My current mobile (HTC S620 Excalibur) is a little over six years old, and has served its purpose satisfactorily. Unfortunately, some of the buttons on the key pad are getting sticky, and the battery is losing its charge. As a consequence, I've been looking around for a new smart phone. I've actually been looking around for a long while now, but any mobiles that both caught my interest and met my criteria were way too expensive with no contract.
Anywhoo, although I'm by no means an 'early adopter' of new gadgets and technologies, when the LG Nexus 4 was announced, its price point and early previews were such that I fairly quickly decided this would be my next mobile and that I'd purchase one as soon as it was released. Which brings me to today's irritation with Google and Google Play on-line store.
Irritation #1: Google didn't announce what time on the 13th November the Nexus 4 would be available for sale. Midnight? Nine am? PST or EST? This lack of information told me Google doesn't think my time is valuable, and they couldn't care less if they waste it.
Irritation #2: Either Google is incompetent at selling physical items and running on-line stores, or Google purposely 'under-stocked' the Nexus 4 so they could generate 'sold-out in 20 minutes' headlines and drive up demand. I find it difficult to think Google incompetent. Though Irritation #3 may suggest otherwise....
Irritation #3: The fact that I managed to get past the 'input credit card information/billing-shipping address stage' of checkout, on three different occasions, only each time to end up with an error message and the purchase failing to complete, was extremely aggravating. I can understand a site slowing down and such due to high traffic (though I thought Google would have been better prepared), but once the item is in the shopping cart, and you've entered all the information requested, and then you get an error!? Frustrating.
Irritation #4: Despite providing my e-mail address to be notified when the Nexus 4 was available, to date I never received any such e-mail. What was the point of signing up? Maybe they used the number of people who signed up as a way to gauge demand... but apparently not (see #2). On the other-hand, from my point-of-view, as the Nexus 4 was never truly available, perhaps I should have waited for a notification e-mail and, if I had, I wouldn't have wasted my time. So... shame on me?
Irritation #5: This last is not really Google's fault, but I had to mention it here. The fact that while the Nexus 4 was sold-out on the Play Store, units were quickly being advertised on-line (at a significant mark-up) on sites like E-bay -- this bothered me. I don't begrudge anyone trying to make a quick profit legally. If someone is willing to pay those inflated prices more power to them. I just hope that in turn no one begrudges the fact that I sincerely hope the number of people who are willing to pay inflated prices (instead of waiting for Google to re-stock, or moving on to a different mobile) are few and far between.
Whew. This post turned out longer than I thought it would be. So... what now? For myself it's now a simple matter of waiting to see which occurs first: whether Google can make available for purchase (by me!) a Nexus 4, or another mobile is released that meets my criteria and price.
Showing posts with label Telecoms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Telecoms. Show all posts
14 November 2012
16 December 2009
Does Rogers Think I'm Stupid?
As glad as I was to return to Canada after several years of living in the United States, there are a few things I find severely lacking north of the 49th parallel.
One, amazon.ca is an extremely pitiful, pathetic cousin to amazon.com in terms of variety of products offered. I'd grown accustomed to the one-stop-shop nature of amazon.com -- a characteristic the Canadian iteration doesn't even come close to matching.
Two, is the lack of competition and poor service in some industries compared to the United States. In the case of the telecom industry not only is service relatively poor in Canada, but Canadians for larcenous reasons are forced to pay more for less. A few mobiles have caught my eye over the past few years, but I never want to be stuck with a contract, again. Besides, my s620 still serves me well.
Anywhoo, I digress. This post was meant originally to relate an inane text message I received from Rogers, recently (I use Rogers Pay As You Go). Rogers periodically sends me text messages offering various services and options. This one said in effect, "you've had x number of text messages in the past 7 days. Pay $3 per month for 30 free text messages!"
As with all others from Rogers, this one was deleted. But in the midst of deletion it occurred to me that I really don't use text messages often, and certainly not the x number Rogers says I had in the past week.
My first thought was that somehow someone else was using my mobile number. A second after that, though, I realized the more likely scenario was that in calculating the number of text messages per week, Rogers must be including the texts Rogers themselves were sending me.
Not only does Rogers insist on spamming me, they want me to pay for the dubious privilege. Idiots.
One, amazon.ca is an extremely pitiful, pathetic cousin to amazon.com in terms of variety of products offered. I'd grown accustomed to the one-stop-shop nature of amazon.com -- a characteristic the Canadian iteration doesn't even come close to matching.
Two, is the lack of competition and poor service in some industries compared to the United States. In the case of the telecom industry not only is service relatively poor in Canada, but Canadians for larcenous reasons are forced to pay more for less. A few mobiles have caught my eye over the past few years, but I never want to be stuck with a contract, again. Besides, my s620 still serves me well.
Anywhoo, I digress. This post was meant originally to relate an inane text message I received from Rogers, recently (I use Rogers Pay As You Go). Rogers periodically sends me text messages offering various services and options. This one said in effect, "you've had x number of text messages in the past 7 days. Pay $3 per month for 30 free text messages!"
As with all others from Rogers, this one was deleted. But in the midst of deletion it occurred to me that I really don't use text messages often, and certainly not the x number Rogers says I had in the past week.
My first thought was that somehow someone else was using my mobile number. A second after that, though, I realized the more likely scenario was that in calculating the number of text messages per week, Rogers must be including the texts Rogers themselves were sending me.
Not only does Rogers insist on spamming me, they want me to pay for the dubious privilege. Idiots.
22 July 2008
42LG30
Well, I finally succumbed. I'd been telling myself to hold off on buying a flatscreen television because there's a significant possibility I'll be moving at the end of the year. I don't watch that much t.v. and my 24-26" CRT was working fine. I managed to hold out for more than year when I saw what I think is a pretty good deal at Circuit City, which was selling a 42LG30 for $100 cheaper than Best Buy, and $200 lower than the regular price.
The 42LG30 is a 42" LCD 720p flat screen television, with 3 HDMI inputs, 2 component inputs, 2 RCA inputs, and has received positive reviews from both professional reviewers and customers. The reviews along with the price are what contributed to my decision -- without either I wouldn't have purchased it. Despite my post regarding the U.S. economic stimulus package, honestly the stimulus never crossed my mind until a day or two after I'd placed the 42LG30 special order.
It's been a little over a week since the t.v. was delivered and so far and I'm glad I made the purchase. Standard signals are definitely substandard when compared to my old television. Though I've already gotten used to it so I don't notice it so much anymore. My old t.v. of course is smaller, so there's less detail but smoother pictures. The 42LG30 is larger, so pictures are bigger and hence show more detail, which, as I said, on a standard signal initially looked sub-par -- especially faces. But again, it's no longer so distracting once I got a little used to it.
I might say more about HD picture quality later, after I finally have some HD channels setup. The over the air HD signals in my area are limited to the major networks and PBS. Unfortunately, I don't watch those channels, except perhaps for the news, so I'm waiting for Comcast (ugh) to hook me up with digital and HD service.
I haven't tested how my DVDs look, yet. I really should do that.
Games on my Nintendo Wii look better -- I can see different coloured grass layed out in grids on Wii Sports, whereas previously the grass was just an uniform mass. Mii close-ups don't look as smooth, but that may be because I'm sitting slightly too close to the television -- 42" is a little big for my living room layout, which I knew when I bought it, but I figure after I end up moving it might turn out to be too small. :o)
The 42LG30 is a 42" LCD 720p flat screen television, with 3 HDMI inputs, 2 component inputs, 2 RCA inputs, and has received positive reviews from both professional reviewers and customers. The reviews along with the price are what contributed to my decision -- without either I wouldn't have purchased it. Despite my post regarding the U.S. economic stimulus package, honestly the stimulus never crossed my mind until a day or two after I'd placed the 42LG30 special order.
It's been a little over a week since the t.v. was delivered and so far and I'm glad I made the purchase. Standard signals are definitely substandard when compared to my old television. Though I've already gotten used to it so I don't notice it so much anymore. My old t.v. of course is smaller, so there's less detail but smoother pictures. The 42LG30 is larger, so pictures are bigger and hence show more detail, which, as I said, on a standard signal initially looked sub-par -- especially faces. But again, it's no longer so distracting once I got a little used to it.
I might say more about HD picture quality later, after I finally have some HD channels setup. The over the air HD signals in my area are limited to the major networks and PBS. Unfortunately, I don't watch those channels, except perhaps for the news, so I'm waiting for Comcast (ugh) to hook me up with digital and HD service.
I haven't tested how my DVDs look, yet. I really should do that.
Games on my Nintendo Wii look better -- I can see different coloured grass layed out in grids on Wii Sports, whereas previously the grass was just an uniform mass. Mii close-ups don't look as smooth, but that may be because I'm sitting slightly too close to the television -- 42" is a little big for my living room layout, which I knew when I bought it, but I figure after I end up moving it might turn out to be too small. :o)
20 October 2007
Telecoms give out customer records
Does anyone actually have good feelings towards telecoms? I think they're more in the category of necessary evils.
Bold and italics are mine.
Bold and italics are mine.
Verizon admitted that it had provided the telephone records of its customers to federal authorities on hundreds of occasions since 2005 and did so without having received any court orders.Me too. Next year's presidential election can't come soon enough.
From January 2005 to September 2007, Verizon gave personal data to federal authorities, without legal cover, 720 times. That works out to at least once every working day. [...] The company also said it turned over information to authorities armed with court orders or subpoenas a total of 94,000 times during that same two-year period.
Verizon said police and intelligence agencies also asked not only for information about the person making the call, but on all the people that person called and the names of all the people these recipients called as well. [...]
The country's largest carrier, AT&T, also replied to the committee's requests. The telephone giant provided no detail of its surveillance activities but it agreed with Verizon that telephone companies were not equipped nor prepared to determine the legitimacy of federal requests for customer information [...] Legal experts say that is nonsense since, if lives are at stake, there is a provision in the law that gives the feds the ability to get a legal tap as quickly as they want. [...]
An executive of Qwest, another American telecom provider, has charged that his company was punished by the Bush administration after it questioned the legality of some requests being made of it by the National Security Agency. The NSA is the country's electronic spymaster. [...] In 2006, the newspaper USA Today reported that the NSA was collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans with the co-operation of the telephone companies. It reported that Qwest refused to go along with these efforts and expressed concern that the activity was illegal. [...]
On Wednesday, in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, a column written by the presidents of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Christian Coalition of America — two unlikely colleagues — set out a mutual complaint.
Both were objecting to an initial Verizon decision to deny the pro-choice group a text-message service that would allow those who wished to receive news updates from NARAL (an acronym of National Abortion Rights Action League) after typing in a five-digit code.
This censorship was exposed in the New York Times and Verizon eventually backed down. But the two presidents, NARAL's Nancy Keenan and Christian Coalition's Roberta Combs wrote, "We are on the opposite sides of almost every issue. But when it comes to the fundamental right of citizens to participate in the political process, we're united and very, very worried." -- CBC News.
19 October 2007
Comcast vs. Net Neutrality?
I read in the news that Comcast is blocking some internet traffic in what has been called "traffic shaping".
NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. [...]
Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible — as would someone pirating music. [...]
The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down — and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic. [...]
Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.
"We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard.
Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.
"It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet." [...]--AP
Anywhoo, if you're interested in some specifics of what exactly Comcast is doing, and how, you can follow this link. Apparently, Comcast is using Sandvine traffic shaping hardware. Here's an excerpt from the link:
"The Sandvine application reads packets that are traversing the network boundary. If the application senses that outbound P2P traffic is higher than a threshold determined by Comcast, Sandvine begins to interrupt P2P protocol sequences that would initiate a new transfer from within the Comcast network to a peer outside of the Comcast network. The interruption is accomplished by sending a perfectly forged TCP packet (correct peer, port, and sequence numbering) with the RST (reset) flag set. This packet is obeyed by the network stack or operating system which drops the connection."
28 September 2007
Greedy telecoms
I've alluded before to my disgust with mobile phone companies (Handys and upgrading) in North America. This "phone-locking" business has to be one of the all-time major cash grabs in the history of corporate greed and I'm just waiting for the day customers are able and willing to say, "enough is enough".
Mobile phone customers in the U.S. and Canada are forced into one or two year contracts with every new phone they purchase. In contrast, new handys in Asia and Europe(?) are unlocked, which means customers can switch providers as often as they please. Why are Canada and U.S. customers getting the short end of the stick? There's probably a variety of reasons, but I think it's because telecoms have too much lobbying power, and customers have been conditioned to expect and live with this larcenous behaviour.
As I understand it, the telecoms' argument is that they are subsidizing the cost of the handy so contracts are a way to recoup their costs. My reply would be two-fold. First, if a business model with unlocked phones is thriving in Asia and Europe, why can't it work in North America? Second, why can't telecoms offer both locked and unlocked phones? Why!?
Perhaps the majority of customers would still purchase handys under contract, but others, like myself, are willing to pay a premium for an unlocked phone. I paid a premium price for my unlocked, unbranded HTC s620 Excalibur.
Branding--ugh. That brings up a whole other issue.
I understand telecoms installing software and altering functions of handys they offer so that customers can access whatever special features the telecoms offer. Fine. But for myself, I buy a handy to use as a phone, and for contacts. I don't buy a handy to watch video, listen to music or surf the interent. Ever heard the phrase, "jack of all trades, master of none"? So the notion of paying a premium price for a branded phone with telecom logos and junk software I'll never use is extremely galling, to say the least; it's pouring salt into a bleeding wound.
Relatively recently I learned that after 3 months or so some telecoms will now unlock your handy for free--except that you're still locked into your contract. I also have to acknowledge that at least one telecom I contacted said they could sell me an unlocked phone-- except that it would be a branded version. ::roll-eyes::
Update: Oops. I forgot to mention the cause of this rant. The impetus for this post was reading an article on bbc.co.uk talking about the iPhone, which says:
The full article is here: Apple iPhone warning proves true.
Mobile phone customers in the U.S. and Canada are forced into one or two year contracts with every new phone they purchase. In contrast, new handys in Asia and Europe(?) are unlocked, which means customers can switch providers as often as they please. Why are Canada and U.S. customers getting the short end of the stick? There's probably a variety of reasons, but I think it's because telecoms have too much lobbying power, and customers have been conditioned to expect and live with this larcenous behaviour.
As I understand it, the telecoms' argument is that they are subsidizing the cost of the handy so contracts are a way to recoup their costs. My reply would be two-fold. First, if a business model with unlocked phones is thriving in Asia and Europe, why can't it work in North America? Second, why can't telecoms offer both locked and unlocked phones? Why!?
Perhaps the majority of customers would still purchase handys under contract, but others, like myself, are willing to pay a premium for an unlocked phone. I paid a premium price for my unlocked, unbranded HTC s620 Excalibur.
Branding--ugh. That brings up a whole other issue.
I understand telecoms installing software and altering functions of handys they offer so that customers can access whatever special features the telecoms offer. Fine. But for myself, I buy a handy to use as a phone, and for contacts. I don't buy a handy to watch video, listen to music or surf the interent. Ever heard the phrase, "jack of all trades, master of none"? So the notion of paying a premium price for a branded phone with telecom logos and junk software I'll never use is extremely galling, to say the least; it's pouring salt into a bleeding wound.
Relatively recently I learned that after 3 months or so some telecoms will now unlock your handy for free--except that you're still locked into your contract. I also have to acknowledge that at least one telecom I contacted said they could sell me an unlocked phone-- except that it would be a branded version. ::roll-eyes::
Update: Oops. I forgot to mention the cause of this rant. The impetus for this post was reading an article on bbc.co.uk talking about the iPhone, which says:
"An Apple software update is disabling iPhones that have been unlocked by owners who wanted to choose which mobile network to use."
The full article is here: Apple iPhone warning proves true.
10 July 2007
Comcast customer service
Last night I was forced to telephone Comcast regarding my cable bill. I say "forced" because I only phone customer service--of any category--as a last resort, when all other options have failed or aren't applicable. My extreme reluctance to telephone customer service, in this case Comcast, is due to the frustratingly long time it takes to actually speak to a real person; pardon me, but I'm only phoning because what I need can't be answered/accomplished any other way, so why the heck do I have to jump through metaphorical hoops before speaking to someone?
With Comcast, no matter the time of day, I invariably get the automated, "We are currently experiencing unusually high call volumes. Please stay on the line and your call will be answered in the order it was received or you may wish to hang up and call again later." Ugh. As I mentioned in a previous post (Hello? Anyone there?), if this happens all the time, it's not unusual--perhaps I should buy them a dictionary.
Well, as I said, last night I phoned Comcast, but... what was this... it was different! Yes, I had to cycle through two automated menus, but then the message was, "We are currently experiencing unusually high call volumes. Please try again later." Then... and then... get this... Comcast HUNG UP on me!?!? What the heck?!
I stared at the phone in disbelief for a few seconds. Did *they* just hang up on *me*? That's a switch. I just had to try again to see if it was a bad connection, or if Comcast did that on purpose. It wasn't, and they did.
My first response was irritation. But on further thought, I decided it was better than the alternative of waiting on the phone for an eternity and a half. Still, I think the best option would have been Comcast to provide an estimate of the wait time, and then give the customer the option of hanging up or waiting.
Anywhoo, this morning I tried again and surprise surprise I got through on my first try. I have to say the representative I spoke to was great--polite, professional and helpful, and best of all, I had no trouble whatsoever understanding her English, unlike reps in other companies ::cough:: Dell ::cough:: I've had the displeasure of contacting.
Overall, a definite improvement in Comcast customer service.
With Comcast, no matter the time of day, I invariably get the automated, "We are currently experiencing unusually high call volumes. Please stay on the line and your call will be answered in the order it was received or you may wish to hang up and call again later." Ugh. As I mentioned in a previous post (Hello? Anyone there?), if this happens all the time, it's not unusual--perhaps I should buy them a dictionary.
Well, as I said, last night I phoned Comcast, but... what was this... it was different! Yes, I had to cycle through two automated menus, but then the message was, "We are currently experiencing unusually high call volumes. Please try again later." Then... and then... get this... Comcast HUNG UP on me!?!? What the heck?!
I stared at the phone in disbelief for a few seconds. Did *they* just hang up on *me*? That's a switch. I just had to try again to see if it was a bad connection, or if Comcast did that on purpose. It wasn't, and they did.
My first response was irritation. But on further thought, I decided it was better than the alternative of waiting on the phone for an eternity and a half. Still, I think the best option would have been Comcast to provide an estimate of the wait time, and then give the customer the option of hanging up or waiting.
Anywhoo, this morning I tried again and surprise surprise I got through on my first try. I have to say the representative I spoke to was great--polite, professional and helpful, and best of all, I had no trouble whatsoever understanding her English, unlike reps in other companies ::cough:: Dell ::cough:: I've had the displeasure of contacting.
Overall, a definite improvement in Comcast customer service.
06 February 2007
repcmd
A while ago I posted describing my disgust with Comcast for forcing me to run a particular process--that can be used to track internet use--if I wanted to connect to the internet (for details you can read a previous post, tgcmd.exe). Well, tonight I discovered something else that Comcast does that annoys me to no end.
Tonight I uninstalled and then re-installed PC-cillin Internet Security 2007 (for why I did this you can look at another of my posts, Caveat emptor). Afterwards I checked the stealthiness of the PC-cillin firewall by using a free utility offered by the Gibson Research Corporation. This is strictly routine for me whenever I update/install a firewall and as this version of PC-cillin's firewall had previously passed with flying colours I wasn't expecting any surprises. Oops.
I was surprised to discover that my computer was no longer as stealthy as it had been. Eh? The firewall was the exact same version as before; so what gives? The only information I had was that something called repcmd was the culprit. A cursory search on repcmd gave me nothing of note so I rolled up my figurative sleeves and spent the next 90 minutes trying to remember what I may have changed since the last time I tested the firewall: I turned some things off, rebooted, tested, turned things back on, rebooted, turned things off... ad nauseam.
I'd about given up and decided to go back to ZoneAlarm despite my previous troubles with its stability when I remembered a particular icon that always loads next to the date/time on the lower right of my Windows XP screen, something called the Comcast SupportAgent. Hmmm... right click, "Exit", test... hurrah! My computer was back in full stealth mode.
That's not the end of it, however. When I prevented this "SupportAgent" from running automatically at startup I lost my internet connection. Apparently, it's intimately connected to the infamous tgcmd.exe program. Ugh. So now I have to remember to turn this sucker off every time I reboot. Wangos.
So... does repcmd really pose a security threat? Does my computer really have to be as stealthy as can be tested? I have no idea. It would help if I knew exactly what repcmd is and what it's supposed to do. And why is it acting differently now, when I had no problems with it before. Heck, I didn't even know it was there until tonight. Which begs another question, was it there before, or did Comcast change/add it without my knowledge?
I guess I could ask Comcast but my experience with their customer support has been less than stellar. Abysmal, to say the least.
Anywhoo, problem solved, for now, and as long as each time I reboot I remember to turn off the SupportAgent. "Support" my gluteus maximus; support my irritation is what it really does.
Tonight I uninstalled and then re-installed PC-cillin Internet Security 2007 (for why I did this you can look at another of my posts, Caveat emptor). Afterwards I checked the stealthiness of the PC-cillin firewall by using a free utility offered by the Gibson Research Corporation. This is strictly routine for me whenever I update/install a firewall and as this version of PC-cillin's firewall had previously passed with flying colours I wasn't expecting any surprises. Oops.
I was surprised to discover that my computer was no longer as stealthy as it had been. Eh? The firewall was the exact same version as before; so what gives? The only information I had was that something called repcmd was the culprit. A cursory search on repcmd gave me nothing of note so I rolled up my figurative sleeves and spent the next 90 minutes trying to remember what I may have changed since the last time I tested the firewall: I turned some things off, rebooted, tested, turned things back on, rebooted, turned things off... ad nauseam.
I'd about given up and decided to go back to ZoneAlarm despite my previous troubles with its stability when I remembered a particular icon that always loads next to the date/time on the lower right of my Windows XP screen, something called the Comcast SupportAgent. Hmmm... right click, "Exit", test... hurrah! My computer was back in full stealth mode.
That's not the end of it, however. When I prevented this "SupportAgent" from running automatically at startup I lost my internet connection. Apparently, it's intimately connected to the infamous tgcmd.exe program. Ugh. So now I have to remember to turn this sucker off every time I reboot. Wangos.
So... does repcmd really pose a security threat? Does my computer really have to be as stealthy as can be tested? I have no idea. It would help if I knew exactly what repcmd is and what it's supposed to do. And why is it acting differently now, when I had no problems with it before. Heck, I didn't even know it was there until tonight. Which begs another question, was it there before, or did Comcast change/add it without my knowledge?
I guess I could ask Comcast but my experience with their customer support has been less than stellar. Abysmal, to say the least.
Anywhoo, problem solved, for now, and as long as each time I reboot I remember to turn off the SupportAgent. "Support" my gluteus maximus; support my irritation is what it really does.
29 December 2006
Customer loyalty
Sometimes I wonder if I'm stubborn. I guess like most things it's more gray than black and white. There's one McDonald's location I refuse to go to any longer because I wasn't happy with their service, once. I must have taken my car to at least 4-5 different Volkswagen service departments--the best of them lasting 3 visits--before something happened at each that crossed them off my satisfactory list. None of the incidents were major, I suppose, but at the minimum they all annoyed and disappointed me--there are only so many dealerships in my area, after all.
No matter how many spam mails I receive from Geico, State Farm, Progressive et cetera telling me how much money I can save, I'll only leave Erie Insurance if Erie themselves kick me out. I don't even want to know how much money I might save by switching. Why? Because Erie was the sole company that was willing to consider my Canadian driving record when I first relocated to the United States.
On the other hand, I've flipped back and forth between T-Mobile and Cingular as soon my contracts were up. The limited number of GSM carriers makes my flip-flopping the only way I can express my dissatisfaction. I've returned to a particular Burger King despite knowing they only give out minuscule amounts of fries. When I want something cheap my first thought is still Walmart even though I once vowed to myself, never again. That's probably more of a credit to their advertising department than anything else, though. Target is my choice for inexpensive goods whenever my mind gets a respite from Walmart's advertising.
These days I don't even bother complaining at bad service unless it's truly horrendous. It just wastes too much of my time and energy. And what does it actually accomplish? How much does the loss of a single consumer's business really affect a company? It just seems so futile, sometimes. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Big business is big business, and the little guy gets the short end of the stick.
"Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." Ugh. I guess I agree with Churchill--but it sure as heck doesn't make me feel any better.
No matter how many spam mails I receive from Geico, State Farm, Progressive et cetera telling me how much money I can save, I'll only leave Erie Insurance if Erie themselves kick me out. I don't even want to know how much money I might save by switching. Why? Because Erie was the sole company that was willing to consider my Canadian driving record when I first relocated to the United States.
On the other hand, I've flipped back and forth between T-Mobile and Cingular as soon my contracts were up. The limited number of GSM carriers makes my flip-flopping the only way I can express my dissatisfaction. I've returned to a particular Burger King despite knowing they only give out minuscule amounts of fries. When I want something cheap my first thought is still Walmart even though I once vowed to myself, never again. That's probably more of a credit to their advertising department than anything else, though. Target is my choice for inexpensive goods whenever my mind gets a respite from Walmart's advertising.
These days I don't even bother complaining at bad service unless it's truly horrendous. It just wastes too much of my time and energy. And what does it actually accomplish? How much does the loss of a single consumer's business really affect a company? It just seems so futile, sometimes. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Big business is big business, and the little guy gets the short end of the stick.
"Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." Ugh. I guess I agree with Churchill--but it sure as heck doesn't make me feel any better.
28 October 2006
HTC S620 Excalibur
Introducing... the HTC S620 Excalibur. I was fed up with my previous mobile and tired of carrying around a PDA to keep track of all my appointments, contacts, and notes. I thought it would be more convenient to only have to carry one device around so I started looking into smartphones.I wanted something that could comfortably fit in my pocket, with a full QWERTY keyboard, quad-band GSM, MP camera, and could easily synchronize with Microsoft Outlook. Treos are nice, but they're big with an external antenna (though it looks like that will soon change). I'd basically given up on finding something because everything I saw failed my 'size' requirement. Then... the Motorola Q arrived. I would have snapped this up if it had been GSM--but no... it's with Verizon.
I started paying attention to technology sites/blogs like CNET and Brighthand to keep up to date on soon-to-be released models. I read about the Blackberry Pearl carried by T-Mobile. However, it didn't have a full QWERTY, and I had reservations about the trackball. That's when I read about the T-Mobile Dash. It met all of my requirements, in particular reviews described the call-quality as very good--an important consideration as that would be its primary function. Unfortunately, right now it's only at T-Mobile, and I'm still under contract with Cingular.
I looked into what T-Mobile was asking, and whether it was unlocked. It wasn't. T-Mobile would only unlock the Dash after 3-months of a contract, or if I bought the phone full-price without a contract. Hmmm... I thought about the latter option, but it peeved me that even if I bought a Dash without contract it would still have T-Mobile branding and whatever software/alterations they put on it.
Never say never. I searched various places on-line to see if any unlocked Dashes were being offered. It turns out the T-Mobile Dash is a modified HTC S620 Excalibur. Retailers were offering the Excalibur (unlocked) at a significantly higher price than T-Mobile, but after much thought I decided this was the way I would go. I ordered an Excalibur last week and it arrived a few days ago.
Wow! Simply amazing! First, I had read about the physical dimensions (S620 specifications) but it didn't really sink in how small it is until I held it in my hands. Here's a picture of the S620 beside a AAA battery.
I should note that in the picture at the top of this post, the display is much brighter and vibrant in person (my camera flash kind of bled out the screen). The HTC S620 met all of my major requirements: good call quality, GSM, MP camera, QWERTY keyboard, small size, and synchronized with Outlook--with one caveat. Despite what it says on the T-Mobile website, this device does *not* synch with Outlook Notes. The way I worked around this was to convert my Notes into Contacts, which does synch.
Today I tried connecting the S620 to my computer using a USB-Bluetooth adapter, but eventually I gave up. I'm blaming this on my lack of experience with Bluetooth rather than on the S620. Regardless, Bluetooth and WiFi were never on my 'must have' list.
It's only been a few days but so far I'm extremely pleased with my purchase. Now I'm just waiting for someone to come out with a good case for the S620. I picked up one from T-Mobile as a stop-gap measure, but I prefer a horizontal holster rather than a vertical one.
Canucks 3, Capitals 2 (SO)
Great game! If it hadn't been for the Capitals' two-man advantage late in the 2nd the Canucks would have ran away with this one. I have a little sympathy for the Capitals, though. The way Morrison's goal in the shoot-out squeezed through the goalie's pads must have been heart-breaking. Ha ha! :o)I'm especially glad the Canucks won and that Luongo was playing, and that I had a chance to see a shoot-out. Why am I glad? Because this is their only contest in the regular season, last night's game was probably my only chance to watch the Canucks on television. :o( I hope I'm wrong--maybe Comcast will televise other games when the Canucks play other Eastern Conference teams, but I'm not optimistic.
Anywhoo, if this turns out to be the only Canuck game I see this season... at least we won!
21 October 2006
Handys and upgrading
For reasons I can no longer fathom, when I last purchased a handy I stuck myself with a two-year contract with Cingular. So I was understandably excited when I learned of a thing called "upgrading". What's this, I can upgrade my handy before my contract expires? Great! I actually marked down the date I was eligible for an upgrade on my Outlook Tasks.
Silly me, I'd erroneously assumed that "upgrading" was a special feature Cingular offered to current customers to entice them to remain in the fold. Well, upgrade day arrived and I went to a local outlet only to have my hopes and expectations crushed. Turns out that upgrading is not so special.
Sure, I could get a new phone before my current contract expires--except that I'd need to have a new contract. It was naive of me to expect otherwise, I guess, but hope springs eternal. Oh yeah, and the price I'd pay--with contract--is exactly the same price I'd pay if I had been a completely new customer. So, as I said... not so special. What's the advantage of upgrading? I'd get a new phone, save about $18 dollars on an activation fee... and get stuck with another contract.
I see this as just another example of big business milking their consumer herd until dessication. Rather than reward customers for staying, they encourage them to extend their contract. This is not establishing customer loyalty... it's nothing but a cruel facsimile. It's more like establishing indentured consumers. Caveat Emptor.
Silly me, I'd erroneously assumed that "upgrading" was a special feature Cingular offered to current customers to entice them to remain in the fold. Well, upgrade day arrived and I went to a local outlet only to have my hopes and expectations crushed. Turns out that upgrading is not so special.
Sure, I could get a new phone before my current contract expires--except that I'd need to have a new contract. It was naive of me to expect otherwise, I guess, but hope springs eternal. Oh yeah, and the price I'd pay--with contract--is exactly the same price I'd pay if I had been a completely new customer. So, as I said... not so special. What's the advantage of upgrading? I'd get a new phone, save about $18 dollars on an activation fee... and get stuck with another contract.
I see this as just another example of big business milking their consumer herd until dessication. Rather than reward customers for staying, they encourage them to extend their contract. This is not establishing customer loyalty... it's nothing but a cruel facsimile. It's more like establishing indentured consumers. Caveat Emptor.
21 July 2006
tgcmd.exe
Recently I've noticed that my computer has been slower than I remember, especially during start-up. To remedy this I used msconfig to limit the number of non-essential programs/processes initiated at start-up. I had to google some program names because my tech-unsavvy self had no idea what some of them were. Processes of particular note included tgcmd.exe and its brethren from SupportSoft. Most likely it was installed by my ISP (Comcast) and is used when providing customer support--but according to what I've read it can also be used to track my actions while surfing the internet. What the heck?! This sucker is gone!
Unfortunately, although everything seemed okay at first, I came back a couple hours later only to discover that I'd lost my internet connection. After I tried the usual suspects, I gave up and phoned customer support. Eventually they arranged an appointment for a technician to come to my place to look at it. Ugh. Anywhoo, with great trepidation I decided to see what would happen if I let tgcmd.exe run at start-up. Guess what? My internet connection came back :o(
So, let's see... tgcmd.exe is a process used by Comcast for customer support, but I didn't need customer support until I stopped tgcmd.exe from running... so how is this oh-so-useful process helping me other than being a drain on memory useage?
If you run a search for tgcmd.exe a lot of information comes up--here's just one of the links I followed. The information on there seemed fairly consistant with the other links I read.
Unfortunately, although everything seemed okay at first, I came back a couple hours later only to discover that I'd lost my internet connection. After I tried the usual suspects, I gave up and phoned customer support. Eventually they arranged an appointment for a technician to come to my place to look at it. Ugh. Anywhoo, with great trepidation I decided to see what would happen if I let tgcmd.exe run at start-up. Guess what? My internet connection came back :o(
So, let's see... tgcmd.exe is a process used by Comcast for customer support, but I didn't need customer support until I stopped tgcmd.exe from running... so how is this oh-so-useful process helping me other than being a drain on memory useage?
If you run a search for tgcmd.exe a lot of information comes up--here's just one of the links I followed. The information on there seemed fairly consistant with the other links I read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)