In the past few days, I’ve seen a lot of rage over the coming merger of AT&T and T-Mobile here in the states. Most of the anger has been swirling around the idea of monopolies and an increasing reduction in choice for consumers. But here’s my question: how do you avoid “monopolies” like…
My father has a Consumer Reports subscription that I borrow from time to time for product research. Here are some quotes from their website on what scores and recommendations mean, and my interpretation of how the iPhone could be the highest-rated smartphone, while still not being recommended.
On Overall Score:
“Overall score is based mainly on Display, Navigation, Voice quality, Phoning, Messaging, Web browsing, Multimedia, and Battery life, and also considers document editing as well as the phone’s size and weight. The displayed score is out of a total of 100 points. Phones are listed in performance order, within categories. Due to test upgrades, results may vary from past Ratings.”
Reports from average consumers are not factored in, as best I can tell. There is a separate user reviews section where users can rate on a 5-star scale. No user reviews have yet been lodged for the iPhone 4.
On Recommendations:
“Recommended models are those that, based on our expert evaluation, deserve special consideration. We highlight high-scoring models that combine performance, features and value, so that you can choose the product that best suits your budget and lifestyle.”
It’s common in all categories of products that CR reviews for a particular product that doesn’t earn a recommendation to score higher than models that have, in fact, earned recommendations, and even “best buys”. Rarely does it happen, though, that the highest rated product in a category would not be recommended.
My interpretation is that the retracted recommendation is less about the overall quality phone, which is great for users that live and work in strong coverage areas, and more about Apple’s poor handling of the problem, which is unquestionably widespread.
Preface: This is a copy of the letter I just sent to realideas@twcable.com requesting comment on the contradictory statements being made, telling consumers that costs are increasing, and telling shareholders that they are decreasing.
To whom it may concern:
Several reports have recently come to light that your SEC filings show
costs are decreasing and your profits and subscriber base are rising.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22213854-
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/time-warner-cab.html
In the face of this evidence, which you yourself have provided, how can Mr.
Hobbs continue to put forth the argument that your costs are increasing? In
his most recent statement, Mr. Hobbs asserts:
“With the ever-increasing flood of content on the Internet, bandwidth
consumption is growing exponentially. That’s a good thing; however, there
are costs associated with this increased Internet usage. Here at Time
Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is
increasing by about 40% a year. As a facilities based provider, we’ve
built a network that must be maintained and upgraded. We have increasing
variable costs and we have to continue to invest in the network itself.”
Mr. Hobbs strongly implies that your “increasing variable costs” amount to
40% a year, correlating with consumption. Let’s set aside the fact that you
have told your shareholders that costs are DECREASING; we’ll come back to
that later.
Not only do several independent sources cited in the above articles debunk
the idea that cost correlates with consumption in any meaningful way. Most
all costs are overhead, and extra transfer is minuscule in cost. This DOES
support your idea that heavier users should bear the brunt of
infrastructure and equipment to handle the load they require, but it also
indicates that modeling pricing based on amount consumed is not logical.
What is wrong with the existing model of charging based on the user’s
desired theoretical maximum throughput? It seems to be making you plenty of
money right now, and those profits are growing.
You’ll probably key on the fact that I said “right now” and reemphasize
that you predict that at the rate we’re going, we’ll have “brown outs” or
something in 2012. Well, any study done by real scientists
(http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/99302) rather than “corporate-funded
think tanks, the investment community, incumbent policy groups, lobbyists
and executives”
(http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Offers-Weak-Concessions-101838)
exposes this to be nothing more than a myth, perpetrated by your industry,
to justify increasing our bills. The study linked by Jeff Simmermon on
Twitter following the first statement from Mr. Hobbs
(http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Offers-Weak-Concessions-101838)
was shown to be funded by AT&T, and industry player who is also trying to
advance the cause of consumption-based billing.
So, in short, we don’t buy it.
I have a lot more issues with the proposed consumption-based billing (see
how I’m not calling it “caps”?), but I’d like to see if I can first get a
response to this simple question:
Why do you continue to put forth the idea that your costs are rising, when
your statements to your shareholders not only directly contradict that,
they show that your profits are rising, as is your subscriber base?
You don’t have to answer my question, and you can “decline comment” for
written news articles, but myself and many others are disseminating the
facts on this issue, and mark my words, you will get asked this on tape by
a reporter, and for your sake, I hope you come up with a good answer that
won’t add to the embarrassment your company is already suffering.
Regards,
Scott Cranfill
TWC Rochester Account # [redacted]
Preface: Feel free to appropriate this letter to send to your local Time Warner Cable representatives (and don’t forget adudley@twcable.com, twc.cotp@twcable.com, and realideas@twcable.com). If you’re not in Rochester, make sure to change the location. It is also good if you put the points of this letter in your own words, but not strictly necessary. Always be polite and courteous when communicating with TWC employees. Remember that they are humans, and have not likely had any personal voice in making this decision. The important thing is to communicate to them that they will lose your business if this goes through.
To Whom It May Concern: (use a real name if you have it)
This letter is to politely inform you that, should your company’s intended bandwidth capping plan roll out with its currently announced pricing structure in Rochester, New York, I will cease all business with your company.
Furthermore, I believe this to be both anti-competitive to other content providers, such as Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, etc., and the overage charge is tantamount to price gouging, when your wholesale price of a gigabyte of bandwidth is known to be less than 10 cents. It is also readily apparent that Time Warner is only “testing” such a plan in cities that do not have significant competition in the broadband ISP sector. Rochester and those other cities are being unfairly singled out because Time Warner knows their customers have nowhere to turn for comparable service. I have stated this opinion the New York State Attorney General, will encourage others to do so, and will look for other official entities that may have the power to shut this down, such as the FCC.
I would like to note, however, that I am not opposed to the simple principle of metered pricing. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and it is in some ways much fairer than a flat-rate pricing method. However, the proposed cap tiers, and the amount being charged for overage, are just unacceptable.
I have already been encouraged by one Time Warner Cable employee to “consider staying to see if the new plans even impact you,” but, to be frank, it does not matter whether or not they would impact me. Per my second paragraph, I find the business practice as it’s laid out to be unethical and possibly illegal (specifically with regard to the pricing, not the methodology). I will cease business with Time Warner on principle.
Regards,
Scott Cranfill
While I was at AT&T yesterday picking up my new phone (full slate of impressions on that coming at a later date), I picked up a little scannable card that would donate $10, matched by AT&T, to give phonecards to deployed military personnel for the holidays. I thought it seemed like a good idea, so I added it to my order.
After scanning it, the AT&T associate tore off a perforated portion of the card which I hadn’t previously noticed. It had a small hole in it, and on one side, it read, “I’m helping to keep our troops connected to home this holiday season.” On the other side, it read, “Display this tag proudly on a key ring, luggage tag, or anywhere else you want to show your pride!”
Really, AT&T? You feel the need to give people a little paper keychain that flaunts the fact that they supported the troops with, let’s face it, a pretty insignificant amount of money (for most people in there buying a cell phone) in order to entice them into doing good deeds?
I’m not sure which is more depressing: that AT&T felt they had to do that to get people to contribute, or that some people probably countributed just so they could immediately hook the flimsy little card on their keychain and show it with pride.
I seeded with “Horsehead” by the Black Crowes. I’d say, overall, Genius did very well. It pulled some very complementary songs, such as “The Wanton Song” by Led Zeppelin, “Grind” by Alice in Chains, “Burden in my Hand” by Soundgarden, “Nobody” by Robert Randolph, and “Mr. High & Mighty” by Gov’t Mule.
Unfortunately, there were some complete oddball selections, such as “Head Like a Hole” by Nine Inch Nails, “Take a Look Around” by Limp Bizkit, and, my personal favorite, “I’m Not Crying” by Flight of the Conchords. (Yes, I’m admitting to having a song by Limp Bizkit in my iTunes library.) Besides that, there were another 3 Black Crowes selections, one from the same disc. Led Zeppeling had 3 total selections, as well. While this may not be a complete violation of the purpose of Genius (to create a cohesive, coherent playlist from a seed song), I’d prefer to disallow it from selecting more than one song from the same artist.
To mark the two-month anniversary of the day I took delivery of my new Dell XPS M1330, I offer my observations—my “review,” if you will—after a nice break-in period.
The short answer: I love it! The form factor is everything I hoped it would be, it feels zippy, handles Aero with aplomb, and the LED-backlit screen is incredible.
The size of the M1330 is perfect for my current lifestyle. It’s very lightweight, yet sturdy (picking it up by a corner instills no fear whatsoever), and it fits much more comfortably on my bedside table and on my over-the-sink shelf, where it keeps me entertained while I wash dishes. As I mentioned, I don’t need a lot of resolution for heavy-duty designing, anymore, so the 13.3” screen doesn’t bother me a bit.
It came with virtually no crapware, though I had to exorcise the Dell Support Center software less than a week after I received it. This was due to a nasty bug rather than it being entirely worthless software, though.
My biggest complaint thus far is that I can’t adjust the brightness with one hand, due to the placement of the adjustment keys extremely far from the Function key. Even my ape-like hands cannot reach.
But other than that, I’m very happy with it. Dell may have a new convert in me.
Ted Stevens’s future cellmate is looking forward to exploring Ted’s Series of Tubes. No, he’s not looking forward to discussing Ted’s idea of how the Internet works, he wants to explore Ted’s tubes.
[Optional tag during laughter/applause:] Anal tube… oral tube… nose tube… whatever.
