2007 August

“It was Microsoft’s Fault”

Author: The Answer Guy ( Jeff Yablon )  |  Category: Uncategorized

I love how often bad software companies blame their bad software problems on the biggest, baddest software factory of them all.

OK, actually, I hate it. I make a living primarily by working with the mess that their software so often is, but I’m not a big Microsoft basher (hmmmm . . . maybe that’s why I’m not . . .)

When Skype, fresh from their 48-hour no-service-for-anyone-but-really-we-swear-it’s-not-everybody debacle last week, decided to blame Microsoft for the problem, my first thought was “same old stuff”. That though lasted about a nanosecond. Skype tells us, and has now spent as long reaffirming the claim as the problem existed, that it was Microsoft’s regular monthly Windows update that crashed their software all over the world.

Uh-huh.

This one’s so amazing I’m at a loss. It’s true that Microsoft regularly releases software that makes a mess of other software running locally on your computer. Skype wants us to believe that this time a Microsoft code error did no damage on the computers it was installed, but brought down a global cross-platform network with the server software running a non-Windows operating system.

OK, Homer Skype , I believe you. D’Oh!

feed icon16x16 “It was Microsoft’s Fault” Subscribe to this Blog using your favorite Reader

IBM Running Skype ?

Author: The Answer Guy ( Jeff Yablon )  |  Category: Uncategorized

I remember back in the day when setting up a computer network was . . . well honestly, if was pretty difficult. Most networks used coaxial cables (we’re talking “the dawn of ethernet” timeframe), and rather than all the computers connecting through hubs or switches they ran in a big circle or along a straight line.

This meant that if one computer in the network went down, the whole thing went down. Literally.

The joke in those days was “imagine if IBM ran the phone network . . . every time a new phone was installed, everyone who already had one would need to reboot”.

As over 24 hours have passed since Skype, for all practical purposes, stopped working, I’m reminded of the old days. And I feel like IBM Skype is running the phone network.

Under the category of “you get what you pay for”, I can almost accept that since most of my communications over Skype are free, I don’t really have a whole lot to complain about. And honestly, even the paid connections at (basically) $.02 per minute anywhere in the world are so inexpensive that I have to ask myself what right I have to complain if I compare to the cost of the same calls run over my “real” phone company.

Or Not.

Skype is owned by Ebay. The company has a multi-billion dollar valuation;  some days the stock market values it higher than the few traditional phone companies that are still with us. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE AT LEAST A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ON STAFF WATCHING THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WHOLE NETWORK DOESN’T IMPLODE.

And yet, here we all sit, waiting for the service to come back to life, and adding insult to injury Skype keeps changing their story regarding what’s gone wrong. I’ll tell you what’s gone wrong: we’ve all forgotten about value and preparedness.

I don’t know whether that saddens me more relative to big corporations, or people.

feed icon16x16 IBM Running Skype ? Subscribe to this Blog using your favorite Reader

Copyrights and Recipes

Author: The Answer Guy ( Jeff Yablon )  |  Category: Uncategorized

from lifehacker.com 2/8/07

(http://lifehacker.com/software/recipes/find-restaurant-secrets-at-top-secret-recipes-234768.php#viewcomments)

there’s a fine-line distinction here. you’re correct about the p.r., but there’s a long history of companies suing over unauthorized dispersement of their trade secrets/recipes. mrs. fields is especialy fond of this tactic.

that said, the internet has changed alot of things, so I see lawsuit as a down-the-road scenario. but these guys are attributing the recipes (copyright-enforcable or not) to trademarked coporate entities, and those guys just plain don’t like that kind of thing. oh: and technically, if your trademark is being infringed you are OBLIGATED to pursue it once you find out, and one other side-effect of the internet is that they’d have a hard time claiming not to have!

listen, at pc-vip.com we are walking these lines all the time. two decades in the technology business have taught me mostly that as much as people think I’m smart, I’m mostly good at being adaptive. my commenst are a discourse on that.

Verizon Wireless “Unlimited Access” Data Plan

Author: The Answer Guy ( Jeff Yablon )  |  Category: Uncategorized

from consumerist.com 4/5/07

(http://consumerist.com/consumer/verizon/verizon-unlimited-access-plan-is-extremely-limited-249873.php#viewcomments)

C’mon, guys . . .

Yeah, the wording of their agreement gives the “the right” to terminate you at any time. But what tehy’re really trying to do is stop you from running a server using your PDA or wireless card as a pass-through. Kinda like your ISP limiting your bandwidth.

I have this plan. I use it for all kinds of things, all over the US and Europe (where believe me, it saves me BIG bucks). I use it to Skype, even, meaning I get free phone calls through my cell carrier, without using their minutes. And I’ve asked quite a few people at VZW about the limits and all but one (and he seemed pretty darned uninformed across the board) told me the same thing: they aren’t watching what you do w/ the plan. Just the volume of data you push.

Oh and by the way (shameless plug alert):

http://pc-vip.com has gone live

And we have an amazing income stream program for your readers.

Oh: and seriously . . . we’re really all about people not getting ripped off any longer, too.

Like This Article?  Digg It!

Kids and Allowances

Author: The Answer Guy ( Jeff Yablon )  |  Category: Uncategorized

from consumerist.com, 4/11/07

(http://lifehacker.com/software/personal-finance/money-tip–save-spend-and-give-jars-251413.php#viewcomments)

Years ago, I did the same thing with my kids, with the added “real-world-ism” of their allowances matching their ages, meaning that they each got a “raise” once a year. Seemed to work pretty well; they’re all great kids/people, and understand money pretty well. Goood Job!

“Federal Subscriber Line Charge”

Author: The Answer Guy ( Jeff Yablon )  |  Category: Uncategorized

[Updated February 16, 2010]

Two-and-a-half years later, with much traffic still flowing here and to our parent PC-VIP, I’ve decided to update this post:

When Judge Herbert Greene broke up the phone company back in 1984, he set a business change in motion that was supposed to be useful and helpful to consumers. In fact, it was; we no longer pay $.25 per minute for long distance, and AT&T had no incentive to change that before competition was created. Thank you, Judge Greene.

But in order to make it “fair” to the phone companies that were still responsible for maintaining the phone lines even while other companies delivered service over those lines, Judge Greene allowed them to charge various fees. This makes sense in a way; why should Verizon (for example)  have to subsidize the business actions of their competitors?

One of the ways this was addressed was implementation of the Federal Subscriber Line Charge. The name suggests that it’s a tax, doesn’t it? Or at least a “fee” paid to the Federal Government to have a phone line.

It’s Not. The Federal Subscriber Line Charge is a fee that Judge Greene’s order allows phone companies to charge you, and keep. In other words, when Verizon tells you that your phone line costs $10 per month, but the bill is $16 once the Federal Subscriber Line Charge is added in, the truth is that Verizon is charging you $16 per month, and not $10.

Most people tell me that they’d be fine paying $16 for a phone line if that’s what it cost and that’s what they were told it costs. Verizon and the other phone companies know this. So why don’t they just charge you $16?

Because they can’t. The amount the phone companies charge for “phone service” is still tightly regulated, generally at the state level and sometimes at an even lower level than that. The reality is that even though phone companies might wish to simplify this by raising their prices and might be OK forgoing the Federal Subscriber Line Charge in exchange, there is no such exchange possible; they’d have to get each state to allow them to raise their price for the phone line, and then give up federally-allowed money to compensate.

Not gonna happen.

Business Change is a glorious thing, don’t you think?

[End of Update]

From consumerist.com 6/27/07:

(http://consumerist.com/consumer/complaints/what-is-the-federal-subscriber-line-charge-and-how-can-i-buck-it-272157.php#viewcomments)

OK, here’s the deal:

There’s no way the employee can waive it. All the comments about how they can provide retention offers (“standard”, or otherwise) are 100% correct. But they cannot waive it.

In fact, the CEO couldn’t waive it. The Board of Directors couldn’t waive it. Any of these people might WISH they could, and certainly the CEO or the board could begin the process of effecting change so that it eventually went away altogether (HA!), but the sad truth is that at a company like AT&T, the computer systems simply aren’t set up in a way that it’s POSSIBLE to waive charges.

Cynically, one could say this is by design…and that would probably be right. Regardless of the reason, though, it just plain isn’t possible.

Local Number Portability When Your VoIP Provider Goes South

Author: The Answer Guy ( Jeff Yablon )  |  Category: Uncategorized

From July 18 at consumerist.com:

(http://consumerist.com/consumer/wlnp/wireless-number-portability-how-to-keep-your-number-228521.php#viewcomments)

Folks, a couple of thing to keep in mind:

1) SunRocket was not officially a phone company at all. Technically, this means they are not subject to LNP rules (in fact, check your customer agreement w/ them…it says clearly that they *may* allow you to take your number with you, but are not obligated to do so).

Think of this as it applies to eFax or all the free phone # services. The entities that provide those services AREN’T PHONE COMPANIES. As LNP is telecom-specific, “Your” #s belong to them, not to you.

2) LNP is tough to enforce if the company giving up the number isn’t a phone company. Again, in SunRocket’s case, *if* they just turn off the servers there’s no way to reclaim the #s through the LNP system even if SR’s intent had been to allow you to do so. Ever notice the “Local Number Portability” charge on your phone bill (it finally went away a couple of years ago)? There’s a system “out there” that controls this.

The good news on THAT one is that if SR or someone like them acts in a dishonorable way, then eventually *your* # will find its way back into the hands of the telco that they bought the block of numbers they use from. Of course, good luck getting it at that point

Like This Article?  Digg It!