Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on customer-service http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic customer-service Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb What are they trying to hide? Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:44:27 +0100 From my inbox this morning: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> I am writing to bring you up to date on recent Zinio milestones, as well as to notify you about some changes we have made to our privacy policy to better serve you and to reflect our evolving business.</BLOCKQUOTE> As soon as I see the phrase  to better serve you  I am on my guard.  If there is a better euphemism for  you're about to get screwed  I don't know what it is. In this case the company, <A href="http://www.zinio.com/">Zinio</A>, is changing it's privacy policy.  They've sent me a nice email to tell me so and they kindly link to the old & new policies so I can try and guess what they've changed.  Of course I'm happy to pour over two boring documents to make sure that it's still verboten sell my details to the cream of Nigeria.  (As far as I can tell it is.) A clueful way to handle this would have been to create a page which shows the two policies side-by-side, highlighting the substantive changes.  This would take only a minute or two too review and would be reassuring.  Alas the clue was taken home for the weekend and hasn't been returned yet. Zinio:  Clueless?  Or, something to hide? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001548.html Why I *really* hate Symantec Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:35:13 +0100 I posted a quick rant earlier about Symantec, here is another more level headed one: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> They really, really, suck.</BLOCKQUOTE> A couple of weeks ago my virus subscription for Norton Anti-Virus 2002 ran out.  I tried renewing it but had little success, bouncing from one page to another.  Finally I ended up in the Symantec store where lengthy attempts to upgrade NAV2002 to NAV2003 (supposedly £29.95) always resulted in my being offered Norton Internet Security for £39.95.  No sale. No customer service either. I gave up and used NAV's constant whining as a reminder that I need to find another anti-virus vendor. So far I haven't figured out which one to go for (any recommendation?)  Then today my machine begins to misbehave a little.  Maybe it's Trillian 2 beta 2 again but it was just enough to make me wonder about a virus.  My resolve to steer clear of Symantec began to crumble and, despite all I have said, I decided to have another go, give them money and hope it chokes someone at corporate HQ. This time I pretend to be American and go to the US store where my serial number buys me access to the upgrade centre and I can see the upgrade I want as a download for $29.95.  Ok, fine.  But what's this?  On the confirmation page there is $6.99 for something called Extended Download Service.  It turns out that they want me to pay another $6.99 for the privilege of downloading the software again in the future.  Presumably the fear of a system crash leading me to have to pay another thirty bucks is supposed to make me give them seven more now.  No goddamn sale! If the product is $36.94 then price it as such, don't try and con me with crap like this. Symantec you suck.  May all your customers desert you for better vendors (lord let there be one!) http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001579.html Dell sinks to a new low (who even knew it was possible?) Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:11:51 +0100 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/001312.shtml">Dell Takes Click-Wrap 'Agreements' to New Low</A>. Ian Goldberg and Kat Hanna: Dell's Software License Policy. I'm just bewildered that Dell corporate policy is that users need... [<A href="http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/">Dan Gillmor's eJournal</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> As I said in my comment on Dan's post this is utterly disgusting but entirely typical of the contempt I think Dell has for it's customers.  I really hope Dan follows up on this. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001602.html The very model of a modern internet service provider Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:11:57 +0000 <div style="margin-left: 40px;"><a href="http://www.terryfrazier.com/weblog/2003/11/20.html#a1679">The ISP Nanny State</a>. I've become interested in the wireless ISP business, partly because I'm tired of the "half-fast" Internet served up by the telcos and cablecos, and partly because the cost/quality ratio of radios has improved to the point that it's plausible to consider establishing a wireless ISP business in some of the growing, but under connected, areas where I live. So I started prowling several industry web sites and mail lists to get a feel for the landscape. One of the first things I came across did not make me feel good. Going through the <a href="http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/0310/index.html">[isp-wireless] list archives</a> I came across a disturbing, 35-message thread on P2P blocking. Over two dozen people made comments after a wISP in Sioux Falls, SD posted <a href="http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/0310/msg01825.html">the following</a>: </div> <blockquote style="margin-left: 40px;">Last week I installed a Mikrotik 2.8beta box configured as a bridge after the router. We are blocking P2P file sharing and the results have been very entertaining. People will not actually call up and tell you that Kazaa is not working. It is the "Internet" has stopped working... Or I cannot get to the sites that I need.</blockquote> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"> This ISP has instituted arbitrary packet blocking without notice to customers and seems to think it's a joke. A number of other wISPs expressed interest in just how this was being done, what equipment was being used, and how they could serve up the same QOS. There was a fair amount of discussion of how and why to block P2P, how much to choke it down, and whether or not customers who think "the Internet has stopped working" could figure out what was happening. But not much about the blatant stupidity of this policy. Only one participant called this outright foolishness and asked how the wISP was getting away with it, though in fairness there were a few others who voiced some disapproval or suggested smarter alternatives such as more flexible billing or blocking only the outbound P2P packets. To some extent this conversation isn't surprising. There is a real need to manage bandwidth usage and costs and with the wireless ISP industry still nascent, and with a disproportionate number of small-time (and likely unsophisticated) operators, it's not surprising to see this sort of talk. But it is still sad. And worse, these guys apparently think this sort of thing is <a href="http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-wireless/0310/msg01842.html">going on at larger ISPs</a>: </div> <blockquote style="margin-left: 40px;">This type of filtering is the EXACT same thing that cable companies are putting into place nation wide. Here in Mass, Our local cable company is putting caps on the kazaa downloads and uploads using this type of filter but because it only effects that application, web browsing and email are totally unaffected. Although they are not admitting to doing this, we have confirmed via actual trials that this is indeed what is going on. The trick is to figure out what a good speed ratio is and cater to that figure. For us, the 1k/s per person is perfectly acceptable since it doesn't impact downloading. Less then that would affect search packets and thus be noticed.</blockquote> <div style="margin-left: 40px;"> I do not, at present, use any of the P2P file sharing packages. I wouldn't know if my ISP, <a href="http://www.earthlink.net/">earthlink</a>, were blocking outbound Kazaa packets. But I do know that once the ISPs start down the path of arbitrary packet monitor they have stopped being an ISP and become the worst kind of nanny -- a nanny who hides behind the cloak of technology and does in secret what could not be done in public. Some of the ISPs fall back on the "NO SERVERS" clause in their customer contracts -- a brain-dead paean to the half-fast "consumer" Internet model of the media conglomerates (you know, those people who think the purpose of a roof is to keep rain off the television set.) Others don't see any need to justify what they're doing, proving they don't know what they're doing at all. I won't argue with an ISP who wants to become a hall monitor as long as they disclose what they're doing (AOL makes billions selling the Internet with training wheels.) I certainly won't argue with one who wants to bill for excess bandwidth usage. But I wonder if this business of approving some content while preventing others doesn't start the whole ISP industry down a slippery slope of legal liability for messages that pass across their pipes. What I do know is that there is a lot more at stake here than just some backwater ISP's backhaul bill. Secret packet filtering is neither good ethics nor good business. [<a href="http://www.terryfrazier.com/weblog/">b.cognosco</a>] </div> Good post Terry. I have a real problem with ISP's selling bandwidth with their left hand and then taking it away with their right.  If they can't afford for all their users to actually use the bandwidth they've paid for then perhaps they're in the wrong business.  I have no problem with being charged in accordance with my usage (which is not to say that I advocate per-byte costs or anything like that, just that I think I am heavy internet user and would expect to pay for it) but don't sell me something and then not deliver it! I also agree that ISP's should have no business messing about with what I can or cannot do with the bandwidth I have.  I totally agree that this no servers business is a load of old crap.  If it's because they are afraid of bandwidth use - deal with that problem!  If it's because they think it will undercut their over priced business packages - get a clue!  But don't try and tell me what I can do with bandwidth I've paid for.  It's none of your business! I should also say that <a href="http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/">Telewest Blueyonder</a> are a great ISP and I would recommend them for their service and aftercare.  They do have an AUP but so far I've had no cause to read it and complain. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001752.html HateDell Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:58:32 +0100 If you own any <a href="http://www.dell.com/">Dell</a> computers, or have ever had the misfortune to need Dell customer service then you owe it to yourself to take a stroll over to <a href="http://www.ihatedell.net/">I Hate Dell</a> which is a site run for disgruntled current & former Dell employees.  It makes for fascinating, if depressing, reading. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002147.html No longer pissing in the wind Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:40:19 +0100 I know have 5 problems registered at the Apple <a href="https://bugreport.apple.com/">bug reporter</a> site (which is just a hideous application by the way, I hope this isn't the standard of Web Objects apps!) They're all for things which are niggly like Bluetooth troubles, the spell checker not working properly in Pages, and icons disappearing from the dock seemingly at random. MacOSX certainly isn't free of these sort of Windowsisms but they do seem far fewer in number and, so far, less likely to be of the variety that will make you wish <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing">Turing</a> had never been born. Another quanitifiable difference between the Apple and Microsoft experience here is that I am actually reporting these bugs with Apple. Better yet the response to the first bug I posted suggests that real engineers are attempting to diagnose my problem. I can even track their progress myself. Just think of it!?! I've no idea if, ultimately, Apple will fix my problems. Certainly Apple release cycles are more of the kind where I can imagine fixes in my life-time. However, what's most important to me is that I don't feel like I'm pissing in the wind any more. If and when Vista finally arrives Microsoft customers should expect wet trouser legs as per usual. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002784.html One good BT experience Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:32:54 +0100 I normally don't have anything positive to say about BT. I haven't been a customer of theirs for 4 years and, more or less, told them never to darken my doorstep again. However credit where it's due. Yesterday I had cause to call BT's 150 service and got the usual "our lines are incredibly busy, you are in a queue" however what was unusual was being offered a call-back. I left my mobile number and sho enuf got a call within 30 minutes. This is so much better than spending even 10 minutes on hold. Of course the BT guy couldn't help me, but I did get good service. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002843.html IVR cheat sheet Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:54:03 +0000 I was reading <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/wizidm?entry=my_identity_human_being_so">Dan Bowen's post</a> about a pet hate of my own: how the service economy more and more frequenty means: no service here! He mentions the <a href="http://paulenglish.com/ivr/">IVR cheat sheet</a> run by Paul English which attempts to show how to circumvent IVR systems and get a human being at a number of big corporations like American Express, Exxon Mobile, Paypal and so on. According to Dan, Paul has many more - as yet unverified - cheats to work through. The good news is that Paul also has an <a href="http://paulenglish.com/ivr/uk/">IVR cheat sheet for UK companies</a>. It's not very big right now (only 15 companies) but there is an <a href="http://beach.paulenglish.com/ivr/update.cgi">update page</a> you can use to add your own cheats. I routinely have to go through hell to get to a human being if I want to speak to Cahoot so, next time, I'll add that to the list. He has Amazon UK who I also have need to contact from time to time. Good stuff. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00003245.html