What’s with Verizon Billing & Customer Service?

Feb 2012 UPDATE:
Verizon billing misfeasance—just keeps getting worse

At the end of 2011, Verizon announced a ‘bill-paying’ fee that would be charged even if payment was made on time and online. They did this to discourage payment of individual monthly invoices, and push users, instead, to authorize direct debit from credit card and checking accounts. To avoid the new fee, users must allow Verizon to dip into the till without any involvement of the user.

Although the proposal was not a ‘trial balloon’ (Verizon actually believed users wouldn’t mind paying for the privilege of paying!),  they were met with overwhelming publicity and a scathing consumer reaction. The plan was scrapped within 48 hours.

But since the article appeared, many Wild Ducks were less concerned about Verizon’s fee schedule and more interested in the billing & support problems that plague Verizon TV and Internet, especially the wholesale inability to honor FIOS bundle promotions.

Billing integrity is abhorrent. I suspect an audit of 100 customer accounts would reveal errors in the invoices or ACH debits of every one. In my own account, Verizon made scores of credit adjustments, but only after hundreds of calls & complaints. Jump directly to the relevant section.

When I launched A Wild Duck, I promised myself that this humble soap box would never be used for a personal gripe or vendetta. So let me get this out up front: This is a personal gripe. It’s not about the Verizon decision to charge customers a fee to pay their bills (a decision that they announced and then retracted after just 48 hours). Well, it’s tangentially related, but at least it’s not specifically about that loony announcement.

The ISP and wireless behemoth that Americans just love to hate is technically superior in every sector they serve. The best cell phone network in North America. The best Internet Service in the world (many of us enjoy 100Mbps FIOS service in our homes). Incredible television choices at reasonable prices. All this technology and superb technicians when there is a problem. But wait!...

They keep gushing out fodder. This time, Verizon announced a $2 fee for any customer who pays their bill. Yes! A fee to pay bills by mail or even online – unless the customer consents to pre-authorized automatic debit.

The plan lasted for about 2 days. They retracted the goofy anti-customer measure when the Federal Trade Commission announced an investigation (Hey guys. It’s stupid, but it probably isn’t illegal) and when a grass roots backlash began from every corner of the country. In fact, during the waning hours of 2011, it was more like a tidal wave.

I won’t comment further on the idea of charging customers to pay bills. It’s so whacky that it defies comment. But let me explain why users might not wish to allow Verizon to transfer payments in the absence of active client participation..


What’s up with Verizon's Billing & Support?

• Even after 4 years—Verizon has difficulty honoring offers & incentives


• Renewal leads to endless billing errors & deplorable customer service


• Verizon continues billing errors, even after agents identify the problem


• Hundreds of calls, dozens of letters, constant apologies; Errors persist

Verizon should be permanently barred from interacting with any bank account. The amounts they debit have absolutely no bearing on the service package contracted by their clients! At least if you require them to mail invoices, you have a chance to demand corrections before payment. (But good luck. It can take literally hundreds of calls and complaints).

To make matters worse, Verizon sacked their customer support staff years ago. The remaining peons have been stripped of authority and tools. They simply cannot solve problems, no matter how egregious! (This has been acknowledged to me by numerous telephone support specialists who wish that they had mechanisms to solve serious and blatantly obvious snafus. They can’t even elevate serious billing problems).

Case Study:  Me!

I am an early adopter of direct debit payment (ACH & EFT). Since the 1980s, I have allowed a few vendors to debit my checking account for monthly services. This is how I pay for my mortgage, electric & gas bills, UPS package delivery, and other monthly services. I used to allow Verizon the same access to sweep their monthly service fee from my checking account. "Why not?" you ask. After all, It saves time, avoids late fees, and – as a diversified conglomerate – they can certainly keep their records straight. Right? Not on your life! For the past three years, I have blocked Verizon from dipping into my bank account. Instead, I use single payments for a practical reason...

Verizon has cut back on customer service to such an extent that they debit the wrong amount more frequently than the correct amount (no exaggeration!). In fact, in just 40 months, they have made more than 120 corrections to my bill and issued almost a dozen apologies. The problem is biggest with their FIOS and One Bill program (which folds in your VZ Wireless bill). They also have trouble with accurate billing for their "triple-play" bundles, especially if you choose a plan that aggregates your wireless phones.

I feel sorry for the Verizon customer who fails to regularly check their bank statement for EFT/ACH debits. With an almost complete lack of customer support, it sometimes takes legal threats (or waiting for service to be cut off) before getting Verizon to correct a litany of errors.

Why put up with such negligent customer service? It transcends misfeasance! One reason: Without question, Verizon serves up the best TV, Internet and wireless service in every market they serve. I freely acknowledge a terrific product suite. Cable TV companies and satellite services don’t even come close. Verizon never has a blackout or glitch, they replace equipment on demand, they don't over-compress the TV signal and their FIOS speeds don’t degrade as neighbors jump on the bandwagon. In short, their "product-service" is terrific. But what about customer service?...

After 120 credits (and more than 150 phone calls to get them corrected), I finally had it! I called to disconnect service. Guess what? They lowered the price to keep my business. At first, I said “No.” I was really, really, really fed up. They didn't just lower it once, but three times on the same call—a discount of more than $50 each month, a free DVR and a bump up to unlimited data on my smart phone. Even more surprising, they threw more senior and more professional resources at saving my business than ever offered in the past. They bent over backwards to retain my good will, and in the end, I capitulated... I accepted an outrageously grand offer.

And what happened after they created a new bundle price for me (confirmed in writing). You guessed it! The discount never stuck. Each month thereafter, I was billed the wrong amount. Did I complain? Yes. Every single month. I got profuse apologies (“up the Gazoo” as they say). Eventually, a telephone representative told me that there is simply no mechanism to automatically apply special “customer retention” offers. So she offered to apply the discount each month a few days after the regular invoice is generated. Mind you, a separate representative was manually crediting a “Triple Play” bundle discount because the company had no process for honoring a nationally advertised service packages that included wireless services.

On top of all this, their unified One Bill program was a month behind in showing credits and payments, so I never knew what to pay!

Does this method of manual intervention work? Sort of...about 1/3 of the time. The rest of the time, I must call (it takes 3 or 4 calls) and persuade the first few representatives that I am the beneficiary of a “customer retention” offer. Then, these jokers need to find the representative who made the rebate offer. Then, my call is mysteriously dropped, or – get this – a tin plated, middle manager picks up the line and tells me that the original employee acted without authority. Whoahh?! I reprint transcripts of everything and resend a few legal demand notices (8 times last year!). Eventually, the original rep calls me back. Another apology, retroactive credit, and another promise, and...

Does this sound like a company that has its act together? Is this a vendor to be trusted with the keys to your bank account? I think not, Toto! Against the advice of my own family, I have still remained a Verizon customer. Alas, it is difficult to give up terrific products (Wireless phones, TV, Internet and tethering) and of course, very significant concessions to keep my business. But I certainly wouldn’t put up with this, if it weren’t for a massive incentive: about $600 off of their discount bundle and that’s on top of advertised incentives.

Note to Verizon Stock Holders: Imagine how much more your company would earn if they didn’t have to give so much back to disgruntled customers. If I held equity in Verizon or Vodafone, I would demand an accounting of post-facto givebacks. I bet that you will find a universe of lost revenue.

SOPA: Barricading the Information Superhighway

If you haven’t heard about SOPA — the Stop Online Piracy Act — you will soon. The bill aimed at halting digital piracy is being debated in a Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives. It is expected to pass both the House and Senate.

• SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?  (from Engadget)


• [Full list of supporters]

Despite the likelihood of ratification, it is almost comical how former supporters are defecting and trying to distance themselves from it as a vote approaches. Most notably, GoDaddy, the giant of Internet hosting and domain registration. They pulled their support as they became the target of a grass roots boycott

Will it pass? Perhaps. Can it be enforced? Of course not! Will it change anything. No. This leads to an obvious question: Why bother? The answer is typical of Washington politics: SOPA is supported inside the beltway because law makers are out of touch, because Hollywood and the music industry have effective lobbyists, and because it makes for good politics. [continued below]...



But what about the underlying issue? Is digital piracy wrong? Is it reasonable and just to at least try to stem the tide? The cause is just but the proposed mechanism of enforcement is not. In fact, almost any effort to stop digital piracy is futile. The problem must be addressed by rethinking the very purpose and nature of copyright law.

I have mixed feelings about casual consumer piracy of copyright content (music, movies, books and software). My brother will not watch a movie streamed from my home server, because he questions the legality of the original source or rip. Yet he allows his children to use my Netflix account even though it is not authorized for access from his home TV. (He rationalizes that at least someone has licensed the content!). I get it. I realize that some of my music and movies were copied without permission, but I actually own most of the originals. It was simply easier to grab it from Napster or Bit Torrent than to locate and RIP my own CD, DVD or Blu-Ray. Without trying too hard to get into the philosophical argument (is it theft? is it fair? is it enforceable?), SOPA goes too far. It doesn’t criminalize behavior (digital pirates are already breaking the law). Rather, it makes a snitch out of the carrier and then requires the carrier to actively participate in blocking the transmission.

This is feel good politics at its worst. What’s wrong with it?...

• It can’t work. The economics of free content combined with improving mechanisms of anonymity guarantee that digitized works will spring eternal through other channels. Political restrictions only undermine the growth and influence of the Internet, but not it’s distributed and empowering nature.


• It leads to a police state – and a very slippery slope!


• It shifts the burden of protecting content & policing users to the wrong parties


• It defies the principles that make the internet robust, open & productive. While this may sound like a cop out, I honestly believe that we should not cripple the medium. There are other ways to skin this cat.

By now, Wild Ducks know the drill: So sayeth Ellery!

Will a ban on hand’s free phones make driving safer?

The National Traffic Safety Board is very concerned about distracted driving. Their research and testimony was instrumental in shaping statutes in 35 states that ban texting while driving and the 9 states that ban the use of handheld phones (many more states have partial restrictions). If you have ever tried using a tiny keyboard (for example, typing a destination into a GPS device) while gliding down a highway or even a side street, then you know it is very risky to say the least.

Studies on the effects of laws are often ambiguous, because so many extraneous variables are at play before and after the law goes into effect. But in the case of texting while driving, studies are conclusive. Applying this data, I am reasonably confident that at least 3 people reading this blog in the week it was posted are alive because of one of these laws.

When the NTSB first suggested that handheld use of cell phones should be banned, I was surprised at the specificity of their wrath. Don’t we already punish “Driving while distracted”? Keeping laws general seems so much simpler and fair. Why should a cell phone user be restricted but not the lady in the next lane applying mascara or the guy drinking coffee and shaving at the same time?

Perhaps one reason for a targeted restriction is because the technology is newer and more insipid. It takes a few years before most drivers recognize how dangerous it is to hold a portable device while driving. In my opinion, a phone is used in a very different manner than a cup of coffee. Doing those other things (applying makeup and shaving) is just plain stupid. These things require that your eyes and full attention be on the mirror and not the road.

Perhaps a ban on cell phones is palatable because it relieves traffic officers and courts from the vagaries of interpretation. Either way, I accept the restriction. I make a serious effort to ensure that an automatic hands free connection is established each time that I enter my car. I wasn’t truly happy with wireless speakerphones until I found a simple and effective Bluetooth speaker that recognized when I was inside the vehicle. The detection of an occupant is a major step forward, because it ensures that calls from home are not hijacked by the device in my parked car.

But now, the NTSB has gone too far. They are recommending a complete ban on the presence of mobile phones in cars. What’s next? Why not Prohibit drivers from talking with passengers? (Apparently, they believe that talking with a caller is more dangerous). Even if studies demonstrate a link between talking and safety, the research technique cannot possibly factor in the dramatically increased safety and reduced driving of those who keep in touch with business and loved ones, especially if the call pertains to their reason for driving in the first place.

Consider an example: Suppose that the research conclusively demonstrates that a call doubles the chance of a serious accident from 1 in 150,000 miles to 2 in 150,000 miles. What if the call removed the car from the road because the whole trip is unnecessary? Is that covered by the study? For example, suppose that you are rushing to the airport to pick up an elderly relative who is ill and forgot critical medicine. They don’t speak English and – well – you get the idea... You are under stress, speeding and very concerned about someone else’s safety. Anyone will acknowledge that the risk of an accident is heightened. You are aware of this, but you are good driver. You are not tired and you weigh the risk against your personal mission.

Now suppose that this relative called you from another airport. They missed their flight and they will not be arriving as expected. But wait! They ran into the family doctor at the airport. He has the required medicine and will even give Grandpa a lift home. I realize that the example is a bit contrived and melodramatic, but the gist is broadly applicable. Accepting the call in the car not only removes a source of stress, it makes the entire trip unnecessary. While not every call saves tires, gas, stress and lives—many calls make business and personal life more efficient. In turn, this reduces stress and the need to drive. The relationships between these things are intangible and difficult to measure, but the net effect is very tangible. It would be difficult to incorporate control mechanisms that relate to these factors and almost impossible to set controls and measure results. (How is overall traffic safety influenced by reducing the need to drive? The influence goes beyond the individual driver!) They are perhaps more important components of overall safety than all the things that can be measured.

Banning the use of all telephone communication in cars is not just foolish, it is political idiocy. Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks so. If you don’t agree with me after the very slightest of reflection then post a comment. But be prepared for my retort. In my opinion, anyone who disagrees with me just hasn’t thought enough about the issue! (Eventually, you will get it right!)

More reading:

• States that ban cell phones while driving (but permit use with a hands free device)


• States that ban texting while driving


• Research shows hands-free phones just as risky  (Poppycock!)

 

Christmas Trees & Menorahs: No place on Public Property

In 1990 and 1991, an atheist organization filed suit against cities and towns in Illinois, including Rolling Meadows, Zion and Palatine. It argued that a religious symbol in the official city seal constituted government recognition of a religion and caused harm. A city seal appears everywhere that official business is conducted. It is emblazoned on permits, forms, stationery, recycle bins, police cars, and even street signs.

At first, the towns fought back, arguing that a Latin cross in the corner of a city seal, an angel or a reference to God represents an aspect of town heritage and history. In fact, some towns were settled for religious reasons during colonial times. They also pointed out that US currency displays the words “In God We Trust” and that religious motifs are enshrined in government documents, buildings, history and even cited by our founding fathers.

Although decisions were split, the plaintiffs won their case on most counts and in most cities. Religious icons were stripped from the seals and eventually the court houses of many towns. Some civic leaders considered appealing the decisions, but after losing hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the initial action, most towns gave up the fight and agreed to remove religious symbols.

How is it that a religious symbol can cause harm? For an atheist, I am a bit puzzled. To them, I would think that it should be no different than an artifact of fables and legend. But for people of other faiths, I certainly understand the problem. In one case that gained brief, national attention, the wife of a Rabbi covered the seal on her recycling bin and on an automobile windshield sticker. But this small act of protest had repercussions. The municipal government blocked her trash pickup and fined her for not displaying (or perhaps defacing) a required vehicle permit.

Before this post attracts all sorts of rants from the right, please consider this. Asking a devout Jew to display a crucifix in front of her home, even if it is small, is no different than asking a devout Muslim to wear a Star of David for the purpose of gaining access to the town dump. Preposterous! Even if the effect is unintended, the incorporation of religion into government – even if symbolic – is not harmless. It is intimidating, unfair and a form of bullying. It says that the town recognizes and serves this citizen, but not that one.

Some will argue that in a democracy, “Majority rules”. But this cliché is a bastardization of democracy. This type of thinking leads to Fascism. A true democracy protects the rights of individuals and never forces citizens into acts that benefit no one and isolate individuals. Rather, democracies actively protect diversity. For this reason, I stand with the Rabbi’s wife.

But let's move forward 20 years. It is now Christmas 2011. Why, today, do most towns still decorate Christmas Trees on public property? I have no idea! Christians should be even more outraged than atheists and people of other faiths. Having government usurp a matter of family and personal faith is trite, insulting and nauseating. It is far worse than the commercial exploitation of faith that we see in malls and on television.

The issue is reaching a boiling point in the town of Evergreen Colorado, in which I have a friend. The town offered local Jews “equal access” by placing a giant menorah next to the town Christmas tree. The pendulum is swinging wildly this week. Early this week, newspapers reported Evergreen Bans Menorah, Keeps Christmas Tree, but just as abruptly, the two sides reached an accommodation. Now they are again saying “Let's drape our court house in both faiths.”  If I were a local Jewish leader in Evergreen, I certainly wouldn’t want a symbol of a minor children’s holiday placed next to a Christmas tree. For God’s sake, get rid of both!

Do you really want equal time and equal space for Jewish symbols amongst Christian symbols?! Doesn’t that open a can of worms? What about Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and Wicca? Does each minority get a symbol on the front lawn of City Hall?

Rather than “Equal Time” for flaunting Jewish holidays & symbols. I would much prefer that governments get out of the religion business altogether! It's trite, bigoted and incredibly insulting. I have never understood why governments like to erect Christmas trees. I would rather teach my children that faith is expressed by the faithful and within their respective communities. Let us please end state funding or any state recognition of religious holidays & events. Let the tree to Christ go up on private property and let the Menorah go up on Mr. Levine’s front lawn or in front of Weinstein’s Deli (I made up the names, but you get the point).

[caption id="attachment_906" align="alignright" width="227"] Why not display a religious alphabet soup to assuage all residents?[/caption]

What about the The Salvation Army? Projects of missionaries, and some self-help groups. Should they be granted meeting rooms in schools or donation pots at the post office? Of course not! Let them find donors in a church parking or at the entrance of Wal-Mart. (I am not arguing against retailers making their own decision). But wait? Is the Salvation Army a religious organization? Many people believe that their motives are as benign as the Girl Scouts. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it seems reasonable to ask what the “Salvation” Army is trying to save?!

Should there be exceptions to my rule?

Sure! Every restriction should accommodate facts on the ground and be applied within reason. Even though Hanukkah is a minor children's holiday blown out of proportion because of proximity to Christmas,  I accept that our national holidays include Christmas, Easter and the Gregorian New Year (I won’t even call that last one ‘religious’). The plurality of Christians is a fact and it seems reasonable that major holidays convenience the largest group. Likewise, I appreciate the fact that towns with a large Jewish population (like Brookline and Sharon in Massachusetts) structure the school calendar to accommodate Passover and Yom Kippur. I wouldn't demand that the holiday be recognized (not even locally), but on the other hand, I bet families in these towns appreciate that teachers accommodate individual students who cannot attend on those few days.

What about the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts? Fortunately, the Girl Scouts are not religious at all (they are not affiliated with the Boy Scouts). However, the Boy Scouts credo and pledge includes an oath of anti-atheism, and of course, they tried hard to block gay scouts and leaders. Alas, this isn’t a perfect world. Personally, I overlook the subtle and non-pervasive remnants of intolerance and religion in the Boy Scouts as long as their regional outposts are inclusive and accommodating. Their record is mixed, but religion is certainly a very minor footnote in their activities.

I have no problem with a school giving after school meeting space to scouts, as long as the on-site affairs are completely nonreligious and as long as the donation of space and service is treated like any other non-profit (e.g. the Red Cross or a local food drive).

So Sayeth Ellery. Tell me what you think.

Does a Blogger qualify as “journalist”?

The world is filled with nut cases, and Marco A. Hernandez, a U.S. District Court judge in Portland OR is one of them. Dr. Prague points out in a comment below, there are two sides to every story. In this case, the other side is written by David Carr and appeared in today’s New York Times. It is compelling and it forces me to reassess my acrimonious attack on Judge Hernandez. I may have inserted foot in mouth and then inserted it further. Read the rest of my early morning rant with a grain of salt...

This month, Judge Hernandez ruled that Bloggers who fail to show ties to an established newspaper, magazine or news bureau (presumably, it must be one that this nut case has heard of), are not in fact legitimate writers, editors or journalists. In his view, if a journalist’s podium is the internet of if they lack mainstream affiliation, or if they are self-published, then they are disqualified from the protection of the shield law, a basic statutory protection for anyone who publishes.

[caption id="attachment_857" align="alignright" width="250"] Will Judge Hernandez subpoena every Facebook user?[/caption]

The title of this post asks “Does a Blogger qualify as journalist”. Of course, the answer is clear: One can argue over the truth of a report, quality of writing or credibility of a publisher (in the case of a Blog, the publisher may also be author & editor). But few argue over the credentials necessary to be a journalist. Anyone with a soap box qualifies, if they believe what they say and they reach out to listeners. It doesn’t matter how small is their podium, how unpopular their message, and it certainly doesn’t matter if they are self published. This is the 21st century, Judge! The Internet may not be The Great Equalizer,  but it certainly bestows a badge of editor, publisher and journalist on anyone who chooses to broadcast news and opinions.

Of course, other judges, lawyers and legal scholars around the country – including the attorney who drafted the shield law for Washington state – point out that Oregon's definition of journalism “a bit outdated”. (a term of professional courtesy...The attorney wanted to say that Judge Hernandez is a nut case). Who appointed him arbiter of the affiliations that constitute a credible journalist? What about editorial pundits, Facebook housewives, and foreigners writing overseas? Will he go after them for failing to reveal their sources?

It’s a safe bet that Judge Hernandez’s decision will be overturned in the near future, if only for the uncountable number of Bloggers whom he suddenly turned into criminals. But just in case Crystal Cox, the Blogger-defendant does not pursue an appeal, or in the event some other yahoo strips my freedom from a bench closer to my jurisdiction, let’s be clear about this blog. Consider it the fine print for all of AWildDuck.com:

This Blog represents the opinions of the editor & publisher or the guest writer whose contribution appears under the Wild Duck banner.

In the event that our writers use confidential sources, these sources will remain confidential until the source releases our writer from that obligation. In the case of guest writers, even our editor & publisher does not demand to know the identities of confidential sources. Our writers and various columnists are vetted and then invited based on their individual reputation. In turn, this reflects on the reputation and journalistic stature of AWildDuck Blog.

But let’s be clear: Everything you read on these pages is an opinion. All unsigned posts are the ruminations & opinions of Ellery Davies. In fact, there is but one statement of fact that is not an opinion. It is this: U.S. District Court judge Marco A. Hernandez is a nut case. I may need to perform surgery here — perhaps a complete retraction. Please don’t judge the judge until you read this new information from today’s New York Times.

So sayeth Ellery.

Michele Bachmann: Trouble responding to 8yr old boy

Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are like the Bobbsey Twins. Two peas in a pod. You already know my feelings about Palin. But lately, Wild Ducks have asked me to comment on Bachmann.

Today’s post is not an opinion, but this short video is priceless. Pure fluff, but priceless!

An 8 year old boy accompanies his mom to a Michele Bachmann book signing. The child approaches Bachmann to ask a question, but is too shy and too soft to be heard. Bachmann is interested in hearing what the youngster has to say. She pulls the boy close so that he can whisper into her ear. Click below to see the video  [continued]...

[caption id="attachment_838" align="aligncenter" width="481"] Implored by a child...How can a family-values zealot respond?[/caption]

The camera and microphone are close and they pick up everything! He whispers “My mommy is gay, but she doesn't need any fixing.”

It’s not difficult to predict the outcome. How can she possibly respond? Certainly not coherently! Bachmann backs away, flushes and stumbles on the words “Bye-bye”, as handlers escort boy and Mom away from the unblinking eye of the camera...Priceless!

For those who don’t follow the GOP parade, Bachmann hubby Marcus runs a clinic that offers to “cure” gays. Of course, we mustn’t claim looniness by association. But wait! Michele appeared to advocate this approach prior to her candidacy.

Was the child set up by his mother to make a blatant pro-diversity stand? Of course! But still – this brief clip will go down as a priceless moment in campaigning history!

Verizon Wireless: Trouble with honesty & fairness

In the market for mobile phones, a time span of 7 years represents a different era altogether. At least 4 generations of hardware feature phones have come and gone. Seven years ago, there was no iPhone and no Android. Palm was king of PDAs, a class that was still separate from phones and browsers. Feature phones offered Symbian at best. (Who remembers Windows CE?).

Way back in 2004, Verizon crippled Bluetooth in the Motorola v710, the first mobile phone to support short range wireless technology. The carrier supported Bluetooth for connecting a headset and for voice dialing, but they blocked Bluetooth from transferring photos and music between a phone and the user’s own PC. More alarmingly, they displayed a Bluetooth logo on the outside of custom Verizon packaging, even though the logo licensing stipulated that all logical and resident Bluetooth “profiles” are supported.

(Disclosure: I was a plaintiff in a class action that resulted in free phones for users affected by the deception. I am not a ‘Verizon basher’. I have been a faithful client since early cell phones and I recently defended Verizon’s right to charge for off-device tethering.)

[caption id="attachment_800" align="alignright" width="212"] Can you hear me now?[/caption]

Why would Verizon cripple a popular feature that helps to differentiate and sell equipment? That’s an easy one. It forced users to transfer photos and music over the carrier network rather than exchange files directly with a PC. The carrier sells more minutes or costly data plans.

With the same motive, Verizon restricted feature phone apps to their Get it Now store, limiting music, games and ringtones to their own pipeline. Heck--Why not? It’s their ball park! Users can take their business to other carriers. Right? Well perhaps—but mobile service is built upon licensed spectrum, a regulated and limited commodity. Although carriers are not a monopoly in the strict sense (there are three or four carriers in populated regions), they are licensed stewards of an effective market duopoly.

Perhaps the longest lived vestige of Verizon's stodgy funk (and the most depressing) was their insistence on stripping pre-smart phones of the manufacturer’s user GUI and foisting users to navigate a bland set of carrier-centric screens and commands. Often, I would sit next to someone on an international flight who had the same model Motorola, Samsung or Nokia phone. And guess what? His carrier didn’t interfere with fascinating user features. Why did Verizon force their own screens on unsuspecting Americans? It meant that I could not set my phone to vibrate first and then ring with increasing volume over the next few seconds. What a great feature on my Moto i810! But it was stripped from subsequent models, because it wasn’t spec’d by the boys in Verizon’s “retrofit and bastardize” lab.

With the exception of the class action on the Bluetooth features, no legislation was needed to get Verizon to unlock phone features. Eventually a free market mechanism forced them to rethink their ivory tower greed. With AT&Ts market success selling iPhones, Verizon eventually capitulated so that they could become the Android market leader. The new strategy worked for both consumers and for Verizon. Even before they began selling iPhones in 2011, Verizon reasserted their position as the carrier of choice and fully justified their cost premium through excellent coverage and quality service.

[caption id="attachment_801" align="alignleft" width="300"] Hey, Verizon! Can you hear us now?![/caption]

But now, the company that I have learned to hate, love, and then curse, is at it again! They are about to introduce the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. It is only the 2nd Google branded Android (you can’t get closer to a pure Android experience!). But wait! News Flash: They are going to cripple a native Android feature. Just as with the Bluetooth debacle, Verizon claims that it is for the protection and safety of their own users. (Stop me, Mommy! I’m about to access a 3rd party service!).

Why doesn’t Verizon get it? Why can’t they see value in being the #1 carrier and base profit strategy on exceptional build out and service? Sure, I support their right to offer apps, music, ringtones, photo sharing, navigation, child tracking, mobile television, and even home control. These are great niches that can boost revenue. But remember that you are first and foremost a carrier. Just because you plan to enter one of these markets is no reason to cut off your own users from content and service options.

Think of this issue as your subscribers see it: Cutting off users from the Android wallet, because you plan to offer a payment mechanism of your own is no different than a phone service blocking calls to Bank of America because they are tied in with Citibank. If that metaphor doesn’t cut it, how about a simple truth? It’s been 22 years since Judge Harold Greene deregulated the telecommunications monopoly. Your company is both legacy and chief beneficiary of that landmark decision. But success is transient to those who use market penetration to restrict choice. And this time, it won't require anti-monopoly legislation. The market will push back hard and share recovery will be slow.

[caption id="attachment_806" align="alignright" width="265"] I'm taking my phone and going home![/caption]

Android is open. Get it? You have flourished recently, because you chose to embrace an open system that builds on its own popularity. You have contributed to its swift ascent, and likewise, Google and your users who like Android have contributed to your success. Why spit on your users now? What did we do to deserve this?

C’mon Verizon. Stop seizing your ball and threatening to close the ball park. We love you. Get it right for once and stop dicking with us. Our patience is wearing thin!

Photoshop Engineer Unblurs Motion & Restores Focus

Here is a quickie, Wild Ducks. File this one under "Wow!"

This demonstration by an Adobe PhotoShop developer forces me to rethink my understanding of focus and information recovery.

[caption id="attachment_770" align="alignright" width="294"] Deconvolution restores information, but only if captured in original image and obfuscated via a reversible & non-lossy process. The filter proves that motion blur meets the criteria. It is not indicative of missing information![/caption]

Until now, I thought that motion blur (example #1 in the video) and focus (example #2) were evidence of lost information—and therefore, they could not be overcome. That is, if a camera is out of focus or moving in relation to its subject, it is part way along the path to a complete loss of picture information (for example, a camera that is totally unfocussed or moving in a complete circle with the shutter open. In the extreme case, film is exposed to unfocussed light...no useful information). But this video proves that there exist algorithms that can make reasonable measurements and assumptions about the original scene and then recover sharpness and lost information.

Listen to the audience reaction at these times in the video:  1:17 & 3:33. The process is startling because it appears to recover information and not just perceived sharpness. Click for close ups of before-&-after that wow'd the audience  [Plaza]   [Cruise poster]

An existing 3rd party plugin, Focus Magic, may do the same thing. It is pitched to forensic investigators. (Note to Wild Ducks: Thwarting forensics is a noble calling). Focus Magic touts startling before-&-after photos of a blurry license plate which becomes easily readable after processing. Their web site highlights the restoration of actual sharpness through a process of deconvolution* as opposed to simply enhancing perceived sharpness by applying faux features such as unsharp mask or edge acutance. It is not clear if the two projects use the same underlying technique.

Implications for File Compression (e.g. JPEG)

Here’s something for armchair mathematicians to ponder. If we compare two compressed files: An image with sharp focus and an identical image that is unfocused but still recoverable, we see that the file size of the unfocused image is considerably smaller. In the past, we explained this based on the assumption that the unfocused image contains less information, as if we had resampled the original image at a lower resolution.

But if we our compressed file size relates to the information content of the uncompressed image, then how do we explain the smaller file size of an unfocused image? If detail in the unfocused image is recoverable, than we should be able to boost file compression by intentionally unfocusing images and then restoring focus during decompression. For example, suppose that we were to add this transformation to the JPEG compression formula. Could we compress images into significantly smaller files? In theory the same should be true for lossless compression methods such as TIF/CCITT.

* Deconvolution is a field of mathematics & signal processing that refers to the removal of noise or distortion and revealing meaningful information hidden within a polluted file or signal. What is surprising about the PhotoShop demonstration (and perhaps the process used by Focus Magic) is that there exists a deconvolution process for information that I had assumed was never captured during the original recording process.

Big biz & Uncle Sam like Tor, sort of...

Oceans of Data
Try to visualize all the data about you that is recorded, stored or transmitted each day in one form or another. Consider every possible source, both public and private. What if it could all be put together, correlated with data about every other person on earth and sifted by detectives whose only task is to look for subtle patterns of behavior?

Let’s start with phone calls: In addition to the number dialed, the phone company knows your location, the caller of ID of incoming calls, and even has access to the actual conversation. (Believe it or not, your government is listening). Check the phone bill of both parties and we can figure out how often you call each other. If we then learn everything we can about the people that you talk to, we can probably learn a thing or two about you. And speaking about location, did you know that both iPhones and Android phones log your precise location every few seconds and then transmit your location history to Apple or Google several times each hour? An even more ominous program discovered this week is embedded in Android phones. It sends every keystroke to your carrier even if you opt out.

What about your health records, magazine subscriptions, tax filings, legal disputes, mortgage records, banking transactions including charge card purchases? Now add your internet use – not just the sites at which you are registered, but every site you have ever visited. Suppose we add videos from convenience stores, traffic enforcement cameras and every ATM that you pass. Don't forget the snapshot at the toll booth. They have one camera pointed at your face and another at the license plate. Of course, there is also a log entry from the toll payment device on your windshield and the key chain FOB that you use when you buy gas.

What about the relationships that are revealed by your old high school yearbook, old newspaper articles or that 4th grade poetry contest your daughter was in. There was a handout that night and so it counts as information related to you. How about that camera in the elevator at work? Suppose that it could recognize your face immediately and match it up with your fingerprints from your last international flight and your phone calls, web visits, hotel reservations and TV viewing habits.

Whew! That's a lot of information to recognize or sift through in any meaningful way. But for a moment, ask yourself “What If”... What if all that data from every transaction record, GPS device, tax return and historical log could all be accurately attributed, correlated, matched and analyzed. What could be accomplished with all of this? Who wants it and for what purpose? Would their goals align with yours?

Person of Interest
In the CBS Television series, Person of Interest, a government computer looks for clues to the next terrorist event by monitoring virtually everyone and everything. The project doesn’t require its creators to build a new surveillance network. Massive amounts of data are already floating around us every day.

Of course, the data is fragmented. It was gathered for different reasons – mostly for private commerce (banking, medicine, safety). Few people consider it to impact privacy or personal freedoms, because we assume that It is too disparate and unwieldy for analysis by any single entity. Yet, in Person of Interest, the computer taps into all of these sources and mines the data for suspicious patterns.

As patterns emerge from all of this data, the computer finds converging threads based on individual behavior. Taken alone, the data points are meaningless — someone in Oregon signs for a package; someone using a different name in Rhode Island makes a plane reservation; someone in Pakistan fitting both descriptions checks into a motel and visits a convicted arms smuggler. The mobile phone carried by the last person accepts a phone call at a number previously used by one of the other individuals. Normally, no one could have ever fit these pieces together.

Eventually, the computer begins to identify suspicious activity. Depending on the programming and based on past findings, it even predicts events. But wait! Many of the patterns it finds are unrelated to terrorism. It finds clues to likely mob hits, crimes of passion, kidnapping, guns at school, and regional crime. The results are irrelevant to the machine's purpose and in this fictional drama, the government decide that analysis would constitute illegal domestic spying. So they order the programmer to purge "irrelevant data" by adding a software routine to periodically delete extraneous results.

Of course, if the "personal" results were deleted, we wouldn't have a new and exciting television series (my personal favorite). So, the middle-age geek who gave life to the analytics, recasts himself as a vigilante. He teams up with a former special ops agent (in the mold of Harrison Ford) and together, they follow data-mined leads in hope of saving innocent individuals.

In the US, our government has such a program. In fact, there are many Total Information Awareness projects. Unlike the Hollywood version, there was never any intent to purge personal information. In fact, it's collection and analysis is the whole point. Another difference with the television series is that our government is not satisfied to mine public data or even legally obtained data. Instead, The federal government adds new primary data mechanisms every month and builds enormous enterprises to spy on individuals. This results in voluminous information daily, all of it available for future data mining without anyone's knowledge or consent.

Of course, information and videos of individuals are routinely recorded wherever we go. But typically, we assume that this information is not centrally gathered, compared or analyzed. Most people assume that they are "off the radar" if they are not being actively tracked as part of an investigation. But with data mining techniques, no one is really off the radar. Machines make decisions about patterns that should be flagged and escalated for additional scrutiny.

Mixmaster: An Innocent Tool or Antiforensics?
In the 1990's, despite a background in cryptography and computer science, I wasn't aware of these programs. In the fields of political science and sociology, I was a ninnyhammer. It is either coincidence or perhaps prescience that I proposed and then participated in a project called a Mixmaster more than a decade ago...

The idea was simple: As you surf the web or send mail, your digital footprints are randomized so that an interloper or investigator could not piece together the participants in an internet exchange, nor determine the habits of an individual user. Well, they're not really random, but the IP address reported to the email service or web page you visit is substituted by one associated with another participant in the project. That's because each data leaving your PC is relayed through internet services associated with the others. We added a few simple facets to further obscure tracks:

• 
  
  Recognizing that a rogue participant might keep a log on the individuals who hand off data through his own relay (or may be compelled to do so in the future), our code automatically increased the number of 'hops' in relationship to the number of available peers. Anonymity was enhanced, because an unfriendly investigator attempting to trace the source of a web visit or email would need cooperation from a larger pool of participants.


• 
  
  Data between participants ware encrypted and randomized in length and even timing, to thwart possible forensic analysis.


• 
  
  A backward channel was added, but with very tight rules on expiration and purging. This allowed packet acknowledgement, web site navigation, and even two-way dialogue while still preserving anonymity.

Privacy & Politics
For most of us involved in the project, we had no endgame or political agenda. We simply recognized that it is occasionally comforting to send email, browse the web or post to a public forum without leaving a traceable return address. To those who claimed that our work might aid money launderers, terrorists or child molesters, we explained that identification and authentication should be under control of parties involved in a conversation. The internet is a new communications medium. But it was not designed to undermine the privacy of every conversation for the purpose of facilitating future forensic investigation. Investigators – if their purpose is supported by judicial oversight –have many old school methods and tools to aid their detective work. The growth of a new communication medium must not become a key to suppression or compromised privacy.

[caption id="attachment_702" align="alignright" width="254"] Vacuum-cleaner surveillance[/caption]

Anonymous, but authenticated
There is a big difference, between identification and authentication. In a democracy, citizens are authenticated at the polls. But they enter a private booth to cast their vote and they turn in a ballot without a signature. They are identified (or even better, authenticated without identification) for the purpose of verifying eligibility. But their identity is not carried over to their voting decision. The real business is effectively anonymous.

This isn't to say that all authorized entry systems should allow anonymous access. Of course not! Access entry systems typically might asks "Who are you?" (your User ID) and then ask for proof (typically a password). Your identity is not always required, but proof of authorized access can come in 3 forms. Very secure systems (such as banks) require at least 2 of these before allowing access:

• something you know: A password or challenge


• something you have: Evidence that you have a token or card


• something you are:    A fingerprint, recognizable face, or voice match

In each case, it is the person behind the door that needs your identity or authorization and not your government.

Anonymity and encryption go hand in hand. Both technologies are used to ensure that internet communication is private and does not become the affair of your friends, employer, former spouse, or government overseers. So where, exactly, does your government stand on the use of internet encryption or anonymity? In most of the world, the answer is clear. Governments stand for propaganda and crowd control. They are against any technology that enhances privacy. But this is not a universal axiom: In Germany, they stand on the side of citizens. Your data and your identity belong to you. Very little of your affairs are open to the government. But in the United States, the answer is very murky...

[caption id="attachment_707" align="alignleft" width="250"] The NSA conducts vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all data crossing the Internet--email, web surfing… everything!  --Mark Klein[/caption]

Under George W. Bush, every bit of information was Uncle Sam's business. With oversight by Dick Cheney (and hidden from legislative or judicial oversights), the executive branch concocted mechanisms of blatant domestic spying. Of course, the ringleaders realized that each mechanism violated the US constitution protection from unreasonable search, and so it was ordered and implemented covertly until a technician working for AT&T blew the whistle. Suddenly stories were surfacing that Uncle Sam was implementing a Reagan era project that had been shelved during the Clinton era. This launched a scramble to win public support for The Patriot Act, an absurd euphemism which attempts to whitewash illegal snooping as the patriotic duty of each citizen (talk about ‘deceptive’! Our leaders must think that we are sheep. Not just your garden variety grass-eating sheep, but really, really dumb sheep that feed on bull chips!).

       -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-   (writing in progress)

... until  and  (including preemptive data mining with programs like Dick Cheney's "total information awareness"), back doors built into encryption chips, "deep packet" data sniffing installed at  major switching center, satellite interception of phone calls, and national security letters (a euphemism for warrantless snooping).

Before the Obama administration, the answer was clear. These technologies are barely tolerated for banking, medicine and commerce. But they are to be weakened, subterfuged or thwarted when used by private citizens. In each case, the government sought to block the technology or insert a back door into the programming code (and into actual data centers) for use during any future investigation. Of course, in a bold era of predictive behavior modeling, authorized investigations often gives way to fishing expeditions for the sole purpose of information gathering.

But something has changed in the past 2 years. As news spread about Internet censorship in China, the Arab spring, and covert schools for girls in Taliban controlled regions of Afghanistan, the US government began to recognize that uncensored and even untraceable Internet use sometimes coincided with foreign policy objectives. Imagine the conundrum this revelation must have generated within the state department! On the one hand, the Patriot Act sanctions blatant acts of domestic spying (including preemptive data mining with programs like Dick Cheney's "total information awareness"), back doors built into encryption chips, "deep packet" data sniffing installed at  major switching center, satellite interception of phone calls, and national security letters (a euphemism for warrantless snooping). Yet, they also support freedom of speech and privacy for anything that supports US policy amongst our friends.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Today, this model has been widely adopted and greatly enhanced by an open source project called Tor. In this blog, I won't try to justify the need for robust anonymous relays. Better writers and social philosophers than me have explained why free and anonymous communications channels are central to a free and democratic society. Better writers than me have chronicled the abuse of the Patriot Act, Echelon, TIA and numerous other abuses of government forms of overreach. Better writers than me have explained how open and free communication leads to increased safety even if it sometimes facilitates communications among terrorists, digital pirates or pornographers.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Turn of Events: Government as Advocate

• Obama lends support to Tor


• Tor to users: Use Amazon Cloud as bridge to anonymity  (this section under development)

Additional Reading

• Carrier IQ (CIQ): A secret routine is embedded in Android phones sends every user keystroke to the network carrier, even when you opt out of every single connectivity feature. It cannot be uninstalled and cannot be uninstalled nor even shut down!


• Surrounded by Surveillance: Is Everything Spying On You?
  
  [caption id="attachment_784" align="alignright" width="256"] Pigeons aren't the only ones listening. The light pole itself broadcasts conversations.[/caption]
  
  Even municipal light posts send conversations to government agencies, supposedly to aid first responders in an emergency. But wait! The manufacturer “proudly contacted DARPA” to suggest a more sinister use for the data collected from hidden microphones?


• Wikipedia entry: Information Awareness Office (introduction & overview)


• Official DARPA site: Information Awareness Office


• The Smoking Gun: Discovery of Massive "Vacuum Sweep" Domestic Spying
  Leads to Patriot Act (euphemism for act of Profound Anti-Americanism)

Droid RAZR for 1¢? Max time-value compression

Most of the things that we own are more valuable when new — at least in the period before they become antiques or “ collectibles” (a term for anything that brings nostalgia to aging baby boomers). The value drops over time, because potential buyers are interested in the next hot item.

I’m not referring to asset depreciation as with a car or an old pair of jeans. These things lose value because they deteriorate as they are used. (My kids pay big bucks for used jeans, but they claim that they’re not used, but rather, distressed. Go figure! No, I am referring to the cost difference of buying something new today-vs-buying the same model in 6 months or a year. If it has not slipped into the realm of “antique”, then it’s hotness drops rapidly.

Example #1
Yesterday, I was traveling in New England. I purchased a Sunday Boston newspaper for $3.50. (Well, OK—I paid $4 due to a quirk of local geography).* What do you suppose that my paper will be worth after 2 days? That’s easy! Just as with stock quotes, information loses value rapidly. After 1 or 2 days my newspaper will line a bird cage, or get tossed into the recycle bin. It's also pretty useful when dashing into a taxi through the rain.

A few online news outlets reverse this model by making current news available for free and charging for access to archives. This is a transient effect of booming internet growth and the fact that older articles have not yet been digitized. When consumers figure out that anything previously free on the web can always be located for free, this model will fall into the dustbin of history.

Example #2
In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone to throngs of gear heads camped out at stores overnight. Were you surprised at a $200 price drop after two months? Few would be surprised today. Even an iPhone is superseded by other gadgets after a few months. The cost dropped because of a drop in pent up demand and an increase in supply.

Additional examples are all around us. Movies cost $10 when released to theaters. Within 2 months, Netflix pushes them through an all-you-can-eat pipe. Even Avatar was available on DVD and Blu-ray within weeks, and at a fraction of the cost of a night at the movies. (Less, if you have figured out how to use a Torrent).

Enough economics & history. Now, for a WildDuck observation...

[caption id="attachment_652" align="alignleft" width="129"] 9 days = $320.[/caption]

Even with the historical perspective of the iPhone cost plunge, I was dumb struck by an offer from Amazon Wireless, a Verizon reseller. Anyone reading this in 2011 knows that the hottest recent phone is the Motorola Droid RAZR, especially if you choose Android over Apple. I want this phone and if I hadn’t been traveling when it was introduced on 11/11/11 (at 11:11 AM), I would have nabbed one at full price. After all, it certainly won’t drop significantly in price during the first 10 days, right?

Wrong! Despite a phenomenal debut (and ongoing demand), Amazon has dropped the subsidized price by $320. For those of you scratching your heads, it’s below zero, because the deal includes a $100 Amazon gift card.

What’s wrong with this phone? Does it suffer from a glitch worse than the iPhone death grip? No! What’s wrong is that it is 9 days old. Normally, this is well within the courtship window. Heck! Some early buyers haven't even received their RAZR. But in the case of über-hyped gadgets, there is a delicate interplay between advertising, production capacity, retail logistics and lust. In the very hot market for 4G LTE phones, a model introduced last week is a relic of the Jurassic era. Who knew?!

* I picked up a Sunday newspaper at Starbucks in Marlborough Massachusetts. The city sits within a major beltway encircling Boston and within the region that gets a Boston news distributor and Boston-local pricing. But wait!

[caption id="attachment_648" align="alignright" width="300"] Welcome to Marlborough...Oops! You're outside of Rt 495![/caption]

The hotels & shopping mall that cater to visitors like me are situated in a small section of town just outside the beltway. Retailers at the western edge of Marlborough know that the west highway exit is labeled for a town in the next county. They train cashiers to point out the fine print next to the newspaper price. Every time I visit this city, some barista or french fry queen puts on an empathetic face and glibly informs me in a rehearsed voice: "It says: $4 outside of Rt 495".

Well, that may sound reasonable to a first time visitor, Babs—but it just doesn’t wash! News distributors don’t bisect towns into price tiers. The out-of-town delivery premium applies to towns beyond Rt 495—and only if the distributor charges for an outlying region. Retailers know this. After all, the sidewalk paper kiosks are all configured to charge the metro price. But the barista continues her script, shrugs and says, "You’re past the circle. That’s the dividing line."

An unsuspecting visitor doesn’t realize that he is being fleeced. But at least, I can complete the transaction with the inner knowledge that I am being plucked like a holiday turkey. (Yeah, I know...It’s only 50¢. But it's the principle, dear reader! What happened to fair play?!)

Merriam-Webster dictionary banned in California

I was about to begin this post with the words "Every once in a while, politicians and school boards come up with some truly bizarre edicts." Then, I would have gone on to report one really whacked out policy...

But in truth, it's not just ‘once in a while’. In this age of space exploration, cultural pluralism and enlightenment, common sense and fair play have gone out the window like a bat out of — well, you get the idea!

Dispensing with the usual introduction, gaze at an incredulous article:

Dictionaries Banned From Schools – “Not Age Appropriate”

The original story is shorter than this Wild Duck retort. But in case the link no longer works, here's a thumbnail edition: Based of the complaint of one parent, a Southern California school board pulled Merriam-Webster's 10th Edition from fourth and fifth grade classrooms because “it is not age appropriate”. The parent was upset that the dictionary did not censor itself. It defined a sexual term.

[caption id="attachment_617" align="alignleft" width="317" caption="Oh my gawd! An uncensored dictionary!"][/caption]

Note to whacked out parent: It's a dictionary, not a Bible! (speaking of Bibles, a dictionary is certainly less obsessed with sex.)

It is a religious zealot or a narrow-minded fanatic who values ignorance and "innocence" over a comprehensive scholastic dictionary. Dictionaries are a repository of language and culture. Not just your language, but the words and phrases that are a product of the world around you. Dictionaries obviously define terms for many activities and things that you might not wish to visit upon your children. Good Gawd, lady! That's no excuse to keep them under a rock.

Why not ban the definition of "murder", "diarrhea" and "warts". We certainly don't want our kids to be visited by these plagues. Yet, few parents would attempt to shelter them from these definitions.

[caption id="attachment_629" align="alignright" width="265" caption="Don't want your child to experience this? Simply ban it from the dictionary!"][/caption]

Who taught you that information is poisonous? For how long do you want your 5th grader to be ignorant of sex or even its basic terminology? From whom should he or she learn – If not from a dictionary, a school and from family?

Actually, I am more concerned with the response of the school board than with one ignorant parent. To be fair, the board is complaining, but not about the parent! Believe it or not, they are upset at the difficult task ahead. They plan to read the entire dictionary to see if other terms might offend another whacked out parent! Quoting the immortal Homer Simpson, “D’OH!”

Some people fear learning. They believe in the ostrich axiom “ignorance is bliss”. But school boards stand for education – that is, if brains aren't checked at the door. Why would a school board kowtow to ignorance or fanaticism? Perhaps, the fanatic has a louder voice than the silent majority. Hopefully, parents who want educated offspring are still in the majority.

Does “Buy American” expand USA jobs or manufacturing?

Today, I received a chain letter from a relative and very close friend. She rarely forwards mail that ends with an urgent and passionate demand to “pass it along”. That’s just one step above the ones that tell you about the misfortune that will visit those who fail to pass it along.

But this individual is wiser than me and always speaks the truth. She is not given to scams, and so I carefully read the chain letter. You may have seen this one. It has already caught fire...

In a spasm of patriotism and economic self-determination, the letter implores every American to Buy American. It doesn’t go into the reason. After all, it’s self evident that buying goods made in your own country will expand jobs and manufacturing in your country. Right? Instead of justifying the urgent advice, it describes how consumers can find the origin of consumer products by inspecting the UPC code. The author includes a small table. It shows the relationship between the first digit of a UPC code and the country that manufactured the product.

I won’t include the original email in this post. It’s not that I don’t respect my friend. Rather, my decision is based on these things:

• Reposting it here does not help to explain my point of view


• It’s a chain letter! A reliable indicator that it must be wrong


• I don’t want to attract search engines based on the content of a chain letter

__________________________

Hi Ruth. There are two issues here:

1. Do UPC product codes really tell the buyer about the country of origin.


2. Is “Buy USA” a solution to unbalanced trade and a shrinking manufacturing base?

1.  Do UPC codes show origin ?   Answer: "Not at all !"

I own a block of UPC codes to use on computer products (or whatever I choose to sell). Blocks of unused codes, or more precisely, the manufacturer code prefix is sold without asking about the products that I intend to assign or where they are manufactured. Quite simply, no one ever asked me about the things that I make. I only know that when I began selling network gear and software on Amazon, I needed to buy UPC codes and they told me how to do this.

If a manufacturer or bundler does not need thousands of codes, but needs only a few, the unused subsets are sold between previously authorized parties. Although the issuing organization discourages this practice, it is perfectly legal and there is an active market for codes issued to small vendors. Here too, the story is the same. You can by the code from owners in any country and they don't ask for what products you intend to use the code.

This may seem contrary to the UPC purpose. If the product and country are not registered, how can the cash register/lookup mechanism know about the product and its value at the point of sale. The answer is simple. That information exchanged between the wholesaler (or mfg) and the retailer whenever a new stock item is contracted.

One final note: You may have seen some internet sites that tell you what product is associated with a specific UPC code. Yet, there is no international registry of code relationships! This information is compiled after the fact from consumers and from sites that advertise the products. It's easy to do, because many retailers use the UPC code number as their own SKU (the inventory stock number).

2.  Does “Buy American” expand US jobs or manufacturing?

Unbalanced trade and a shrinking US manufacturing base is a very serious threat to our way of life. On this, we agree...

To many, it would seem that the way of re-balancing trade and expanding our own manufacturing base is to persuade consumers to Buy American. Presumably, this argument says that it is more important to be patriotic than to base a purchasing decision on quality, features, value, safety, design, or other aspects.

I am not sure that I agree. While I am very concerned about saving US jobs (including my own!), I see a terrible conflict between this logic and basic economic principles...

In the 70s, the US was caught off guard by expansion in Japan, a strict adherence to quality standards, a very close relationship between vendors and manufacturers, and a just-in-time manufacturing. If Americans had stuck to the principle of buying American, we would have had overpriced cars that fall apart quickly. More importantly, our autos would be rejected by European and emerging nations, because of an artificially inflated demand and very poor quality.  But this didn’t happen. The market turned to Japanese cars (especially new upscale brands, Lexus and Acura. What was the result of the flight from Michigan? In the  80s & 90s, the US rebounded in both quality and cost because of two things: Competition and Free trade.

I am not fully convinced of my own argument, and like many people, I look for products sourced and made in America. But I haven’t found fault with the logic in free and open trade. There are some persuasive argument that claim that we lack a “level playing field” with our trading partners. They pollute, use slave labor, subsidize domestic industries or erect Tariffs to deter our goods from selling into their markets. Some of this reasoning makes sense, but not all of it. It's rare for me to admit that the “jury is still out” on this one, but in fact, I have not yet formed a bull-nosed, WildDuck opinion about these issues. Perhaps this is why I am more carefully buying American.

Dear reader: What do you think? Might the Buy American campaign have unintended consequences that dilute or contradict the economic goal? I invite your comment.

Awash in cash, does Dropbox sense the undertow?

Dropbox CEO, Drew Houston, is about to facilitate a meaningful donation to his favorite cause, but he doesn’t know it yet. More about this in the last paragraph...

Dropbox is in an enviable position. The company is smokin! It’s so hot, that Forbes magazine calls it Tech’s Hottest Startup. So hot, that Steve Jobs tried to acquire it. So hot, that when anointed by the MacMeister with a personal audience, 28-year-old founder Drew Houston snubbed his proverbial nose at the offer. *

Dropbox: Atop it’s game...  But what about Future Shock?

What does Dropbox sell?
Dropbox sells cloud storage services, including backup, synchronization and file distribution. They are arguably king the market leader, but they have plenty of competition: Apple’s new iCloud, SugarSync, SkyDrive (Microsoft), LiveDrive, Google Docs, Box.net, FolderShare and a growing list of wannabees. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, let’s just say that if you’re not using Dropbox or a similar service now, you will do so soon.

What can cloud storage do for me?
You are probably familiar with Carbonite and Mozy. These vendors market clouds as safety nets, constantly backing up your PC over the internet, as you work. On the other hand, Google Docs makes collaboration easier and more efficient because users spread far apart can work on the same document at the same time – and without worrying about who has the latest version. These are all ancillary benefits of cloud computing at best. Since the concept is still in its infancy, they focus on a simple and easily digestible pitch.

But clouds offer much more! With data in the cloud, documents, photos and music are always available, backed up, in sync and safe – no matter where you travel or what gadget is handy. Files don’t depend on equipment that you own or carry, so you can travel light and with constant access to your business, media and memories. Much as predicted by Asimov in The Last Question, using a personal data cloud is like having your brain in ever-present hyperspace.

Dropbox is the convergence leader. What’s wrong with that?
When startups reach a phase that I call investor frenzy, founders and early investors inevitably get the “not invented here” bug, or the “we are obviously doing it right” bug. But smart directors swat away cocky bugs of success until the company reaches the profit phase and, of course, the ROI phase. They also keep a keen eye on competitors and even tiny startups to see if someone has come up with a startling new way to improve service, boost revenue or reduce expenses.

What’s new in cloud technology?
“What’s New” is a tectonic shift in technology from centralized, data center storage to distributed peer storage. It’s a dramatic architectural enhancement that I call Ellery’s Reverse Distributed Data cloud [RDDC]. While I can’t take the credit for all that is about to unfold, I was first to propose it three years ago. This past August, I blogged about the concept at AWildDuck.

RDDC changes dynamics of everything that matters in storage: cost, security and speed and even environmental impact – all in the right direction. As each user adds inexpensive storage to their own home or business network (the same drives that they previously used to store their working data or backups), a central “traffic cop” uses this worldwide, massively redundant, distributed storage network as if it were a “RAID-10,000” drive array. The Result: As long as 33% of users don’t turn off their storage devices at the same time, everyone’s data is available instantly, securely and without risk of errors or hacks.

Incredible? You Bet! Want more? Of course!
Consider the return data throughput. That’s the rate at which downloads from these many different storage drives arrive into your PC when restoring a backup or even when using a global cloud array as your main drive. You might think that spreading your data, bytewise across lots of slow uplinks would result in data recovery at a snail’s pace. You would be wrong. Even the programmers who understand the math are astounded at the RDT. Even if many drives in your personal cloud are heavily fragmented or poke along at the 3rd tier connection speed of a rural carrier, incoming throughput sizzles at blistering, heart-pounding speed. Why? Because inbound data is staged in the cloud as a torrent from a massively parallel cluster – and not as a serial stream from one peer.

There’s more. While all of this is happening the uplink channel is not idle. Your global cloud array dispatches data around the world with predictive caching, based on new research into the distribution of media across disparate platforms.

Should I Care?
While the architecture of remote storage may seem a geeky detail, the fallout is a litany of benefits to users and a massive windfall for the first provider’s to get with the program. They will enjoy a 90% reduction in operational expenses, while customers experience a blistering bump in speed and meaningful intangibles like fault tolerance associated with massive redundancy.

What vendors are rolling out this new technology?
Symform is already offering RDDC. SpaceMonkey has not yet announced, but it’s two founders in Salt Lake City (both from EMC) have an even more compelling model. They’re lining up investors now. They get it and the angels are starting to take notice!

These tiny startups and a few others have a big edge on their well-funded brethren, because they are already on top of RDDC. If the challenge is not rapidly met by Dropbox and SugarSync, the new kids will sweep the market.

What’s the risk to the established players? Will they catch up?
Cloud computing for the masses is rapidly becoming a crowded market. Massive consolidation will come in a year. Only a few companies will be left standing. Most of the names entering the market today, and even some established brands won’t survive nor even be acquired. They’ll just die. A few fortunate startups will cash out, because of their early implementation of RDDC. My bet is with cloud providers that move quickly into massively distributed data clouds. They will be healthy and profitable. If Dropbox gets it and moves quickly to seize the day, they will very likely come out on top.

[caption id="attachment_493" align="alignleft" width="236"] Drew Houston: In the catbird seat, but for how long?[/caption]

Does Drew know about RDDC?
He might. More likely, he considered it briefly and then dismissed it. Even a bright individual can overlook an elegant solution to an unrecognized problem. (i.e. reducing expenses dramatically while boosting data security).

It’s a safe bet that Carbonite and Mozy can’t implement RDDC in time to save their hides. One is too narrowly focused on marketing themselves as a backup service and the other is married to data centers that they own.

Perhaps Dropbox “gets it” and needs no input from their biggest fan. But perhaps – just perhaps mind you – they have yet to design a fully holographic RAID-10K algorithm. Perhaps they have not yet optimized predictive caching for peer distributed networks. Perhaps they are not equipped to quickly build a torrent reacquisition mechanism on the fly and activate it safely across thousands of peers with disparate upload and download speeds, while each user powers down storage media every day without notice.

What’s the ‘R’ stand for in “RDDC”?
It stands for “Reverse”. This teaser lacks an explanation by design. If Drew or his deputies at Dropbox contact me, I wish to give them an edge. It’s one of the few aspects of an ideal architecture model that has not yet been exploited by any startup.

If Dropbox knows about RDDC, what is the purpose of this blog?
Finally an easy question! Drew Houston may or may not be contemplating a Dropbox implementation of RDDC. But even if he is shoe-horning it into his ops plan right now, the purpose of this Blog is to get his attention. Dropbox understands the business of cloud computing. Yours truly understands the seismic benefits of Reverse Distributed Data Clouds and has the business and engineering experience to jump start a rapidly growing market leader. Your humble editor is itching to help a cloud sync startup beat Apple, Google, EMC and Amazon and dominate the market before the average Joe adopts RDDC from your daddy’s generation.

Tech & investment communities know Ellery by another name
I have never kept it a secret that Ellery is a pen name. I use it here at AWildDuck and for articles that I freelance to Google, c|net, Engadget, Yahoo & Amazon. My general vitae is posted to this blog and of course, Drew Houston will get all of my contact info.

Got your ears on, Drew? I get it. Years ago, I created the blueprint. I tested architectural dynamics before your competitors got off the ground. Together, we can dramatically reduce costs while creating the most robust swarm on earth. Together, we can sew up a new paradigm before others learn to tie their shoes. Reach to me, Drew. I’ll give 5 hours to your favorite cause for 5 minutes of your time. Nothing to lose and either way, you gain! Your move.

* To be fair, Drew admits that Jobs is his idol and a scion of high tech entrepreneurship!

Mel Gibson: Roots of social venom revealed

These days, the most exciting projects come from Mountain View, the town that is home to Google. But here and there, the old guard sends up some new trick that resonates with panache. Piper Weiss writes for Shine, one of my favorite Yahoo projects.

This week, Piper looked back at People Magazine's past lists of “Sexiest Men Alive”. She compiled her own subset. She calls it The Unsexiest Men Alive: A Look Back at Regrettable Choices.

[caption id="attachment_440" align="alignleft" width="201"] Mel, during better times[/caption]

Of course, Piper doesn’t really disagree with the original honor. What she is really claiming is less controversial. She is pointing out that these individuals – in her opinion – have disgraced themselves by their behavior sometime after they were crowned. And the more recent behavior is certainly not “sexy”.

At the top of her list is blue-eyed, sexy hunk of 1985, Mel Gibson. To say that he has disgraced himself is an understatement. We all know about his bouts with public drunkenness, racist rants, xenophobia, and abusive behavior toward the women in his life.

Perhaps more interesting than the troubled individual Mel has become are the roots of his antisocial venom. To wit, Piper’s July list of pranks and practical jokes proffered by Gibson on his leading ladies—films in which he was either the director or leading man.

An axiom states that media cannot make a fool of a man. The man makes a fool of himself. But when media reports are consistent, corroborated by many reputable sources, and outrageous, it is likely that the man has made a fool of himself.

Mel Gibson is a very talented actor and director. Unfortunately, he is also a pathetic xenophobe without self-respect, dignity or a conscience. Mel abuses alcohol and women, is excited by hurtful pranks and blames ethnic groups for what ails you. (If you disagree, read Piper's history of Mel’s pranks – independently vetted and acknowledged by Gibson).

Apologists suggest that we separate the professional from his personal hijinks. C’mon! We’re not talking about a minor gaffe in social grace. And we’re not debating a victimless crime. I was ashamed and disgusted at the impeachment of Bill Clinton—a congressional witch hunt for behavior that was disgraceful, but ultimately private.

With the exception of an ill-conceived film on the crucifixion (not worth a link), Gibson has directed or starred in remarkable films, including Braveheart, The Patriot and Conspiracy Theory (a thriller, starring Julia Roberts. In a televised interview, she acknowledged that Gibson is the only person who scares her). His recent film, The Beaver, shows that he can still turn out respectable cinema.

[caption id="attachment_443" align="alignright" width="262"] Blue eyes turned crazy by 2000s[/caption]

The fact that genius is often accom-panied by paranoia, xenophobia, anti-social behavior and outright madness is well documented. Van Gough, Ford, Disney, and Bobby Fischer come to mind. (To be fair, Ford and Disney were not mad, but like Gibson, they were virulent anti-Semites).

In the case of Gibson, a contemporary who excels in film, the schism places film lovers in an unfortunate position. Should you see The Beaver? How can you reconcile contributing to the delinquency of an adult who acts like an irresponsible juvenile? It's not too different from participating in the slashing of your neighbor's tires.

So Sayeth Ellery. Feel free to express a comment or share a different opinion.