Whatever...

All work and no triple-play makes Tom an angry boy

By Tom Kirkham

ADSL Guide recently published a new survey containing some depressing statistics on broadband providers' customer service.  Particularly mortifying was the news that Telewest actually came out on top.  As a current customer of Telewest's, I have to ask: how can this be?  Has the world gone mad, or are other broadband providers going around beating up their customers and setting fire to their homes?

Perhaps these words are a little harsh - maybe for those subscribing solely to Telewest broadband, the standard of customer support is not so bad.  But what about those of us who thought triple-play was the way to go; that it would spell an end to being ripped off paying monthly line rental for a landline you barely use?  Well, having taken the triple-plunge, I now find that once a month all my services get cut off, despite the fact I never miss a payment.

Why? Well, the reason that Telewest keeps cutting off my broadband, phone and TV is due to a flaw in the billing system, which means that I automatically exceed the cap on my account every time I get billed.  Many hours have since been spent on the phone to the billing department making 'one-off' credit card payments, ultimately to no avail.

This problem has been compounded by Telewest's support team - does triple-play really have to mean your routine customer enquiry getting transferred across three different departments, as opposed to one? So much for convergence…

All of this suggests to me that the Telewest triple-play machine is missing several important cogs - while it can physically provide each part of the package, it can't properly bill for or support them.  And if a company ends up repeatedly cutting off paying customers as a consequence of these failings, then you have to ask whether it should be offering these services in the first place.

I dread to think what it's like for customers that have signed up to Telewest and Virgin's 'quad-play' service, now the focus of renewed attention given that the two companies are merging.  It'll be interesting to see whether the unholy mess that is the current billing system will be re-evaluated, or whether Richard Branson's assumption is that the relatively well-respected Virgin brand will be sufficient to gloss over these obvious failings. 

And for me?  Well, I'm either switching to Sky, or I'm switching off...

Vista to atone for past security sins?

By Claire Ayles

When Steve Ballmer comes jumping out of a cardboard cake on November 30th to herald the arrival of Microsoft Vista, will anyone actually care?

Well, if you ask most European businesses, the answer is 'not really'.  According to market analysts at Forrester Research, a minuscule 6% of European IT managers intend to ditch their existing operating systems in favour of Vista within the next six months. 

Why are European businesses so underwhelmed by Vista?

Maybe it just galls us to yet again line the pockets of a company which has a turnover that rivals the GDP of most countries - we'd rather make Microsoft sweat a bit before handing over our hard-earned cash.  But more likely it's because we need to be convinced of the benefits promised by Vista before making the switch.

Of all Vista's new bells and whistles, the most hyped relate to security.   Indeed, Microsoft has gone to great lengths to illustrate how Vista can keep networks safe and secured from hack and malware attacks. 

Until now, Microsoft and security have gone together like peaches and wasabi, so it's sensible that it wants to plug the holes and stop the worms that have been a constant menace to users of previous Microsoft operating systems ie. nearly all of us.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, it has absolutely no track record of developing secure platforms, and neither does it have a strong heritage of offering more specialist security services, such as anti-virus scanning.  In short, the folks in Seattle are asking us to take a massive leap of faith if we're to believe that Microsoft has suddenly become the guardian of business networks.

In the end, it's doubtful that Microsoft's new security features will make or break the ultimate success of Vista; eventually we'll all upgrade because we always do.  However, it's open to debate about whether businesses will rely on Vista's in-built security features to protect their networks. 

Microsoft faces a hell of a PR re-positioning task if we’re ever to believe it's up to the security job – still, it’s going to be interesting to see them try...

3 bites off more than it can chew once again

By Ryan Whelan

So, 3’s recently announced mobile internet tie up with Google and Skype is being mooted as a partnership that will change the mobile internet as we know it, with the ability to make free international calls and accessing your home PC or television from your handset. 

But is this latest announcement just a case of 3 once again having eyes bigger than its belly and biting off more than it can chew?

3 stormed into the UK mobile market five years ago with amazingly low cost, high-usage tariffs and the promise of video calls, e-mails and high quality internet.  But the reality has been somewhat different.

For instance, 3’s video calling service is still not fully accessible to all customers and remains at a premium price for those who can get it.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to amend the current problems with this service, rather than just move onto something new?

3 has also recently announced that it will open 120 new stores before Christmas to add to its current total of 20 stores.  This in itself seems like a mammoth task, without the added headache of launching a brand new service also within the same time frame.

Another fact that 3 seems to have overlooked is that about 95 per cent of mobile phone revenue is generated from voice calls and text messages.  As a result, by providing free calls through Skype both nationally and internationally, surely 3 are potentially cutting off their main revenue source? 

3 MUST get this service launch right, otherwise they’ll face yet another backlash from consumers, just like they did when they failed to deliver on their previous promises.  If it goes wrong, 3’s customer retention department will have to work harder than ever to keep unhappy customers tied to the network this time around. 

All things considered, this launch is either a very bold or very stupid move for a company that has ploughed £19bn of investment into its European division, but is yet to show a profit – 3 recorded losses of £815m in the first half of this year alone.

And if you’re still just a little bit excited about 3’s new service - read the small print.  The service will only be initially available on two handsets and has a ‘fair usage’ policy attached to it.  This may result in customers being stung by hidden charges once they exceed the ‘fair usage’ amount.  Perhaps this is where 3 will generate that much needed revenue…?

One nation under a brand

By Joe Banks

There was a great story in The Guardian last Saturday, which I’ve been mulling over all week.  Simon Anholt, an ‘expert in the field of image makeovers for nation-states’, had managed to convince representatives from 65 countries to attend an event on the topic of ‘nation branding’.

While many people were no doubt sent into a spin by this latest example of diabolical PR chicanery, I actually thought it had a very valid point to make – that is, whether nations like it or not, people around the world tend to have pre-conceived notions about what other countries are like and how their citizens behave.  Their ‘brand values’, if you like…

Depressingly enough, and despite the best efforts of the ‘Cool Britannia’ brigade a few years ago, Anholt said that the UK is still generally regarded as class-ridden, boring and old-fashioned.  Hard to believe, I know…  However, the article also touched on how certain perceptions can affect countries looking to attract technology-based investment or develop a more tech-savvy culture.

For instance, Scotland’s branding by its own tourist board as ‘a place of emptiness and wildness (except for) a thatched pub with some yokels inside drinking whisky’ was fine for attracting hardy holidaymakers with an interest in hiking and alcohol, but according to Anholt, “it's no good if you're trying to persuade Samsung to build their next factory there.”

Similarly, ‘the man from Madrid… glumly noted that a reputation for siestas and all-night parties was not exactly helping promote the Spanish technology sector.’

This inevitably got me thinking about whether these national brand values affect the way in which technology itself is bought and consumed.  The UK has been the source of some of the most far-reaching technological inventions in the past 25 years (from the World Wide Web to the iPod), but still we seem to get labelled as, at best, quirky inventors, at worst, fusty academics unable to ‘productise’ our ideas.  Along with a culture that isn’t always kind to the entrepreneurial spirit, is this one of the reasons why businesses often seem unwilling to buy British technology?

However, perhaps a bigger question than this (and one I’m genuinely interested to hear some answers to) is whether the ‘re-branding’ of the US since 9/11 has affected this tech superpower’s ability to sell products – particularly B2B technology - in the global market?  Certain countries in Europe (hello France) have always been resistant to the perceived march of Americanisation, but how have such issues as Iraq and global warming impacted on US companies trying to sell their wares abroad?

For the time being, the answer is maybe not at all – but as China and India etc continue to grow their indigenous technology industries, will the US need to seriously reappraise its increasingly isolationist brand values in order to help Silicon Valley et al continue to compete on the world stage?

Acer - now you're in trouble...

By Mike King

I’m currently in the middle of something that I can’t quite believe is happening.  In today’s brand savvy, socially networked, Web 2.0 world, you wouldn’t think that any company – let alone a PC manufacturer – imagines it can get away with treating its customers like dirt.  But that’s exactly what Acer is currently doing to my daughter…

Let me explain.  Last month, my 17 year old daughter bought a new Acer laptop from www.acernotebooks.co.uk.  Within one hour of switching on her new notebook, the keyboard packed up and the screen stopped working.  She was pretty upset, particularly as it had taken her two months to save up from her Saturday job to buy it. 

She called Acer.  They agreed to repair it and sent a courier to pick it up.  After a week, she chased them – at which point, they said she’d have to pay over 400 pounds (that’s only 50 quid less than it cost to buy in the first place) to repair the faulty laptop.  Remember, this is a brand new Acer laptop that she had used for just one hour.

The strange thing is they've sent through a repair estimate (that laughably they’re expecting her to sign to authorise the repair!) that confirms the fault exactly as she described it when she first called them – but Acer now claims that a ‘mark’ has apparently appeared on the laptop, and has conveniently concluded that it must have been damaged.  However, seeing as there was no mark on it when it left our house, this alleged damage has either happened in transit back to them or at their end. 

My daughter’s got onto the Office of Fair Trading and they say she is clearly entitled to a replacement, free repair or refund.   But of course, Acer is still trying to fob her off. 

What is the matter with this company?  They’ve sold a faulty unit and are legally obliged to sort it out.  There is simply no doubt or debate about it. 

So, curious about Acer’s track record, I did a quick search – and unfortunately, it seems like this is a common ploy.  On the PC Review forum, for example, there is an Acer thread complaining about poor support that runs to 27 pages.

Acer is clearly a company with some serious problems in the areas of product quality, customer support and meeting its legal obligations.  But just how long does it think it can get away with this behaviour? 

The internet has taken ‘people power’ to a whole new level of influence – and when unhappy consumers make their voices heard online, companies have to take them seriously or suffer the consequences. 

The 1.65 Billion Dollar Question

By Richard Scarlett

I used to have a very low opinion of the so-called ‘MySpace’ generation and their websites littered with grainy, user-generated content.  Just a channel for socially inept teenagers and/or geeks of a certain age parading often intimate details of their lives before an audience of 'virtual' friends. Or so I thought…

Well, sitting here writing my latest blog, clearly my opinion has changed.

The question that I’m now asking myself is does ‘Web 2.0’ signal a depletion or development of our social skills?  I mean nowadays, it’s often a case of “I’ll meet you online,” rather than “meet you in the bar,” and popularity is increasingly measured by how many hits, comments or linked-in friends one manages to accumulate. 

My own take on it is that people are migrating towards personal page creation and uploading videos in a reflection of our “fifteen minutes of fame” era of Big Brother, I’m A Celebrity… and Strictly Natasha Kaplinsky.  Everybody seems to want a piece of the action and everybody seems to love the attention – just check out all those users with numerous profile pages or a catalogue of personal videos to rival Universal Pictures.

No wonder then, with millions of profiles and videos viewed each day, that new media players such as Google et al are writing billion dollar cheques and talking about the massive financial potential of sites such as YouTube.  But the question remains:

How do you actually convert this latest craze into a money-spinning cash cow?

Advertising revenue would seem to be the obvious solution , but when you’re dealing with a community of headstrong, cynical users who are a) used to getting something for nothing and b) have no intention of paying subscriptions or viewing adverts that they didn’t request (hence the current popularity of Sky Plus and Tivo), this will be no simple task.

One social networking icon about to dip its toes into the murky pool of advertising is Second Life.  As a broadband TV service is launched within this strange little world, users can pick and choose Sky-type viewing packages and let their virtual alter ego while away the hours vegging out on their pixelated sofas.  The idea is that viewers watch programmes in a ‘branded environment’ that allows for unobtrusive, ‘ambient’ advertising…

(However, I find myself wondering exactly what kind of person would be prepared to pay real money for a digital replica of themselves to watch a TV within a computer screen in a synthetic parallel universe.  Anybody…?)

Still, I’m sure that Google - having followed the example of Rupert Murdoch and thrown a little pocket change into this fresh market - will find a way to crack those social freeloaders and reap the benefits of its YouTube investment.

Even if it does mean shrewdly gathering and selling the information provided at each video upload by the unsuspecting user – who is too busy storyboarding their next masterpiece to notice anyway…

The new networking – I’ll get my sleeping bag…

By Laura Cooper

During the last .com boom, ‘networking’ was one of the buzz words, being both a signifier of the newly-connected times and a popular way to ‘share’ knowledge, information and resources between companies and individuals.  However, more often than not, networking events just ended up becoming a front for marketing personnel to ‘sell-in’ their services/flaunt their egos, with no real strategic partnerships being formed. 

Michael Parsons, writing in The Times, sums it up nicely when he describes these events as bringing together a bunch of “badly dressed people with business cards to exchange lies about their website readership and drink a lot of nasty white wine”.

Parsons goes on to sing the praises of the Web 2.0 era, where like-minded people can exchange ideas and opinions in ‘cyberspace’ instead of conference space.  This has opened the doors to the kind of networking that social events in the eighties often failed to achieve – sharing the intelligence and resources of those people who really have a passion for the businesses in which their expertise lies.  It almost goes without saying that the people whose job it is to be at the cutting edge of technology trends ie. CTOs, developers, IT managers, are often heavily involved in social networking online.

The problem is, a lot of this discussion goes on in breezy online web chats left completely unsupervised, meaning that the outcome of these influential meetings of minds often remain archived away in the depths of the internet where even Google can’t reach.

As such, we’re now seeing the rise of a new form of face to face networking – the BarCamp. It’s a new wave of unconferencing - and it is every tech geek’s dream.

Basically, the BarCamp concept evolved from a Open Space Technology process in which the content of a conference is decided by the participants during the event, rather than by an outside organiser. The idea behind this is the ‘law of two feet’ – a foot in passion and a foot in responsibility – meaning that those who have the interest drive the sessions, in a spur of the moment and spontaneous manner.

BarCamps follow this principle to the letter.  Held all around the world, these events are open to all, but are designed to encourage key influencers from a particular industry to attend. Instead of an entrance fee, each participant is asked to run their own seminar on a topic of their choice. Their name and the title of the seminar they are leading is then placed up on a board against a particular time and area. Held in relaxed settings, delegates are then open to attend the sessions they are interested in, which are often very laid-back presentations or informal discussion forums.

At the end of the day, the group is then brought together, with a beer and a pizza to share what they have learnt that day and discuss on a wider platform the way their industry is going and how it may evolve in the future. Quite often these discussions - driven by the passion and interest of those who are in attendance - have gone on late into the night and organisers quickly took to writing ‘can bring a sleeping bag’ on the invites – hence the name BarCamps.

The overwhelming popularity of these unconferences has often been attributed to the ‘free flow’ nature and open forum style of their approach. This type of event brings the benefits of social networking online together with the advantages of face-to-face contact with key influencers – without the expense and formality of other conferencing techniques. They are on the rise in the tech sector, and I’m sure we’ll see the BarCamp format being adapted for a variety of other industries in the future.