will receive approximately $3.333 billion of cash or debt relief. Verizon will then spin off SpinCo pro rata to its shareholders and SpinCo will immediately merge with and into Frontier. Verizon’s shareholders will receive shares of Frontier common stock in connection with the merger in an amount to be determined at closing, which is expected to have a value of approximately $5.25 billion.

The exact number of shares to be issued by Frontier will be determined based on Frontier’s 30-day weighted average closing share price ending 3 trading days prior to closing, subject to a collar such that in no case will the Frontier common stock price, for the purpose of determining the number of shares of Frontier common stock to be issued to Verizon shareholders at closing, be lower than $7.00 or higher than $8.50. Depending on the trading prices of Frontier shares just prior to the closing, upon the closing of the transaction, Verizon shareholders will own between approximately 66 and 71 percent of the new company, and Frontier shareholders will own between approximately 29 and 34 percent. Verizon will not own any shares in Frontier after the merger. Both the spin-off and merger are expected to qualify as tax-free transactions, except to the extent that cash is paid to Verizon shareholders in lieu of fractional shares.

Frontier will acquire Verizon access lines in Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia. Frontier currently provides phone, video, Internet and broadband services to more than 2 million customers in 24 states, including 11 of the states that are part of the agreement announced today. The Verizon properties include approximately 4.8 million access lines, with 1.0 million High-Speed Internet customers, 2.2 million long-distance customers, 164,000 DirecTV customers and 69,000 FiOS video customers.

I’m sure more details will emerge throughout the day.  I don’t know if this includes all of the exchanges in all of the mentioned states, or just the “rural” exchanges, but “4.8 million access lines” is probably a pretty significant chunk of Verizon’s landline business.

Wonder if this means we might finally get FiOS here in Michigan? (Yes, I’m probably a bit delusional on that point).

Comments (3)

Why landlines are going away

In the last week or two I’ve seen several articles and other references to the impending death of landlines (the old-fashioned copper to the home service that many of us have known and used for so many years).  Some people are worried about the prospect, others have cheerfully ditched their landlines and aren’t looking back.

Some are speculating as to why this is happening.  Really, it’s not a hard question. There’s sort of a confluence of factors at this point in time. We will shortly reach the “tipping point” where the remaining landline holdouts will dump their landlines en masse, leaving only a relatively small percentage of diehard landline users.  The thing is, while the phone companies could have forestalled this for quite some time, they actually did nearly nothing meaningful to retain landline customers.  Some have suggested that they didn’t really want to keep their landline customers, that the cost of providing landline service has become prohibitive.  I don’t believe that – it sounds like exactly the sort of lie they might tell regulators when asking for yet another rate increase, but in the cold light of day it makes no sense, except perhaps for a very few, very rural telephone companies that never figured out how to game the system like some of their larger bretheren. I think it’s more just neglect and inertia – an institutionalized inability to make any meaningful change.

Just in case it isn’t perfectly obvious to anyone, here are the top five reasons people are dropping their landlines:

  1. They aren’t portable.  Every time any company tried to come out with a method to let people take their phones with them over even a moderately short distance (more than  a city block or so), the phone companies yanked the chain of the FCC and made sure that things like long range cordless phones never saw the light of day.  The big phone companies probably thought they’d be the only provider of wireless phone service, and that there would be little or no competition from here to eternity.  They were wrong, and as competition brought prices down, it made cell phones far more affordable.  At that point, many people started to wonder – if I’m using my cell phone most of the time anyway, why should I also be paying for a landline?  Sure, there are reasons one might want to do so, but for many folks none of them are very compelling.
  2.  

  3. There are extra charges for long distance, and in some places, for local calls.  If the phone companies would have had the least bit of foresight, they’d have realized that people were rebelling against long distance charges.  They were using alternative long distance carriers, and making calls on their cell phones during the “free” hours.  When the Internet came along, they started using VoIP to avoid toll charges.  The phone companies could have responded to this by offering wider local calling areas and “free long distance” hours (say midnight to 8 AM and on weekends at first, gradually expanding the free hours to meet the competition) but they didn’t.  In fact, not only did they not do that, but in some cases they actually started raising toll rates again, after people had gotten used to seeing them decrease over time. They never figured out that many people hate meters, and would actually pay a bit more just to not have a meter.
  4.  

  5. There are extra charges for “custom calling” features and other services – and the charges weren’t at all relative to the costs of providing the service.  A couple bucks a month for touch tone? A charge for not publishing your address and phone number in a directory? $6-$8 per month for Caller ID? These and other charges were simply outrageous – it cost the phone company little or nothing to provide these types of services, but they saw them as cash cows, and thought their customers were too stupid to realize they were being gouged.  What could have been a public relations bonanza – constantly adding new features and service at little or no extra charge (something that almost certainly would have happened in a truly competitive environment) was replaced by a philosophy of pure greed, where the idea was to gouge the customer for every nickel and dime they could get.  It was stupid to ever treat customers that way, but it was especially idiotic to keep doing it when the cell phone companies (and later the VoIP companies) offered all these features and more at no additional monthly charge.
  6.  

  7. They are redundant.  When, because of the items listed above, people started making more use of cellular (and, in some cases, VoIP) service, it suddenly occurred to them that there is really no need to pay for essentially the same service from two different providers – especially when one of the providers had been overcharging them, giving them marginal to poor customer service, and basically taking their customers for granted for years.  For many years, and even today in some cases, the landline companies still approcah customers as if “you need us more than we need you.” I’m old enough to remember when phone company representatives actually threatened people with prison (or at least the cutoff of their phone service) for buying and hooking up their own extension telephone, thereby depriving Ma Bell of a monthly rental fee that actually paid for the phone in about 6-8 months.  As Lily Tomlin’s character “Ernestine” used to say, “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company!” So when people started to realize that it was silly to pay for essentially the same service from two or more providers – something that’s only going to accelerate given the present economic conditions – guess which one is going to get the boot.
  8.  

  9. They just aren’t cool anymore.  Landline telephones are fast becoming like a spitoon in the living room – something you just don’t see anymore, particularly in residential settings (for those of you that are young enough to have no idea what a spitoon is, just remember that in your grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ generation, it was a lot more socially acceptable to chew tobacco than it is today, which is probably why so many older people have false teeth.  Anyway, they needed someplace to dispose of the excess saliva that tended to build up while chewing – hence, the spitoon.  And you thought ash trays were disgusting!). Watch TV or any recent movie – unless they are showing an era of times gone by, about the only place you will see landline phones are in an office-type setting.  If you’re in your mid-20′s to mid-30′s, think about when you were a teenager – would you ever have seen a teenager on TV haul out an old style record player and spin a few tunes?  Maybe on “Happy Days”, but not in any show set in the then-current era.   Well, look at today’s shows – how often do you see a modern teenager (or adult, for that matter) use a landline telephone, especially at home?  The media has always helped set the trends for the current generation, and landline phones just aren’t where it’s at anymore (neither is the expression “where it’s at”, but at my age I can get away with using it!). :)

Any one of these things by itself would not be insurmountable – but right now, in the current economic climate, it’s just a “perfect storm” of reasons for people to dump their landlines.  And it’s not necessarily that every one of the defectors really hate the idea of the telephone itself – after all,  a not-insignificant number will replace their landline with some type of VoIP service – it’s just that when you put all the above together there no good reason to keep a landline phone.  Even the oft-repeated mantra of the landline diehards, that in an emergency the landline phone will be the only phone that still works, was disproven during Hurricane Katrina, where it turned out that the only thing that still worked in downtown New Orleans was VoIP.

Thing is, the phone companies were stupid.  They took their customers for granted, abused them and overcharged them, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.  And what other big industry is guilty of this? Yeah, I know, the banking industry, but forget them for a moment – who else is guilty of treating their customers like dog poo? That would be certain cable companies, of course.  They just keep raising rates and acting like they are the only game in town for TV and Internet access.  Well, they haven’t been the only game in town for TV for many years (and yet their rates keep climbing) and even if they are the only Internet provider in a given area today, I can guarantee that competition will be coming in that area as well – maybe not for a decade or two in some of the more remote areas, but it will come.  The big cable companies would be well advised not to make the mistakes the big phone companies have made, but I suspect that (as is the case in so many American corporations) the current executives only care that things don’t go completely in the crapper while they are in charge, but what happens after they retire is of little concern to them. Is it possible that, in 15 to 30 years or so, someone will be writing an article like this one, analyzing the reasons that people are giving up their cable service en masse?

Comments (3)

The most important article you may read this year

If you care anything at all about the future of the Internet (and all the services provided via the Internet), drop everything and go read this article:

If ISPs Meter, Who Verifies Meter Accuracy?

I get a sense of Déjà vu here – I was making these same arguments over a decade ago when telling people why you could not trust the phone company to accurately bill for local measured service.  There was actually one verified case where every call made from a particular telephone exchange was being counted twice, effectively resulting in double billing for measured service customers – it took a city hall auditor to finally figure out what was happening. At least in that situation, someone could put a notepad next to a phone and make a check mark every time a local call was placed, to try and get some idea of whether the billing was accurate.

Let me make it perfectly clear – given the current trend for large corporations to shaft the consumer any way they possibly can, particularly when they think there is very little chance that the consumer will discover that they are being conned, there is no doubt in my mind that some broadband companies will deliberately overbill customers if given the opportunity. I don’t know which company will be the first, and I don’t know exactly how they’ll attempt it, but the very first time a customer gets a bill for excess usage you should at least be suspicious.  Look at how the cell phone companies deliberately mislead their customers about things like international data charges and you may begin to understand why, if metered billing ever takes hold, customers will have a very real problem.

Seriously, metered billing is a VERY bad idea from the customer’s standpoint, especially if there are additional charges for “excessive” use (as opposed to bandwidth throttling when the customer passes a certain usage plateau, which while still objectionable, at least limits the damage by making sure the customer never pays more than the monthly rate he or she agreed to pay).

Comments off

The Unintended Consequence of Broadband Usage Caps

I think broadband providers had better be very careful. I’m old enough to remember a time when it seemed like almost everybody hated the phone company, with the type of hatred that today might be reserved for certain four-letter organizations that end in “AA.” Those of you old enough to remember Rowan and Martin’s “Laugh In” may remember Lily Tomlin’s famous line (while playing the part of Ernestine the Operator): “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the telephone company!”

Well, substitute “cable company” for “telephone company”, and you’d have a phrase that one could easily imagine falling from the lips of a big cable representative. They don’t care that people don’t want usage caps, that this is not the Internet you signed up for. They figure they’ll just re-educate you so that, like a bunch of stupid sheep, you’ll accept the caps.

The trouble with this, however, is it only works until a significant number of people find an alternative. International telephone rates were totally outrageous until VoIP (and especially Skype) came along.

Now here is the problem I see for the cable companies (and the phone companies that offer cable TV type service) that want to impose usage caps. The thing they are trying to block – the whole reason they are trying to limit usage in the first place – is video over the Internet, especially the high quality variety. They want you to buy their expensive cable service and more expensive video on demand. They will, of course, lie through their teeth and give you any other plausible-sounding reason they can think of, but the thing they are scared to death of is the day you can download any TV show, any movie, or any other kind of video you might want to see via the Internet, and they’re not getting a cut. The day you say, “I don’t need cable TV, I don’t need traditional telephone service, I just want unlimited broadband, thank you very much.”

Just for a moment, think about how your life might change if you could go to a web site at any time on or after the day a new episode of a TV show was released, and click on a button and almost immediately have it start streaming to your computer monitor or nearby HDTV set. You’d never worry about missing an episode again. No presidential speech, no sports event, no local weather or news bulletin would interrupt your program. You wouldn’t be in the only television market in the country to not see some network show because the local affiliate decided you’d rather see a local special on the city hospital, or the West Bumfart High School football game. We are, for all practical purposes, almost at that point (some would say already there), at least for some shows.

Thing is, the cable companies probably don’t mind if you go to Hulu and catch a missed show every now and then. But what they really don’t want is you deciding you don’t need cable television, and can just watch everything you want to watch online.

But what they are forgetting is that even where they are the only game in town, computer storage is getting much smaller and cheaper. And look what’s coming down the road: Store 250 DVDs on One Coin-Sized Surface (via Discover Magazine)

I don’t know if anyone remembers, but it wasn’t so long ago when modems ran at paltry speeds like 300 or 1200 bps.  There was no commercial Internet – if you were lucky you might connect to a local Bulletin Board Service, but to exchange data with anyone else online could be a very expensive long distance call. So how did large programs get transferred from one user to another? Via floppy disk, sent via U.S. mail.  For the price of a couple postage stamps, you could send several hundred kilobytes anywhere it needed to be.  Even if you figured in the cost of the floppy disk and the cardboard mailer, you still came out ahead over a long distance phone call in most cases.

So what happens when your local ISP starts charging a buck or two per gigabyte over their paltry cap, and you get fed up and decide that if you want to trade a significant chunk of data with anybody you’ll just put it in the mail? By the time it gets to that point, people will be really pissed off at the cable company.  What I envision happening is they will use their cell phones (with unlimited texting and enough data to send and receive e-mail and maybe do some web browsing each day) but start swapping large chunks of data via mail, and some of those folks will then tell the cable company to take a flying leap.  You can bet that sending data by mail happens already in areas where no broadband is available – people order a hard drive with several hundred gigabytes, or maybe even a terabyte in capacity, have it sent to a close relative that has a collection of videos, programs, games or whatever, and that relative fills up the hard drive and ships it out.  Today that’s a pain in the posterior – but when you can put that same amount of storage or more on a coin-sized surface (and maybe several terabytes on a disk that would just fit into a standard sized envelope) all bets are off. Would you rather pay a couple bucks to receive two or three months’ worth of viewing material in the mail, or pay the cable company a few hundred dollars (or more) for the same amount of viewing?

I always like to point to the fact that Western Union gouged people on sending telegrams (charging an outrageous per-word rate, even after they had developed teletype machines to replace the old Morse code keys) and the minute long distance telephone service became halfway affordable, people pretty much discarded the telegram like an old smelly shoe.  Then the phone companies continued to charge outrageous long distance rates even after technology brought their costs down, and now we see their landline business going the way of the dodo bird – I doubt there will be many landlines left by 2020.  The cable companies should learn from these mistakes and not antagonize their customers.  I know they probably think that they cannot be replaced in many areas – that customers have no other choice but to use their service – but that’s simply not true.  I’m sure we will see advances in digital wireless technology, and we can’t rule out the possibility of electric utilities getting into the broadband business (forget broadband over power lines, start stringing fiber on those poles!).

And then there’s the possibility of some totally new technology being developed.  Personally, I’d put my money on something having to do with quantum entanglement. If you can affect the state of a particle at any distance by altering the state of its twin, and you can do this in a totally secure fashion and with minimal power usage, then all you have to figure out is how to do the state changes quickly enough to send data, and how to decode the received data at the other end. If we ever put a colony on Mars or someplace even more distant, we are not going to want to wait minutes or hours for old-fashioned electromagnetic waves (limited by the speed of light). My understanding is that at the quantum level there is no speed-of-light limitation, and I’ll just bet that you don’t have to use several thousand watts of power to get the signal out. Maybe I’m wrong, and it will be some other technology we haven’t heard of yet, but if you have ever wondered why SETI hasn’t yet picked up an extraterrestrial equivalent of “I Love Lucy” on their gigantic dishes, I suspect it’s because any aliens that might be out there would no more think of using electromagnetic waves for communication than we would consider using smoke signals.

Point is, when the new technologies and alternative connection methods come along, the cable companies may just wish they’d treated their customers a whole lot better. Guys, you know bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper – get it right out of your heads that you can overcharge customers for a decade or two and they will forgive you.  No, really, they won’t, and their children won’t give you the time of day. The unintended consequence of bandwidth caps is that you become the next company that everyone loves to hate, and that’s definitely not a recipe for long-term survival.

Comments off

Something’s happening here…..

EDIT: It turns out that perhaps, as so often happens, things are not as they first appeared. Rewrite time!

Added Link: BroadbandReports.com has also been covering this issue: FBI VoIP Raid Target Claims Innocence – Says AT&T and Verizon are just using FBI for debt collection

The other day, when I posted my anti-large-corporation screed, I’m sure some of you thought I’d flipped, or had eaten too much tainted peanut butter or something. Well, for those of you who may still have doubts about who is running the country these days, I’ll like to quote something I found (via a Twitter link) in its entirety. This was written by Matthew Simpson, who is the CEO of Core IP Networks, LLC, and comes to us by way of Digg. Unfortunately there is no date on it, but I’m thinking that the events related herein must have happened sometime in the last week:

Matthew Simpson
Core IP Networks LLC

Dear Customers,

Today at 6:00am, the FBI conducted an unwarranted early morning raid of our 2323 Bryan Street Datacenters, on the 7th and 24th floors.

I received a phone call at 6:05am from our NOC that the entire network was powered off. I called Capstar Commercial and TELX, our landlord, and was told that the FBI was in the datacenter with a search and seizure warrant. I asked that the agent in charge call me immediately.

I received a call 15 minutes later from FBI Agent Allyn Lynd. Mr. Lynd would not tell me why he raided our datacenter or what he was looking for. He also accused me of hiding inside my house in Ovilla, Texas. I was actually in Phoenix, Arizona when this happened. I told him that, and he told me that he was “getting the dogs” after me, and hung up on me. I found out from an employee that there were 15 police cars and a SWAT team at my home in Ovilla.

The FBI has seized all equipment belonging to our customers. Many customers went to the data center to try and retrieve their equipment, but were threatened with arrest.

Neither I, nor Core IP are involved in any illegal activities of any kind. The only data that I have received thus far is that the FBI is investigating a company that has purchased services from Core IP in the past. This company does not even colocate with us anywhere, much less 2323 Bryan Street Datacenter.

Currently nearly 50 businesses are completely without access to their email and data. Citizen access to Emergency 911 services are being affected, as Core IP’s primary client base consists of telephone companies.

If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason.

I can be reached for further comment at: mnsclec@gmail.com
Further information will be given as it becomes available.

Yours,
Matthew Simpson
CEO, Core IP Networks, LLC

(Emphasis added)

Yes, this sort of thing is still happening in our country, even though we voted for change. But what does this have to do with large corporations? Well, according to the Digg headline and a couple of Twitter tweets I’ve seen, the thing that kicked off this investigation was that someone leaked a copy of the upcoming Wolverine movie onto the net. I haven’t seen any “official” confirmation of that yet, but that’s the word that seems to be circulating on the ‘net at this point. If CBS 11 news (Dallas/Ft. Worth) has the straight facts (and you will see my comments about how much I think the media can be trusted in a situation like this), it has nothing to do with a leaked movie and everything to do with, and I quote, “alleged massive fraud scheme against AT&T and Verizon.” Read their full report before you continue, and see if it’s clear to you what’s actually happening here.

Now, I want you to stop and let that sink in for a moment. It appears that agents of our government simply came in and took computer equipment, most of which was probably not being used in connection with ANY criminal activity, (Edit: I guess we don’t know at this point how much of it might have been associated with criminal activity), and some of which was being used to provide emergency telephone service, and for what reason? A terrorist threat? Child pornography? Cracking a massive drug smuggling operation?

No, it was apparently because a large movie studio telephone company or two might – MIGHT – have lost some profit because people downloaded an illegal copy of a movie has been defrauded in some way. In other words, this action was not in any way intended to protect the American people. This was to protect a large corporation from possible – not proven, but possible – financial loss. Now, who did I say it was that was responsible for most of the evil in the world today? Wasn’t it the large corporations?

I’m certainly not saying that if such a leak fraud occurred, it wasn’t worthy of a federal investigation. But, there is such as thing as blowing up a house to kill a mouse. This action may or may not ever result in punishment for the actual perpetrators, but it certainly seems to have inconvenienced a lot of people and small businesses that had absolutely nothing to do with this. At what point is the “collateral damage” too great when investigating a crime, especially a crime of financial loss where there was never any threat to life, limb, or national security?

Edit: I’m dropping a couple of paragraphs here that probably weren’t all that relevant, given this new information. The article was already too long and I’m adding new material, so this part had to go.

This is probably yet another reason that companies that run datacenters need offsite backups. Along with risks from fire, floods, severe weather, and other natural and man-made disasters, you now apparently need to worry about law-enforcement officers fishing for evidence of criminal activity, even if that activity has nothing to do with you personally.

But the thing I wonder when reading this is, would they ever go into an AT&T or Verizon switching center and cart off all the computers and telephone switches if they thought those had been used in the commission of a possible crime companies had committed fraud? If they would, then we are all subject to having our phone service interrupted at the whim of the feds. If they would not, then aren’t they just picking on smaller companies that don’t have the legal resources and political connections of a company like AT&T or Verizon? And, since when did our federal government become the “enforcers” for the entertainment industry telecommunications giants anyway?

These are some questions that I think everyone should ponder, especially if you care about our constitutional freedoms (such as that part about “unreasonable search and seizure”) OR you run a small business that depends on computers, OR if you rely on the services of such a business. It may turn out that there’s more to this story than what’s been reported so far, but what we know at this point seems rather scary for those who value freedom.

Edit: Please note that if you go back into the annals of FCC cases and state PUC cases, there are many, MANY instances of allegations of fraud, where some company isn’t paying some amount that some other company thinks it’s owed. AT&T and Verizon aren’t immune from such allegations, either. Usually what happens is that a regulatory body decides who owes money to whom, and tells the company on the short end of the stick to pay up. Sometimes such a company simply runs out of funds, and once in a great while service to their customers gets cut off as a result. But this is the first time I’ve ever heard of a federal law enforcement agency going in and disrupting service for customers over what essentially seems to be a billing dispute, whether or not there is fraud involved. Keep in mind we are talking about cutting off an essential utility service for some users. I’m really glad they didn’t take this approach with Enron – who knows how long people might have been without electricity?

One afterthought – if and when the major news media gets this story, take what they say about it with several grains of salt, especially if they seem to be “blaming the victim.” It’s gotten to the point where most of the major media will just take a press handout from a law enforcement agency and print it as if it were gospel truth (Edit: Actually I don’t think that may be exactly what’s happening here, but the sense I get from the article is that the media doesn’t really have a handle on the situation at all – obviously they don’t understand the strange ways of telephone industry billing. If state and federal regulators have trouble understanding it, how much less can any reporter fathom what’s going on?). If you can’t see the problem with that, then you obviously don’t understand why our founding fathers thought that a free press was so important that they gave it constitutionally-protected status.  Unfortunately the press had abdicated its duty, so today anyone accused of wrongdoing is tried and convicted in the press by computer jockeys (I won’t even dignify them by calling them “reporters”) that don’t know the first thing about true investigative journalism. (Edit: Okay, so I may have been a BIT harsh when I wrote that – it was actually a backhanded reference to something in the paragraphs I deleted – but the fact remains that if the media really wants to understand this, they are going to have to talk to some folks who understand the situation AND who don’t have “a dog in this fight”, so to speak. If they just take the law enforcement handouts and try to make sense of those, they are never going to get to the bottom of what is really happening here).

Final edit: I’m actually amazed at how much of my original article was still applicable in light of the new facts. The bottom line is, we still appear to have federal law enforcement agencies acting as collection agents (or worse) for large corporations. The only fault with my original article was that early reports mis-identified which large corporations might have been the instigators. It’s still a sad day when law enforcement officials would deliberately disrupt service in this manner, no matter what crime they thought had been committed. Even if they thought the servers were stolen property (and I’m not saying that any such allegation was made), they could have still given the innocent companies that use those servers a small window of time to get their data migrated someplace else (at least a couple of business days, I would think). Justice would still have been served.

Comments off

Just something I wanted to pass along…

I read some consumer-oriented sites and blogs fairly regularly (if for no other reason than that telecommunications companies have been known to do decidedly consumer-unfriendly things at times, and those sites help me keep track of such abuses), but every now and then they take me down a path that leads to some real pearl of wisdom. And thus it was when I followed a link to a post entitled, The Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act Needs Your Support – which is a site that encourages you to “Write your representative today to support Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s bill which will clean up this predatory lending practice that fleeces consumers of billions every year.”  And while that’s certainly a noble cause, and one I hope many folks will get behind, it’s not the thing that caused me to write this post.

Rather, it was a comment (or “signature”) on that page, from one Ani L. Schwartz of Arroyo Seco, NM, which said (in part):

If Consumers are not helped, the whole system will crash harder and faster. It is indeed what Jim Hightower calls “TERMINAL STUPIDITY” for Corporate Powers to kill their markets.Please work to END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD and the “legal person” status of Corporations which allows them to get away with Murder, literally and figuratively.

That was enough to cause me to click on the link associated with Ms. Schwartz’s name, where I found this posted on her “Comment Wall”:

I pledge to speak out to End Corporate Personhood as often as I have the ability & opportunity to do so.  The “legal person” status of Corporate “entities” must be revoked before WE (LIFE) can gain any ground towards HEALING.

In my own view, THIS is “the most pressing issue facing the country today” that I “would make the centerpiece of the address if [I] were President” NOW:

END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

Ultimately pols & govs must join the People in efforts to free ourselves and our planet from the Chains, Catastrophes & Anti-Life IM-Balances of Corporatism, which are systematically destroying all life, liberty, & PURSUITS OF happiness, health, peace, education, wisdom, creativity, love, spirit, & all the things that really count in life to all living beings.   In order for vital changes to be possible,  the “legal person” status of Corporate “personhoods” must be revoked.   Until this is accomplished, Corporate “entities” will thwart all vital changes because these changes require that these “entities” GIVE BACK to the Universe upon which they depend for their inedible Profits.  

One need not agree with me about what is “the most important issue” in order to sign this pledge.

I’m not entirely sure whether Ms. Schwartz came up with this on her own, or if this is a new Internet meme, or what, but it makes me wonder what is taking so long for people to realize this simple truth:

Back in olden times, following the “great flood” and for at least a few thousand years thereafter, royalty held most of the power. And therefore, most of the oppression of the common folk came at the hands of the Kings and Queens, or whatever the ruling monarchs were called.

Then, for a time, religion held more power than royalty.  The Pope was more powerful than the Prince, and most of the oppression of the common folks came at the hands of religious leaders.

Neither of the previous two forms of oppression have totally gone away, but they are now being overshadowed by a third form of oppression – that is, oppression by large corporations, which operate largely above the law.

The problem is that we give corporations most of the rights and the legal status of an individual.  But when a corporation commits a criminal act, they can’t be punished in the way an individual can.  You can’t jail a corporation.  You can fine a corporation, but because large corporations have so much more in the way of resources than any individual, fines are largely ineffective (and are often thought of as a cost of doing business). Part of the very purpose for the existence of a corporation is to shield any individual from personal liability for the corporation’s actions. So if a corporation does something that causes real people to be injured or killed, it’s extremely rare for any individual to go to jail (and when it does happen, it’s often whichever poor patsy the corporate masters decided to throw under the bus, rather than take any responsibility for their own actions).

I’ve heard it said that the sort of people who would have set up an organized crime syndicate back in Al Capone’s day find it much more convenient today to set up a corporation, and run their scams from underneath a corporate shield.  It’s much more lucrative, and a lot safer for the people involved.  Instead of mobsters with tommy-guns doing the enforcement, now they hire high-priced lawyers.  Corporations sue each other (the upper-crust equivalent of mob warfare) but they also go after common people who don’t bend to their will.  Indeed, certain four-letter organizations that end in “AA” have been compared with organized crime in the way they bring lawsuits against the most defenseless (they seem to pick their victims carefully, although occasionally they do screw up and pick on the wrong person) and then demand the equivalent of “protection money” to stop bothering the party sued.  Since most of the accused don’t have the funds to mount a real legal challenge (they really DO seem to pick their victims carefully), it’s basically a choice between paying the “protection” or losing their financial life.

And I don’t want to pick on just one industry – the problem cuts across many industries. People die because pharmaceutical reps try to get (and too often, succeed in getting) doctors to prescribe the newest and most expensive durgs, rather than the old, tried-and-true drugs that work just as well (if not better), and have fewer toxic side effects.  People can’t afford the more expensive drugs, so they skip doses, or they have life-threatening problems with some side-effect of the newer drug. Now many physicians are forming “professional corporations” to try and limit their personal responsibility to they patients, and of course, virtually all hospitals are incorporated and many are now a part of some large corporate chain of medical facilities. Nowadays almost all hospital bills contain errors (often very significant errors), and they are nearly always in the hospital’s favor, so at a time when you should be worried about getting better you are burdened with the stress of dealing with an uncaring corporate hospital billing department (or worse yet, the collection agency that gets your bill when you can’t pay, which is also a corporation).

I could go on and on, but the point is, today virtually every oppression of ordinary citizens comes either at the hands of some large corporation directly, or because government is acting to protect some large corporate interest(s). Think about it – is there some law that you really hate, that you think should never have been passed? Assuming it wasn’t passed to bring more revenue into, or accrue more power for the government itself, the next most common reason a law is passed is to protect some large industry or corporation. Our governments often act as lackeys for the corporations.

Which brings me back to Ms. Schwartz’s “Comment Wall” – she has the right idea, although that’s only one of many reforms that should be passed – not just as laws, but as constitutional amendments.  I can think of three amendments that would go a long way toward ending most, if not all of the abuses of corporations:

1) All human beings are entitled to the rights accorded by this Constitution to persons, but such rights shall not be extended to non-humans.  The government shall not grant the rights of a person, or convey the legal rights of a person to any corporation or similar entity, or to any entity other than an actual human being.

2) No entity other than a human being, or a group of one or more specific human beings which are individually named, shall be granted ownership of any patent, copyright, or any other form of “intellectual property”, with the sole exception of a trademark.  A corporation or similar entity may own a trademark, but shall not be granted ownership of any other form of intellectual property. Nothing in this amendment shall prohibit the inclusion of intellectual property rights in the estate of a deceased person, provided that such rights may only be passed to other named individuals, and the inclusion of such rights in an estate shall not extend the term of the patent, copyright, or similar form of intellectual property.

3) In any case where a corporation or similar legal entity brings a lawsuit against one or more individual human beings, and does not obtain a judgment against that individual or individuals, the corporation must pay double the attorney fees incurred by the defendant to the attorneys that represented the defendant, and in addition must reimburse the defendant for any costs and lost income incurred by the defendant while defending the case.  If the individual’s life has been significantly altered as a result of the lawsuit, the defendant may petition the court for an additional award to compensate the defendant for any losses incurred. This amendment shall not be applicable in a case where a corporation or similar legal entity has brought a lawsuit against another corporation or similar legal entity.

I’m not a constitutional expert, so my wording might need to be polished a little.  I’d also like to see included prohibitions against undue influence by corporate lobbyists, and the use of “sock puppets” (individuals or non-profit organizations that are compensated in some way to represent the views of a corporation as if they were their own, usually without disclosing the Quid pro Quo), but have no idea how to word that sort of amendment in such a manner that it would not trample individual rights.

I seriously doubt there is any chance I will see any of these amendments passed in my lifetime, but who knows – if enough of these corporate abuses keep occurring, maybe one of these days we will see an anti-corporate backlash turn into a strong enough movement to get some very strong protections against corporate abuses passed into law.

In closing, I want you to think about this:

When our country was founded, we knew about the abuses of kings, and our constitution contains protections against giving any one individual too much power.

When our country was founded, we knew about the abuses of religious leaders, and our constitution contains protections against government unduly influenced by religion.

Neither of the above work perfectly, and they are sometimes ignored by Congress and the courts (to our detriment), but at least they are there.

As time went by, we’ve added other amendments to protect people (most notably forbidding slavery, and enacting civil rights, and giving the vote to all adults regardless of race, gender, etc.).  What we did not seem to realize, when our country was founded, was how powerful large corporations could become, nor how devoid of empathy and human compassion they could be. It is now time to reign in their power and to protect people from the abuses of large corporations, but they (the corporations) will not give it up easily.

Please don’t give the me the old bromide about how corporations are just individuals joined together for a specific purpose – in the first place, there are all sorts of studies that show that people behave much differently in large groups (particularly when they do not feel any individual responsibility for the actions of the group).  Think about suicide jumpers that are sometimes encouraged to jump by onlookers – chances are that if any of those onlookers was the only person there they would not open their mouth, but once one person yells “Jump!”, the crowd takes up the chant. Large groups of people are often devoid of the compassion that individuals would exhibit when alone, and this seems just as true (if not more true) when people think they are simply following the directives of their corporate employer.  And also, don’t forget that the specific purpose for which these individuals join together is to make a profit – in large corporations, everything else is secondary to that, specifically including the health and happiness of the people they deal with, or who deal with them.

I hope you will remember this article the next time you are feeling truly oppressed by forces outside your control – very often, there’s a large corporation (perhaps more than one) somewhere in the background, trying to advance their own financial interests. Even in cases where government is the oppressor, if you dig a bit deeper you’ll find corporations pulling the strings.

Take our drug laws as an example.  The alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries all have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal – they fear the competition from another drug that’s probably every bit as safe as at least some of the substances they sell. And just so you know, I’ve never smoked pot in my life, not even once – but I still think the current laws against it are ridiculous and protectionist. There is no valid reason anyone should serve a long jail sentence over marijuana usage or possession for personal use – especially when our jails are so overcrowded that truly violent criminals are being released early. I don’t want anyone to use marijuana or tobacco, and I don’t want anyone to drink alcoholic beverages and drive (or drink to excess), and I’d rather not see anyone take dangerous but legal pharmaceuticals just because some corporation managed to get them approved (perhaps by withholding negative tests, and only showing the FDA the ones that didn’t indicate a problem). But only ONE of those substances is illegal, and classed as a felony to even possess – and it’s not the one that makes money for the large corporations!

I won’t even get into the corporate influence on organized religion – but think about what houses of worship were like a century or two ago, and what they are like today (especially the big super-mega-churches that have sprung up in the suburbs). There are large corporations that make huge sums selling goods both to the houses of worship themselves, and directly to the “sheep” – and a lot of that is the books and other literature (and in the modern age, DVD’s and other forms of media) that help shape people’s religious views, starting with Sunday School. I’m just waiting for one of them to start teaching that Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple because that space was better suited for a big box store – we’re not quite to that point yet, but I can pretty much guarantee you that the big corporations that publish church literature are not going to say anything negative about large corporations, so if you are involved in an organized religion you might want to give some thought about who is shaping your family’s views on modern life.

If you think there’s any truth in this article, please feel free to link to it. And, of course, you should feel free to comment (even if you disagree with me), as long as you don’t include any links that might make me think you are a spammer (if in doubt – leave the link out).

Comments (1)

In a Twitter

There are many reasons I don’t blog much anymore, but one of the reasons was that when I did post something it was rare to get any comments, and the ones that I did get were sometimes more negative than I cared for.  But also, very often I found myself writing a paragraph or two just to say, in effect, “I found this article on another site, you should check it out.”

In the last few months I have been posting most of my links to other articles on Twitter (under the user name MichiganTelepho – damn their 15 character limit) and this tends to work out well because it discourages me from being too verbose, and yet I am far more likely to post a link when I don’t have to write a long article about it.

That’s worked pretty well until tonight, when I posted a link to this article:

The high cost of high-tech teens

…..which is basically an article about how parents are getting cell phones for their kids, totally unaware of the pitfalls of extra charges for texting and other “extras”, some of which are buried in the fine print of the contract. I thought it was a good article because it educates parents about the problem and encourages them to act responsibly (by, for example, not getting a cell phone for a child until they have reached an age where they can use it responsibly).

Now, keep in mind, it was just a link to an article I thought was interesting and useful.  I didn’t write it.  I was, therefore,  not prepared for the responses I started to get.  For example, one of the early commenters said:

is this really a consumeraffairs type issue? It seems to me that the parents have no one to blame but themselves..

Uh, what?  Where did that come from? Then another person chimed in…

Hard for me to feel sorry for parents who give their kids mobile phones and not understand the consequences. Prepaid FTW!

I could not understand where these comments were coming from.  The article was intended to educate parents so they would not be irresponsible.  On the other hand, I do feel that the carriers share some of the blame by failing to conspicuously disclose the things that might cause extra charges, and  by (in some cases) failing to give parents an easy way to block access to those extra-cost services.  I also noted that as adults become smarter about corporate ripoffs, corporations are increasingly going after teenagers and pre-teens, knowing that they are not as wise to the ways of the world and can be more easily influenced to spend, spend, spend (particularly if the parents are picking up the bill – which they shouldn’t, which was one of the points made in the article).

In any case, things got a bit heated after that. Why was I getting all these negative comments about an article I thought was helpful?  And where was this “blame the victim” mentality coming from? My take is that many parents only use their cell phones (if they own one at all) for making phone calls, and that’s it.  They are, in many cases, totally clueless about text messages, charges for web access and so on.  If you are reading this blog you are almost certainly not among those people, but they are out there – maybe they are your parents or grandparents. So when their child asks for a phone, they think they are buying a phone that can be used for, you know, making phone calls, as in voice calls.  And very often the phone companies sell usage plans but do not explain about possible extra charges that may be incurred, so the parent is totally blindsided when they get their first bill.  I don’t think this is right at all, and yes, I do think that people have a right to complain about such things on consumer sites, if only so that others might read their experience and not fall victim to the scam.

Maybe I just don’t understand the ways of Twitter, but it seems to me that if someone posts an article they thought was helpful, and you disagree, you should post your disagreement as a comment on the original article – not go off on a tangent in Twitter, which just seems like an attack on the person who posted the link to article (especially if you send it as a direct message to that person).  Then again, at my age maybe I just don’t understand how these social network things are supposed to work.  Maybe I’m looking for something more akin to “60 Minutes” and the younger crowd is expecting “Jerry Springer.”  Anyway, at one point I got really pissed off at the tone of the comments, to the point that I un-friended two people (after taking a few deep breaths I re-friended one of them). Is Twitter really supposed to bring about that type of discussion?

For the record, when I post a link to an article I did not personally write in Twitter, that simply means I thought it worthy of consideration, NOT that I want to defend it against people who have nothing better to do than find something negative to post!  And, also for the record, I am NOT advocating irresponsible parenting, and parents should not yield to pressure to buy kids everything they want – but on the other hand I am sick of the “blame the victim” mentality when corporations set out to deceive and cheat customers. There is a mentality among some younger folks that I just don’t understand, that basically says it’s okay to cheat people if you are clever enough about it, or can trick them into signing a contract that allows you to cheat them.  I have no idea when this mentality became so pervasive – sure, the P.T. Barnum types have always been with us, but in the past they were more often seen as scoundrels. Today’s young people seem to have a much higher tolerance for being taken, but when someone complains about it their first response seems to be “It was your fault!  You should have known!” – at least until they are the victim.

Anyway, I hope Twitter doesn’t degenerate into a Fidonet-type experience (for those too young to have experienced it, Fidonet was a network of dial-up BBS systems that carried “echomail” conferences, in which discussions often became so contentious that some people took to calling it “Fight-O-Net”).  If you disagree with an article that someone posted, first please be sure you have read the entire article (I suspect that the people who commented on the link I posted hadn’t got past the first page) and then place your comments in the comment section for that article, if a comment section exists.  Don’t direct message the person who posted the link and start attacking them – they didn’t write the article and may not even care to defend it.  If you must comment on Twitter, just send out a general message that says something like “I just read the article at (short link address) and disagree because…” – that way the person who posted the link doesn’t feel obliged to return a comment. Keep it friendly, and you won’t be causing people’s blood pressure to shoot through the roof!

Comments (1)

Verizon not upfront on contract terms – Los Angeles Times


Creative Commons License photo credit: thinkpanama

David Lazarus of the The Los Angeles Times blasts Verizon today for withholding contract terms from customers until AFTER they have signed up for service – and some of the contract terms are ones that I sure wouldn’t agree to:

Verizon not upfront on contract terms – Los Angeles Times

Excerpt:

For years, credit card issuers have gotten away with withholding contracts from customers until they actually have the plastic in their hands — a practice that denies many people a fair chance to look under the hood for onerous terms and conditions.Now it looks like Verizon has adopted the same technique.

…..

What really struck [Torrance, California resident Sandy Lough] was the discovery that to receive the promised discount for her bundled plan, she’d have to go online and agree to a 2,000-word “bundle service agreement” and a 7,000-word terms of service for Internet access.

This was the first time she was being presented with the full contract for her new FiOS setup, and the service had already been installed and activated.

The LA Times article goes on to mention some of the more notable terms of the contract.  The interesting thing is that it would appear that this is not simply an oversight – that perhaps Verizon deliberately withholds contract terms from customers until they’ve already committed to the service:

As for why the full contract is withheld until after FiOS has been installed in a person’s home, [Verizon spokesman Cliff Lee] said only that “this is the way we’ve found that works.”

Now, I Am Not A Lawyer, but it seems to me that in the old days a court would never enforce a contract imposed “after the fact”, that is, after the deal had been consummated and the customer had signed on the dotted line.  What has happened to make large corporations think they can simply change the deal at their whim, after a customer has already signed on the dotted line, without giving the customer the same right? Did someone slip a new amendment to the Constitution when I wasn’t looking, saying that corporations can do any sly legal maneuvering they want, and the courts are forced to go along with it, while individual consumers are put at a disadvantage?

This is one reason I’m not making too big a stink about Verizon not offering FiOS in Michigan.  Sure, it would be nice to have those high speeds, delivered via fiber.  But in the long run, I’d rather see a competitive market of many smaller broadband providers than one or two large mammoth corporations that seem to think they can do whatever they want to the consumer.

I know the amendment I’d like to see put into the constitution:

“Only an actual, physical human being shall be given the rights of a person under the law.”

Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, but that about sums it up.  It would mean that no large corporation, with almost infinite legal resources and billions of dollars behind them, would be able to use their wealth to put real people at a disadvantage, because it would be presumed that only the real person had any rights.  Think about that for a while, and how much it would change things from the way things are today!

Edit:  Additional commentary at DSLreports

Comments (2)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: