Google Analytics

Monday, November 15, 2010

Rethinking Possible with AT&T Wireless

“What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.”
Abraham Lincoln

I was watching TV the other day and came across a new advertising campaign for AT&T Wireless. The campaign seems like a bold push to dispel the myths, and counter the myriad complaints about the poor performance of their network. A fact that has been amplified by their exclusive Apple iPhone agreement.

It has been widely reported that their network has been unable to keep up with data demands of iPhone users. This AT&T advertisement uses scenarios best described as a mix of hyperbole and reality to counter these perceptions and tries to persuade us with a tagline that challenges us to “Rethink Possible.”

The funny thing about this new campaign and particularly the tagline that struck a real chord with me is that, as an AT&T wireless subscriber, I had already begun rethinking what is possible with my AT&T device and service. Perhaps, not quite in the way that AT&T and their ad agency intended.

Granted their advertising is about the data network speed but surely one can assume that if the data network transmits at light speeds, enabling us the ability to do things we could not have imagined or dreamed possible - like changing a train reservation while standing on the platform because we made eye contact with a beautiful woman on another train, and then went on to marry her and produce the 54th President of the United States of America...all because of AT&T’s magnificent network.

Given that I can Rethink Possible in such an amazing way for data you would think it would also be possible to make a simple, old fashioned voice call - no problem. Well, you would be dead wrong.

Forget the fact that it is impossible for me to walk down a street in Manhattan just one short block without the call dropping but I cannot even walk across my living room. For those unfamiliar with Manhattan apartments, think of the most spacious ones as small walk-in closets, and I can assure you that ours is far from spacious. It has become impossible to have a cell phone conversation unless I am standing or sitting in one place. Not only do I have to check the signal strength before I sit down but I also find that I need to restrict my movements while on the call. Any sudden moves or gestures could well lose that elusive signal and result in a dropped call. On average I make 4 calls to finish one 2 minute conversation. I remember having more freedom of movement when my phone line was tethered.

Admittedly, I am not the most technologically advanced being, but my understanding of the purpose of voicemail is that it’s similar to the answering machine. A caller can leave a message if we are unable to answer the phone for any reason. If this is also your understanding then perhaps you will be able to explain to me why AT&T’s voicemail service routinely seems to send incoming calls directly to my voicemail when I am ready and waiting eagerly for the call.

Then, as if to add insult to injury, it often only alerts me up to 3 days after I received the call to tell me that I have a voicemail. By which time I have either met with the person or the issue has been resolved over email. I can tell you that AT&T is responsible for my growing reputation of tardiness when it comes to returning calls.

The other day I got an urgent text message and immediately called my friend. She texted saying she needed a babysitter on short notice. When she answered my call she sounded perfectly calm and not frantic like I expected based on the urgency of her text.

I probed and she seemed confused and finally said “what are you talking about?" When I told her I was responding to her super urgent request for a babysitter, she laughed and said that she had sent me the text on Monday morning. It was now Wednesday afternoon. Co-incidentally, she sent me another text last weekend, this time a picture of her baby. Now a week later, my AT&T wireless phone still shows the status as “retrieving” her text but will not let me cancel this rather lengthy retrieval or delete it. I must call and ask her how many million gigabytes she has sent or maybe it would be better if I emailed.

Everywhere I look I see people with smart phones. It used to be that only men in suits carried them but now its women with strollers, nannies with kids, schoolchildren on the subway, delivery men and even clergy. Apart from the fact that I often want to hit all these people when I see them walking down the street staring at their smart screens while stupidly walking into traffic and into me...I plan to get one too.

My dilemma is simple – what is the point of a having a smart phone if one has to use it on a dumb network? Frankly, the only reason our family is holding out on the iPhone is because our friends at AT&T wireless are the only people offering it. Besides, since I am currently unable to make a simple phone call I have been forced to rethink what else might not be possible on my smart phone like sending pictures, streaming video, downloading music, rich media texts, IM, online gaming, emailing and video chat.

The AT&T wireless signal is another great mystery. It was somewhat explained when Apple recently announced that the “algorithm” they were using to calculate the AT&T signal bars on the iPhones was inaccurate. Assuming AT&T uses a similar algorithm on their dumber phones it might explain why I often have all 5 bars but am unable to use my AT&T wireless phone as anything more than a brick.

But it does not explain why my wife’s phone, on Verizon’s network, always works no matter how few bars her phone indicates and no matter where we find ourselves. In fact she uses her phone when there are zero bars showing, and is routinely able to make and receive calls no matter where she is. Be it in the dark basements of large department stores, on desolate highways, in undersea tunnels or from the deep inner recesses of large office buildings.

Meanwhile I can be found standing on the widest part of the street, away from the tallest buildings, carefully avoiding the path of the trees and the direct rays of the sun, all the while looking and praying for a signal that says I can once again communicate with the world. I would wager that if we found ourselves stuck down the shaft of the deepest mine, anywhere in the USA, her Verizon phone would have a signal and save us while my AT&T phone would allow us to take final pictures and video of ourselves while slowly running out of air.

I also noticed a rather curious claim on their new advertising campaign: “AT&T Covers 97% of Americans.” I had to stop and think about this one. It’s an ingenious way to be quite disingenuous (leave it to those brilliant admen) because the brain thinks it just read and registered that AT&T’s network covers 97% of America. Which seems rather impressive but hard to believe given my personal experience. It also slyly says nothing about the quality of their coverage or what those lucky 9 million people left without AT&T coverage do.

From first-hand experience in New York, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Erie, Memphis, New Orleans, San Francisco, Buffalo, Boston, most of Rhode Island and Menlo Park, to name just a few places, I can tell you that their coverage quality is unequivocally and equally crap everywhere. My advice to AT&T is to take the hundreds of millions dollars they are currently spending on advertising trying to convince people that their network actually works, and spend it on upgrading their network so it that does actually work.

As for me, a loyal 10 year veteran of AT&T wireless, this new advertising campaign has finally made me rethink the possibilities, and decide to become Verizon’s newest customer. Who says advertising does not work!

  
CHECK OUT: The Daily Show bringing my words to life!

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The Political Silly Season

“I'm not a witch. I'm nothing you've heard. I'm you. None of us are perfect...”
Christine O'Donnell

This quote is not from a spoof on Saturday Night Live or Sabrina the Teen Witch trying to make new friends in high school, but the opening lines uttered in an advertisement being run by a candidate who is running on the Republican Party ticket for the Delaware US Senate seat. Don’t get me wrong. Given how broken Washington is these days, I am even willing to give witchcraft a shot – hell, it could not make things worse. As for candidates, forget about being perfect. What troubles me greatly is not isolated cases of people dabbling in witchcraft, but that all of them seem to lack even the most basic qualities of leadership. I am talking about clear, rational thinking, problem solving skills and an ability to articulate their positions. Case in point is the New York Governor’s race where we have one man who wears black gloves, and represents the ‘Rent is 2 Damn High’ party, and even a self-confessed Madam who professed rather astutely that "businesses will leave this state quicker than Carl Paladino at a gay bar." I guess at least she does have some indirect gubernatorial experience, having supplied female escorts to the last Governor of New York, which is more than we can say about any of the other candidates. The recent debate also included a former Black Panther member, Freedom Party, Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates. Then, on the Republican ticket, we have Carl Paladino, who it seems is willing to “take out” reporters when he is angered about being questioned about his love child. He has also stated that he believes homosexuality is a bad life decision and one that children should be taught and encouraged not to make. Finally, we have Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat and consummate politician. His father was the first Italian American Governor of New York and he, too, has spent his entire life in politics. A fact that should have been a great weakness and Achilles heel for him, at a time when the one thing the whole country agrees on is getting rid of career politicians. You know something is very wrong when, in this environment, Cuomo seems like not just the sane choice for NY Governor, but the only one.

Everywhere I look I see voters being asked to choose between mediocre and less mediocre, corrupt and less corrupt, sane and less sane candidates.  In Connecticut there is a Democrat running for Senate who misspoke about his military service; but it seems he misspoke on five separate occasions over as many years. Richard Blumenthal claimed he served in Vietnam when in fact he never left the shores of America. I realise there is a very fine line between politics and lying, but how do you trust a man who has a tendency to misspeak until he is caught doing it? On the other side we have Linda McMahon, who has reportedly spent upwards of $42 million of her personal fortune to make her bid for the Senate seat in the old fashioned manner – by buying her way in. She is the owner and was the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), which she and her husband built from a small regional company into a global multi-billion dollar empire. A self-made woman but one who is also widely criticized for her decision to classify all wrestlers working for her company as independent contractors rather than employees, purely so that her company would not have to shell out for their Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Perhaps, we do need some cut throat, no bullshit, take no prisoners type people to break the current deadlock in Washington and get this country moving again, but my problem is, again, that on the issues that matter to me, I have not been inspired by her. I also do not get a sense that she has a plan or vision. It feels more like she is seizing on the current voter anger and discontent against establishment politicians and using it as an opportunity to fulfil some personal milestone of a type A personality. I am not convinced that we are in good hands with her, but still encourage people to vote for her as she is certainly a better choice over someone who blatantly lies.

I want to move now to the race that personifies mediocrity, nay, in fact it takes mediocrity to another even more shallow level that I once never imagined possible. If you have not figured it out yet, I am talking about Nevada’s Senate race between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle. These candidates have much more in common that the political pundits have given them credit for. For one, each is not only running against the other, but has the added distinction of running against himself and herself. If you think Joe Biden has foot in mouth, then you need to hear some of the gaffes these two have made. While there are too many to list individually, I did pick my favourite gem from each candidate. Angle, during the primary, said that she wanted to “phase out both Social Security and Medicare.” Reid for his contribution stated that Obama was likely to succeed because he is "light skinned" and speaks with "no Negro dialect." Angle has also shown that she has one of the Democratic Party’s strongest traits - snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. When Angle won the Republican primary a few months ago Harry Reid looked like very old toast, but today it’s a really tight race. I feel sorry for Nevadans, but then again it is the home of Las Vegas, and the people of this state have always loved a blind roll of the dice.

Back in New York, we have Mr. Charles B. Rangel, the 80 year old member of the US House of Representatives who serves New York’s 15th District, and has served it since 1971. Since 1971! This means he has held his current office for close to 40 years and nearly served 20 consecutive terms. The House Ethics committee recently charged him with violating 13 ethics and federal regulations. Serious charges that include misusing his office to raise millions for a college building bearing his name, failing to report income tax on properties he owns, and using a rent-stabilized apartment in Harlem as an office while stating that it was for living purposes. Rather than do the honourable thing and resign to clear his name, he has not even made an attempt to explain the charges against him. Instead, Mr. Rangel decided his best defense was offense. He stood up on the floor of the House of Representatives and challenged members of both parties to kick him out. He defiantly told them that if they think he is guilty of violating House rules, then "fire your best shot at getting rid of me through expulsion." He then proceeded to hold a very public and lavish 80th birthday party at New York’s exclusive Plaza Hotel. I am not sure what shocked me more; the fact that he genuinely seems to think he did nothing wrong or that members of both parties have so many corrupt, dirty little skeletons in their own closets that they have quietly faded into the night hoping voters will be the judge and jury for Mr. Rangel.

Finally, there is the junior Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand and all the endorsements she has received during her short term. She filled Hillary Clinton’s vacated Senate seat by special appointment and is now up for re-election. While Mayor Bloomberg recently stated that he will not endorse either Schumer or Gillibrand, he was clearly dazzled by her at a dinner the other night, enough to give her attractiveness a solid endorsement. He told the media, “I did not ask her where her dress came from or anything, but she’s a pleasure to sit next to and she certainly looked good.” Earlier this year Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, lauded Gillibrand for being the “hottest member” in the Senate. This seems to be the general consensus on Gillibrand’s service so far. When Gov.Paterson, who is legally blind, was asked by a reporter for his assessment of Gillibrand’s appearance, he replied "Well, I never noticed it, but upon information and belief she is a very pretty woman.” And he added “I think her real influence on people has been in the areas of agriculture and in the areas of national security and in the areas of finance, where she is real hot.”

My advice to all you voters is to go ahead and vote for the wrestler, the witch and the wardrobe. Even if they don’t change a damn thing in Washington, they certainly cannot make things any worse. Besides, we would at least be far more entertained while we continue to watch our tax dollars being used for wasteful spending and corporate bailouts, and we would have much better looking people to hate. And that folks is progress in my book!

Friday, October 1, 2010

Internet Privacy and Prying Eyes

“Privacy is not something that I’m merely entitled to, it’s an absolute prerequisite.”
Marlon Brando

You are a 39 year old man who likes to play baseball, drink premium beer and go on long bike rides. You are married with two kids, work in the financial services field, own your own home, make roughly $150,000 a year. You have a college degree, and you struggle with mild depression. Have we met? No, and we probably never will, but I can find out everything about you simply because you like to surf the internet. Based on the keywords we use in search engines, our news sites, shopping habits and even simple things like restaurant reviews we write allow companies to get to know us more intimately than your neighbour and maybe even your spouse. Welcome to the world of today’s personalized internet marketing, a world that has moved well beyond simple cookies and even beacons. I am not talking about the ones mama used to bake or guiding lights, but something far more sinister. These new tracking tools are eyes designed to carefully and surreptitiously watch your every move and even everything you type, depending on the nature of the individual software that gets downloaded every time you open a webpage. And yes, I mean any and every webpage. Originally, these tools were meant to be harmless reminders of our preferences on a specific site: which geography we were in, our saved shopping cart items, and our shipping and billing information. In addition, these were cookies installed by the website, but today they have morphed into digital stalkers whose actions are akin to going through your trash. Worse yet, in many instances the site you are visiting may not even be aware that this type of watching software exists on its web page. It is increasingly being used by third party content providers of which there can be dozens on any given page, who are serving content from ad banners to free software downloads. Alarmed yet?

The people who capture and sell this information say that an individual’s anonymity is protected because we are never identified by name or address. But all this information is being collected from a combination of gleaning publicly available databases and using surreptitious tracking tools on the web as described in the opening paragraph. These companies then add some smart geeks who write programs that can analyze this information and attach assumptions by cross referencing things like home ownership records, family income, medical records and even favourite restaurants and brands you are loyal to and make very detailed and scarily accurate assumptions about each individual. This information is mostly packaged and sold to advertisers, marketers and even financial services companies who are quite likely to be making credit card and loan approvals based on these assumptions, which includes the credit worthiness of an individual. Even though financial companies claim that they are not using this information to profile or reject people for loans, but to better target their products and services. Marketers and retailers say they are able to more effectively do the same. I know from working on websites for various clients that we served up the landing page of a site by recognizing who you are, but this was non-intrusive and based on your visit and purchase history, and limited to your secure activity on that site (and with your consent). It was never based on your general surfing history or activity outside that particular website. The promise of this technology was individual customization; however, what I am now describing goes far deeper and uses information far beyond the reach and remit of one particular web merchant. For example “If we've identified a visitor as a midlife-crisis male," says Demdex CEO Randy Nicolau, a client, such as an auto retailer, can "give him a different experience than a young mother with a new family." The guy sees a red convertible, the mom a minivan.” (Wall Street Journal article: http://bit.ly/96MiWX).

I understand that the world we live in today is very different from the one our parents grew up in, or for that matter even from the one we grew up in. Technology has changed our lives in many ways, and one of the sacrifices of convenience and the instant gratification which we all seem to yearn, is our privacy. For us to not have to go through the pain of initiation and identification each time we land on a webpage, to shop or consume news, or read recipes means each site needs to remember who we are and what our preferences are. In simple terms it means that each time I go to read news I will not have to specify my geography for the edition I want or have to re-enter my credit card or shipping address each time I shop at my favourite online store. All this is reasonable to me and I am sure to most people, and more importantly we are able make this choice. You can, for instance, delete cookies after each internet session, and voila, the same site will treat you like a first time visitor until you sign in to your password protected account. However, in this new world, the majority of time we are not told, or even aware of, who is tracking and monitoring our surfing activity or how much of it is being watched, stored, analyzed and then sold to a third party. Many young people today seem to feel that privacy is an old-fashioned notion for an old-fashioned generation; I completely disagree, but that is a matter for another blog. If someone wants to share his or her life’s every waking moment, from brushing their teeth in the morning to crying themselves to sleep at night and everything in-between, then all the power to them (suffice it to say, I will never accept you as a ‘friend’ or quickly ‘un-friend’ you) but that is your choice and mine. Taking away my privacy or invading it without my knowledge is not acceptable, because I did not volunteer to give it up. This is where I have a fundamental issue with this new practice, and the laws that govern our privacy are hopelessly outdated for this new digital world. So for all those people who believed the internet was the last and greatest bastion of anonymity - simply put, you’re no longer a random IP address.

I encourage you to read the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article and series I cited above, on Internet privacy. Below I am listing sites you can visit in order to Opt-Out from being tracked and a link to download Privacy Choice, a WSJ vetted software, which tells you who is watching you on every site you visit (the company that provides the software does not track or monitor you). While these are things you can do to take greater control of your privacy, you should keep in mind that all of this is based on companies that voluntarily disclose their tracking tools, and are members of the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI), a body formed to create greater transparency and protect our online privacy. Many of the companies tracking us are not members of NAI and do not disclose their tracking tools, only the big and reputable companies do.

List of sites to Opt-Out:


Privacy Choice: the website offering FREE software tool that allows you to see who is tracking you on each site you visit: http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerwatcher/download