Destined To Fail
stevenkovar.com
stevenkovar.com
Separation of labor from ownership of (broken) means of production leads to hilarity. I bet Marx would have a chuckle over this.
This line made me happy.
Can't have it both ways, man. Time Warner can be blamed for many things, but expecting them to seamlessly support an option they had disabled intentionally is a bit much. You're lucky they let you do it at all.
There could be an equally long blog post about the maddening information architecture and odd lapses in QA on critical features. For nearly 4 months their online recurring billing was sending me confirmation and then one day I get a shutoff notice with audacious late payment fees - why? Because the system failed at making the transaction but there was no error handling, so instead of throwing an error it instead just marked me as having missed a payment on the backend.
To top it off, this was a transfer, so it should not have been news that I brought the modem from my previous apartment, especially given that I selected the checkbox confirming this. While holding the modem he brought along to install, the technician informed me that I also had a modem attached to my account supplied by them three years ago, and asked where it was. I was not paying for a modem that was listed on my account for three years--I verified this. Laughable account auditing on their part (that should be automated), no loss for me, and neither party has any idea where that modem wandered off to.
The technician was pleasant and the installation only took a few minutes, so I count myself lucky. Overall, though, it was incredibly sloppy and didn't exactly inspire confidence.
Par for the course, I suppose, because three years ago they goofed up my work order by never completing the scheduling process, but confirming the time and date of the appointment with me. Then, after apologizing, they scheduled the new work order another two weeks out.
I can say, though, that Cox does a good job with the benefits of their actual workers. However, most of their workers are outsourced, and are treated the same way as in the article. This also means the actual employees have to fix up the subcontractors' mistakes, because of how badly their incentives are aligned.
Source: a family member who is a Cox employee. I've also known a Comcast employee who had decent benefits for a call center job, but whose authority was sorely limited which made doing his job difficult.
I guess what I'm saying is that TWC sees no advantage of providing a better system. It costs money to uproot the current system, and it also costs money to create and run a system as detail-oriented as companies like Apple. They still get people to buy their product (even intelligent, insightful ones like the author of the article), and the profit margin is probably so significant that they consider it unnecessary to make Bill's day easier. Something that probably sounds a lot like, "If Bill doesn't like his job, he can quit." Or, "If Steven (the author) doesn't like our product, he can find another place to give his business."
The real problem is that TWC understands full and well what they're doing. You think they don't get hundreds of phone calls every week from angry customers or disgruntled employees? The fact of the matter is that they have the upper hand in terms of what the author was pointing out.
I just feel bad for Bill, and the thousands of people like him. This sort of thing makes you feel lucky not to be forced to lead a life that includes a job that is just one huge up-hill battle (in all the wrong senses of the phrase).
Good luck to Bill. My favorite part was his notice at the end to anyone who needs a master carpenter. I hope somebody contacts him who read that.
Edit: after reading more posts, it's clear that a large part of "the problem" has to do with the industry itself and the players involved. I think we'd all love to see somebody uproot the whole industry and start from scratch.
What gets me are the sites who somehow break the generally very good scaling that Safari lets me do to make the text bigger.
I've got the same problem and gripe.
Apparently one cause is design mock-ups in which text is ipsum-loremed and muted to reduce distraction from the overall design.
Other useful tools include console-mode browsers, or plugins such as Readability Redux. Though I find my self increasingly editing out elements (in addition to fonts, especially static headers/footers) which get in my way.
But the back ground shouldn't be darker than #cccccc
I think, but I do not know, that some people with Aspergers prefer a lower contrast. (See, for example, early websites using silver background with black text.)
There was some research in the 1970s or 1980s about maximum readability for paper texts which arrived at similar conclusions. A dark brown text on matte cream paper tested best. I've read several books printed in this format, and found it quite readable. Though paper still beats screen for readability (but not grepping).
I'm not sure how being "too young" can be a valid excuse unless you are under 15 years old.
Alien is nearly 35 years old.
There have been a bunch of movies made since then that OP may have thought he needed to watch - thus not having time to watch the actually good movies.
I'm about to watch both of these in the next month, so it'll be interesting to see the clunky bits. Visions of the future from the past are fascinating. (See also the Gibson story "The Gernsback Continuum".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Blade_Runner
EDIT: actually, I don't think it was the Director's Cut, since it had the extra "violent scenes" (and which are important IMHO). But it couldn't be the International Version since it didn't have the voice-over, nor the Final Cut since it was before 2007. I'm stumped.
I got a call from the tech. at 7PM saying he was on his way. An hour later, after hearing nothing, I try to call him and get voice mail. I call Time Warner to see what happened and they said that I didn't answer the phone when he called... even though I spoke with him and told him I was home (and answered his questions about whether the internet was still out, three times.) I had to schedule for this Wednesday, where I'll have to take more time off of work to attempt to get this fixed.
I understand that the majority of the blame lies with Time Warner for allowing their field technicians to get overbooked and blamed for being late or missing jobs, but it's hard to not be upset at this particular field tech for saying he was on his way, and then not showing up and reporting it as a missed call.
Alternatively, just complain incessantly without threatening to quit if you can't get another job easily.
Reason I say this is that me and my team have been working on shoddy hardware for the last six months, then we put our collective feet down and demanded something better. Now we each have a pretty damn sweet system to work on.
Bit off topic, but why aren't people crowdsourcing their internet connection in high rise buildings? I'm sure time warner and every other isp's would just love that
Hope Bill can find work through your post. Kudos.
I guess the "appropriate checkbox" was greyed out (no way I believe people are looking at the html in case there would be an hidden checkbox), then the author used firebug or something to make it visible and then submitted the form hoping the server on the other side is going to do something with the $post variable. Not that tricky but there is no way to confirm it's going to work as intended. IANAL but I raise doubts about the legal validity of such tamperings with web forms.
The NFL's RedZone network has changed the way Americans watch football (the biggest sport in America), yet 3 years into the network and Time Warner still has no deal. It's tiresome and another inconvenience for the customer.
It puts me in mind of a story I heard this past weekend (for the second or third time -- hint, hint as to the experience's effect on the customer, to any cable co. "image" people happening to read this).
The person I spoke with ("the customer") told me how, transitioning from an outside antenna to cable TV, he had been very careful to tell the Comcast order taker that his installation should be classified as a "new" installation and not as a simple hook-up (the latter implying a pre-existing cable line to the property). The order taker seemed to have enough technical understanding to understand this and indicate they were recording the order for service installation as such.
When the technician arrived, he seemed quite competent, quickly assessed and understood the situation, and began executing a new installation including a new line from the pole.
However, he quickly started receiving calls from his supervisor, who was nasty and who started shouting at him so loudly -- including foul language -- that the customer could hear the supervisor's side of the conversation bleeding out of the technician's cell phone.
Apparently, despite this customer's care in placing the order and the order taker's reassurance that they understood what was needed, the order ended up in the order tracking system as a simple "hook-up".
There was nothing the technician could do about this, and he remained courteous with the customer and efficient in his work. But he was totally, abusively berated and dumped on by his supervisor.
The customer felt bad enough about this that he actually apologized, saying he was sorry the technician had to go through that.
In retrospect, he told me he wished he'd followed up with Comcast support until he hopefully might get through to a manager with sufficient authority to reprimand -- fire, preferably -- that supervisor. Someone who should not be managing anyone.
And yes, the technician was a contractor. Personally, I see so much of this, I think Congress should be made to pass a law forbidding these (Federally regulated, quasi-monopolies, after all) companies from using any contract workers. These companies have obviously abused their positions, including in their labor relations. Make all their employees full time, with benefits, and put the companies directly on the hook for such abuses.
When they need to make up the differences in expense, take it out of those companies' managements' hide. If you want an argument for that, what premium do -- or rather, don't -- they have to offer and pay to get management capable of managing a fucking monopoly (or the next thing to same)?
i discovered this when i finally gave up on cable internet (insanely unreliable there) and needed about five calls and three visits to get verizon to understand that someone would have to drill a hole in my floor and run wire into the basement before my DSL could be hooked up, because yes, i really didn't have a phone line.
Hope that carpentry thing works out.
I think of that stupid question, "Debit or Credit?"
The more I think about it, the more I see it as a hypnotic induction that prepares everybody for bad service. It's the perfect thing to get people used to the idea that they shouldn't experience customer delight, never.
My financial mentors have taught me that debit cards are a scam and that they're something you don't want to use unless you like getting hit with $30 fees to do $3 transactions. You don't want to use them to check into a hotel, buy gas or buy a rental car.
If you're using a credit card, there's no reason for them to ask that stupid question. If you're using a debit card it gives them a license to screw you two different ways.
I do use debit cards to (i) access my health savings account, and (ii) access my paypal balance, which gives me a pool of "mad money" that I can refresh by selling the things I buy with it.
The success of e.g. Apple is because they wake a product that works, not because of some nerdy argument about settings. If your product is getting a tech to show up within an N-hour timeframe, you need to find ways to engineer that.
Of course, as has been pointed out up thread, most cable companies don't have to care if their appointments are reliable, so they don't, and whichever department made that web form probably wasn't accountable either.
worker's comp case: 6 weeks self-employed: 2 days
If cable companies had to compete to keep business, they'd offer better service and treat their employees better. Southwest airlines is a good example of a company that has to keep costs low, but does this in part by treating their employees very well.
Notice that they charge ever higher and higher fees, in part because the municipalities are on the take here and get a cut of the fees, but also because the demand is inelastic. If you live in Austin and you want cable, they have your business.
So, there's no reason to spend the money to have enough technicians to ensure they are able to do a good job and a timely one.
A big part of the reason this never improves is that everyone blames Time Warner. TWC is just maximally allocating resources, which is what they should do. Namely, out of areas where they have a monopoly protected by the violence the city of austin will do to any other cable company that tries to compete.... and into areas where they have to compete for customers.
But you don't hear this issue at election time. Why do people not hold their city council peeps accountable for imposing this overpriced monopoly on them?
My guess is that most don't realize it is a government created monopoly, and the ones who do, many think that there would be no cable if the city hadn't given those rights away as an incentive to install all the cable. (not the case... places where this doesn't happen, still get cable because it isn't that expensive to put in the cable.)
Psyche!
Learn to love your monopolist overlords.
I don't agree with the claim that opening up the ability to lay a cable network to everyone would help things -- heck, look how slow the deployment of U-Verse is taking over AT&T's existing infrastructure... having to do that from scratch, laying a whole new network over the city and in everybody's yards, would be a many times larger endeavor -- but technological changes are already making competition much more possible than before since now both of those entrenched networks can be used for TV.
I think we might get there one day, but I suspect they're barely noticing it right now.
This never happened in the cable industry because cable isn't considered necessary like phone service is.
A municipality would not likely visit any violence upon a competitor, but that's largely because the only way to become a competitor (you can't just start digging holes and dropping cable in them) is through the approval of the municipality. This is where the "government-sponsored monopoly" idea comes into play, because there is often a revolving door between the government agency nominally charged with regulating cable service and the cable company that administers it.
Also, no, libertarians in general do not "believe in the concept of natural monopolies". Many libertarians hold that monopolies are short-lived and are prolonged only through the complicity of governments--or other actors which may play the same role in context, like the mafia, or even the corporation itself, should it become a de facto government. Of course, with that last point, you start begging the question...
They don't want to offer service. But they're damned sure not going to let anyone else do so -- not even let the community do so for themselves.
I'd hardly call that healthy competition.
Many don't, and many others only admit of very special cases. Arguments against the idea can be found with a search on "rothbard" or "mises" and "monopoly".
To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: If you run your own cable, you'll need a permit. If you do it by negotiating with the landowners without a permit, you'll be blocked. If you do it anyway, you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot.
Thank you!
>What proof is there that this is a government created monopoly?
I'm sorry, but I thought everyone knew that in the USA, most municipalities created a monopoly right, which they sell to the highest bidder, to operate cable services within their borders. This comes up for renewal on some long term, but during that term, only the government ordained company can operate a cable service.
That's the definition of a monopoly.
>What exactly is the "violence" that Austin would do to competitors?
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. And like fire it can be a fearsome servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington
>Do libertarians not believe in the concept of natural monopolies?
Since most of the people who reject liberty misuse the word "monopoly" in my experience, I think you'll have to define it more precisely.
But in this case, there isn't any argument that these are natural monopolies-- like the post office, they are government created monopolies.
It is literally illegal to compete.
>Notice that they charge ever higher and higher fees, in part because the municipalities are on the take here and get a cut of the fees, but also because the demand is inelastic. If you live in Austin and you want cable, they have your business.
Notice that every year, content companies demand more and more money to carry their channels. ESPN alone probably accounts for 5% of most cable bills. Maintenance of hundreds or thousands of miles of cable is also very expensive. Upgrading all of that cable infrastructure is even more expensive.
>So, there's no reason to spend the money to have enough technicians to ensure they are able to do a good job and a timely one.
More money spent on technicians = more money paid by consumers. Yet you complain about higher fees. At some point, you must recognize that there is cost to pay for all of the services you demand. Technicians do not work for free.
>But you don't hear this issue at election time. Why do people not hold their city council peeps accountable for imposing this overpriced monopoly on them? My guess is that most don't realize it is a government created monopoly, and the ones who do, many think that there would be no cable if the city hadn't given those rights away as an incentive to install all the cable. (not the case... places where this doesn't happen, still get cable because it isn't that expensive to put in the cable.)
Simple solution: don't subscribe to cable. Cable is not a right. It's a choice that is not forced upon you. Alternatively, subscribe to satellite, use the free OTA signals, or learn to live without live TV.
Are you kidding me? I currently live in LA and used to live in SD and my choices were either TWC or... DSL. Previously Cox and... that's pretty much it.
Which is hilarious considering my parent's choices in San Bernardino are: Fios, Time Warner Cable, and of course DSL.
Even if that was true, it would only show limited competition between two government maintained monopolies that happen to imping on each other through historical circumstances (we know that there's no real price competition - what we see is the song-and-dance customer competition characteristic of duopolies). The relative phone and the cable monopolies are maintain through the state granting right-of-ways to a limited number of companies.
Your use of "government-backed" in supposed contrast to "government-created" is just verbal slight of hand, a pedantic distinction that does not make a difference (a maneuver that seems sadly popular here). The enterprises (cable and phone for that matter) palpably extract a surplus from their positions in the cat bird seat.
(sure, I'm using "monopoly" in the sense of rent-extractor and "duopoly" in the rent of market position. The overall situation should be clear enough).
Entirely wrong. This story is littered with false economies. E.g.: Rather than giving him good tools, they wasted the technician's time. And another technician's time. And more later, to get the helpful tech back his tool. And let's not forget that the whole error was caused by a poorly trained tech who ruined the tool. And that's before we get to the large amount of customer time wasted.
Of course, when you're a vastly profitable monopoly, who gives a fuck? There's little reward for internal efficiency, and there's definitely no reward for caring about the customer's time.
And yes, it's a monopoly. Per the GAO, only 4% of cable marketplaces in the US have effective competition:
http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/opinion/story/116...
The only way last mile utilities are going to be fair is if government steps in (correctly). To my mind, that means municipally laid and maintained last-mile fiber patched to the commercial provider of my choosing, but I expect that will remain a dream for a few decades, at least.
To one cable company, one electrical utility, one telephone company, and to the local government-run water and sewage monopolies. Not to fifty startups.
A situation with a "genuinely competitive bid process" is a government-granted monopoly granted based on better criteria, and would certainly benefit consumers. It's still not a free market, which is my point: nobody actually wants a completely free market for last-mile utilities.