Answer Guy Central

What if AT&T, Verizon, and the other traditional “phone companies” no longer had to provide phone service?

It’s a tough predicament.

CLECs (AT&T, Verizon, et.al.) have a bunch of rules they have to follow that were made at a time when they held a different position. And let’s be honest: holding them to a standard that took into account a position they no longer hold really isn’t fair.

On the other hand: there are a significant number of people who still use CLECs in the same way they used them once upon a time, and dinosaur references notwithstanding it really isn’t fair to just cut them off.

On the OTHER other hand: the elimination of analog TV broadcasts was a similar issue when viewed from that last perspective, and the solution was simple: offer a converter box, and even subsidize it.

So maybe the solution is to provide a DSL converter free to anyone who asks for it, thereby dragging them into the digital age without really making them change anything. It would be a simple matter to augment that device with a very cheap router with telephone IP capabilities built in.

Problem solved.

Your business change issues can be solved the same way; all you need to do is think. Or hire someone to think for you.

Did you hear the one about the company that sued its competitor for telling the truth?

AT&T has sued Verizon. No big deal; these guys slug it out in court on a regular basis. This time, it’s about the advertising Verizon is doing for their 3G network, which is the faster set of connections that make doing things like surfing the internet on your smartphone a tolerable experience. Verizon’s 3G network is quite a bit larger than AT&T’s 3G network. The ads are actually pretty clever, playing off how much fun using an iPhone isn’t when you’re in the wrong location.

AT&T thinks Verizon is being mean unfair. Verizon, responding to that claim, has actually altered their ads to be specific about what their map comparisons mean.

As a technology guy AND a one-time-and-somewhat-unappreciative-of-the-way-that-company-works Verizon employee, I’m actually impressed that they bothered changing the words they were using in the early versions of the ad.

Let’s be clear: the maps say what Verizon wants them to say, and conveniently leave out some facts. But the facts that are depicted are accurate. So AT&T decides the best way to get at them is a LAWSUIT?

Preposterous. And one more example of what happens when people try to resist business change.

Fight war with every weapon you have. And make no mistake; business is war. But don’t fight when you’re wrong; it just makes you  look bad. And helps the other guy.

I don’t get to defend telcos very often. AT&T, Verizon, and the like make up rules, enforce government regulations in a way that hurts their customers, and generally are questionable corporate citizens so much that it’s hard to be on their side.

Today I am. Thanks, Google.

AT&T is all over Google for violating Net Neutrality. Umm . . . AGAIN.

Google’s approach on this particular business change is wrong. No, as pointed out in this article from the New York Times they aren’t obligated to do the same things that regulated telcos do. But in holding themselves out as poster children for “don’t be evil” (this is an actual Google slogan, in case you weren’t aware), they’ve taken on an even more important position.

Very bad move, Google.

And so it Begins. Or Ends. Or Begins to End . . .

Does the company from which you get your internet access have the right to decide what you get or how fast certain things get to you? Maybe. In the USA, though, that right may be about to come to an end.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, an FCC proposal limiting the way that your favorite bit purveyor moves your information gets outlined. Business Change, indeed! Now, the way your stuff gets to you might become set in stone.

Let’s back up: the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world have been threatening to control our web browsing habits for a few years now. Their rationale is that certain things take up more bandwidth, thereby changing both the economies of scale for their businesses and the overall experience that their customers have. So besides charging more for higher-bandwidth customers (an idea I can get behind as long as there are clear and flexible options), your provider wants to be able to exert some control over what you do/say/see/etc. on-line.

Umm . . . NO!

I could pull out a freedom of speech argument here, but I’ll go even lower than that: I don’t want Time Warner, Cablevision, or anyone else telling me what they think is “right”, even if they have a business case. And that doesn’t even touch the real issue: if telecommunications companies control the prioritization of traffic, they will become the ultimate advertising gatekeepers.

Tell your Congressman, Senator, and any other government figure you can reach that this is not OK. Tell them that stopping this business change is what you want. Tell them today.

Simple: Because They Don’t Get It.

I’m not about to go off on a the-iPhone-is-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread rant. In fact, let me state, right here, right now, for the record, that I am not a user, and on my last birthday was offered one as a gift and just couldn’t do it. I TRIED, by the way. I went to an AT&T Store, explained to a very nice associate that I needed to be left alone to play with one, was set up to do so, spent nearly an hour, and walked away hating the iPhone.

Anyone that knows me knows that I like gadgets. But I don’t like them in the way that most people would think. I like gadgets when they make my life easier, better, or more fun, not because they are cool, and to be honest I haven’t come across too may things that strike me that way lately.

Is this because I’m old and curmudgeonly? I hope not, but can’t promise anything.

The iPhone is undoubtedly very cool. And I’ve had a chance to play with iPod touch devices—which work exactly the same way and do everything the iPhone does except make phone calls—many times. They are just plain . . . neat. VERY cool. And sure, I like what they can do for you from time to time: Need a restaurant? Directions? Something that makes having the Internet in your pocket and accessible from almost anywhere as easy as possible? The iPhone is the way to go. But I hate the iPhone, and here’s why:

The iPhone is still too hard to use because there’s no easy way to rearrange your application screens.

Anyone who’s used an iPhone for a while and downloaded apps to it knows what I mean, and will be happy that Movement now exists. Click the link, look at the picture on their front page, and you’ll understand instantly what Movement does. And it will make sense.

And you can’t use it unless you hack your iPhone in a way that’s too hard for most users, might be illegal, and certainly puts you at risk of turning your iPhone into a paperweight.

Apple could fix this. There are rumors floating about that they might, but every time I use an iPhone—or a Macintosh computer, since I’m being honest—all I feel is that I WISH I LIKED IT. Apple creates amazing stuff, makes it as easy to use as they think makes sense, and then stops, because “they know best” and we, like children, are not supposed to question their parental wisdom.

That was fine in a world with few choices. But in the world we inhabit today, a world where change happens so fast you can miss it, where we have hundreds of television channels, unlimited free access to magazines and newspapers that used to cost money, choice of the computers, phones and software we use, REAL change happens when you make the change clear, and make the change easy.

Change is everything. And it doesn’t stop with a pretty user interface. Take that, iPhone.