Design By Tim

Recently in a post titled, Amazon Sends “Best Customer Service E-mail I’ve Ever Received” the author posted a supposedly true story of a well written customer complaint to Amazon in regards to their fire-sales during “Black Friday week”. You can read Mr. Hildebrandt’s post as well as the replies it prompted, here.

Just for kicks Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s president was CC’d in the email. Several days went by when a reply was received.  In the same tone and whit the clever customer service representative wrote a nice letter that stated the terms of the sales. As well as wishing him the best of luck in next year’s promotion!

Now that is great Customer Service: it’s the ability to take a beating - rather it’s the ability to cleverly say no and have the customer not only accept the rejection - but also be happy and continue to evangelize the company’s reputation.

Recently, the NY Times had a short piece on how UPS eliminated left-hand turns for delivery trucks.

Last year, according to Heather Robinson, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, the software helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas and has reduced CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons.

Implemented about 2 years ago it has had its series of hurdles. Costing $600M to adopt nationwide, the improved end-to-end flow, which will ultimately be used by more than 100,000 employees, begins when the customer generates a smart label using a Web application that transmits customer and package information to UPS and pre-processes it before the driver arrives for pickup. That information then passes to UPS’s Dispatch Planning System, which charts UPS truck pickup and delivery routes.

Beginning in 2007, when the new system will be fully deployed, increases in operational efficiency are expected to save UPS that $600 million each year, says project leader Cathy Callagee, operations portfolio manager at UPS.

The hardest part of the project, according to Callagee, has been integration with legacy AS/400 and mainframe systems. But the lessons she has learned from the project are of a less technical nature. Before digging into technology, the project’s planners focused exclusively on streamlining processes — and when the new package-flow apps were ready, the company rolled out the new system slowly, so feedback from the field could be leveraged to improve the software.

Callagee’s final advice has become the refrain for modern IT. “If we don’t have a business reason … we don’t do it for technology’s sake. Unless there is a true business-case ROI, don’t do it.” So what can Brown do for you?

Written for Cyberlaw 325U. 

Network Neutrality (also known as Net Neutrality) is the principle that the Internet should not distinguish or differentiate between types of data carried over it. Net neutrality is also referred to as the “First Amendment of the Internet.” The battle over control and the ability to suck additional revenue from the Internet has heated to legislative levels. Advocates, generally those who can be considered content providers, are lobbying Congress to preserve the current status of delivery mechanisms. While more access providers are requesting the ability to tier access services; it has been reported they are investing billions to build faster networks to support these access tiers [Gilroy].

Both sides make good arguments about their position, but in the end it should come down to the consumer who will ultimately decide which side is right. Because the Internet has dispersed the idea of having a large funding to start a small business or platform for a voice to be heard it has also become the new “wild west” in areas such as law, communications and commerce. Advances in social communication and interaction have grown tremendously since its inception largely due in part to the free reign given traffic on the wire. What, if any, action should be taken to ensure “net neutrality” has become a major focal point in the debate over high-speed Internet access regulation and revenue jurisdiction.

In the United States, high-speed Internet carriers, including AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, are seeking legislative support for a two-tiered Internet service model. In a two-tiered model, carriers would be able to charge owners of Web sites a premium fee for priority placement and faster speed across their pipes [Gilroy]. Those opposing the carriers argue that the Internet was designed to work in a traffic-neutral way and has become what it is, to some extent, because of that neutrality. They would like to see Congress pass a telecom reform bill that contains language in favor of net neutrality.

Proponents of net neutrality legislation, however, feel that absent some regulation, Internet access providers will become gatekeepers and use their market power to the disadvantage of Internet users and competing content and application providers. They cite concerns that the Internet could develop into a multi-tiered system favoring large, established businesses or those with ties to broadband network providers. While market forces should be a deterrent to such anti-competitive behavior, they point out that today’s market for broadband delivery is largely dominated by only two providers, the telephone and cable television companies, and that, at a minimum, a strong third player is needed to ensure that the benefits of competition will prevail.

The critics of the multi-tiered model also fear that the extra costs incurred for premium service would be passed down to the consumer in fees for sites, applications and services. They point out that small, independent sites, such as personal blogs, are on an even playing field with large, corporately owned sites in a net neutral environment but might be unable to compete in a tiered service model. Editors at the popular SaveTheInternet.com Web site explain, The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could be started on a shoestring and attract huge audiences simply because their users found the sites valuable. Without Net neutrality the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.

There is concern that the ability of network providers to prioritize traffic may give them too much power over the operation of and access to the Internet [Gilroy].  If a multi-tiered Internet develops where content providers pay for different service levels, the potential to limit competition exists, if smaller, less financially secure content providers are unable to afford to pay for a higher level of access.  Also, if network providers have control over who is given priority access, the ability to discriminate against those who are granted access is also present.

Proponents of the two-tiered model point out that a tiered business model already exists: consumers have a choice of using a slower dial-up service or paying a premium price for faster speed over cable or DSL. Providers argue that if that two-tiered business model is applied to site owners as well as users, carriers will be able to offer more services like Internet-based cable TV programming and video at competitive rates. They maintain that legislation protecting net neutrality would be an unnecessary barrier to the Internet tradition of innovation and free enterprise.

A report released by the New Millennium Research Council warned that a wave of streaming video, user-generated content and the growing number of users is threatening to overwhelm the Internet. The document recommended that regulators avoid tying the hands of network managers who will have to maximize the bandwidth and efficiency of their networks. The report, “The Never-Ending Rush Hour,” prepared by Jason Kowel, avoids mentioning net neutrality, the doctrine that carrier networks should not be able to discriminate in services based on the content or source of the tsraffic.

The report continues to establish that “regulators should not inhibit Internet service providers’ flexibility to experiment with new traffic technologies and strategies.” In other words, the government should not put Net neutrality permanently into law. Which, presumably, would leave ISPs, like the report’s underwriter AT&T, in a position to create the two-tiered Internet for which they’ve been lobbying–an Internet where the speed and efficiency of data transmission would be determined by who’s willing to pay the most.

This is damaging because no one will be able to safely invest, and all existing models will die on the vine. As the risks increase, it doesn’t matter if a better system is created. It also doesn’t matter if users really like the system either, because ultimately someone else will show up and pay more to have their voice heard. It is applicable to make a comparison of the current pharmaceutical bog of the development and safeguarding of new technologies and information. As more red tape from both government and corporate (instigated by the access providers) slows down the development of new sites the technology will also fall behind due to the lack of draw from content.

Essentially the point is being made that consumer and corporate use of the Internet could overload the current capacity and lead to brown outs in two years unless backbone providers invest billions of dollars in new infrastructure. The caveat is that the access providers want a return on this infrastructure as quickly as possible. The addition of video and interactive content along with the rise of users on the Internet is being cited as the cause for this concern.

It is from this concern that companies such as Comcast have implemented software on their networks such as Sandvine. They are concerned that applications like BitTorrent are degrading their services; therefore, by eliminating the ability for that application to traverse their network they can refocus bandwidth to high use areas [Sandvine]. While this makes sense from a high level explanation, the risk of loosing consumer moral is high. From a physiological standpoint, the consumer feels they are right, and to limit the customer’s access is denying their expectation of access; regardless of if the service is actually used to the full extent.

An example of this is software that legitimately uses the BitTorrent protocol for its communication across the Internet became inoperable. Since the Internet has that “wild west” mentality, when a Comcast activated Sandvine on their networks it triggered a flood of consumer angst and bad PR. In retaliation users were forced to find other ways around Comcast’s Sandvine protection [Funcords, Et al]. In the end, Comcast’s actions have shed a bad light on those looking to support a secondary traffic tier on the Internet. ISPs are now fighting an uphill battle to convince the consumer that this instigation of Sandvine was not a bad faith initiative over the net neutrality legislation.

In a debate on the Wall Street Journal between Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and a respected net neutrality proponent stated in response to former White House spokesman Mike McCurry, and leader of a phone industry group.  “What we’re looking for is just fairness, a level playing field, no regulation or stuff like that. In America we believe that if you play fair and work hard, you get ahead. We don’t want the government to give special privileges to the big guys, particularly not at the expense of small business and consumers. We don’t want more regulation and we don’t need lawyers involved where the free market functions well. I guess we’re for capitalism.”

References
McCurry, Mike; Newmark, Craig. “Should the Net be Neutral?.” Wall Street Journal. Online editorial. 24 May 2006. http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB114839410026160648.html

Sandvine. “Meeting the Challenge of Today’s Evasive P2P Traffic.” Sandvine. White Paper. Sept. 2004.
http://www.sandvine.com/general/getfile.asp?FILEID=16

Funchords, Et al. “Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P connections.” DSL Reports. Forum. 2 Sept. 2007. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections

Gilroy, Angele A. “Net Neutrality: Background and Issues.” Report Number: A940264. CRS Report for Congress. White Paper. 16 May 2006. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22444.pdf

Kowal, Jason. “The Never-Ending Rush Hour.” Analysys. White Paper. 9 Aug. 2007.
http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/Rush_Hour_August2007.pdf

The concept of “Web 2.0″ began with a conference brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O’Reilly VP, noted that far from having “crashed”, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. I don’t think there was any deliberate plan to suggest there was a new version of the web, or trying to define the latest technology gadgets. They just wanted to make the point that the web mattered again.

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. In Web 1.0, a small number of writers created Web pages for a large number of readers. The separation between those along for the ride and the real success stories became apparent as the web of documents has morphed into a Web of data. Over time, however, more and more people started writing content in addition to reading it. We are no longer just looking to the same old sources for information. Now we’re looking to a new set of tools to aggregate and remix micro content in new and useful ways. Along with advances in the use of technology for the remix, two social elements arose from the ashes.

The first big element of Web 2.0 is democracy. The most dramatic example of Web 2.0 democracy is not in the selection of ideas, but their production. Associated Press CEO Tom Curley made an important and far-reaching keynote speech to the Online News Association Conference. In it he said, “… content will be more important than its container in this next phase [of the Web]… Killer apps, such as search, RSS and video-capture software such as TiVo—to name just a few—have begun to unlock content from any vessel we try to put it in.”

The second element of Web 2.0 is the social interaction impact. Sites like Facebook or Flickr tap into this motivation. Yochai Benkler discusses a similar distinction between “extrinsic” motivations and “intrinsic” motivations. Extrinsic motivations come from the marketplace, and involve money. Intrinsic motivations come from within, such as pleasure or personal satisfaction. Both of these motivations are also appropriate in some situations and not others.

This distinction is important in social design because so many of the activities people participate in online are motivated from a desire of social standing, not economic standing. What the big social network sites are doing is similar: they’re creating a place where social standing, not economic standing, is the primary motivation. Or, more to the point, they’re modeling that part of our lives in which we yearn for social standing.

Web 2.0 means using the web the way it’s meant to be used. The “trends” we’re seeing now are simply the inherent nature of the web emerging from under the broken models that got imposed on it during the Bubble. The whole point of Web 2.0 is making every website work together and connect with each other seamlessly. It’s not just flashy AJAX programming, live updating, or cool rounded edges. It’s about the convergence of all internet technology into one collective memory.

This was inspired by these great folks in the field:

What is Web 2.0 - Tim O’Rielly

Web 2.0 - Paul Graham

Facebook’s Brilliant but Evil design - Joshua Porter

Apple has warned users that upcoming iPhone updates could ruin the device for users of third-party unlocking software. The company said in a statement on Monday that it has found “irreparable damage” caused to the phone’s software by many of the unlocking tools currently available.

When new updates are installed, the iPhone could be rendered “permanently inoperable”. The iPhone will also be unfixable, as the company pointed out that unlocking the iPhone is a violation of the licensing agreement and voids the warranty.

Apple executives have said that the company does not purposely design updates to disable or damage hacked iPhones, but warned that it would not accept any responsibility if its updates damaged phones with third-party software.

What’s great is that all my M$haft friends have thrown this in my face as how “Apple doesn’t think of their consumers”. Even articles: “Why the world says ‘meh’ to Apple’s next product“  allude to the lack of buzz surrounding the launch of Leopard. Is Apple going down the tubes?

I think not.

Why? Because it makes sense - do you really want to support something someone has violated your warrenty etc on? - at least Apple warns their users of this rather than being a dick munch like M$haft and rendering your computer a paper weight. My opinion is that Apple is actually one of those companies that gets product development. First because OSX is not their bread and butter (granted it’s the butter for their bread), then all the new feature adds are for their consumers. Secondly, why is it wrong (or even un-American for that matter) to protect your investment.

Look at the lack of excitement over Vista. Dell had to re-introduce an option to include XP rather than Vista on new PCs because so many people shunned it. A year after its completion, people still mutter about device drivers not being ready. The graphics twiddles add nothing to its usability. Like sweets, the initial buzz is superseded by a gnawing hunger for something substantial.

While I agree consumers are a greedy bunch - always wanting the latest greatest, lumping OSX and Windows together in comparison is difficult and hardly fair to either product. With the looming launch of Leopard granted it isn’t as exciting a jump from osx 8 to 10 - but the goal is not to shock with the new version - rather take on the success of the previous version and expand on it. With all the rumor sites out there - I think this advancement really  allows for the ultra-portable device - because ultimately you’re looking for connectivity and reliability.

Granted, some of the new features may never be used by consumers (if you’re playing to the crowd they all won’t use the same feature set) - however I see a lot of the advancements that Apple is taking with this release as gearing for more application development from third party software groups to target their users. A complaint is that Apple is adding needless bells and whistles that don’t target the web audience - however in my opinion they are focusing more on the web group than even Vista is capable of. Look at just widget development tools - essentially it’s glorified JavaScript, which means now anyone JS developer worth his/her salt can easily integrate a widget into their latest webapp…

Matt wrote a response to his recent post on frustration he has with the button layout of the GameCube controller when playing Super Mario World on the Wii.

Not too long ago I wrote a post on this blog titled WTF Nintendo?. In it I expressed my frustration toward the button layout on the GameCube controller when playing Super Mario World on the Wii. There were many similar postings on various forums, so I felt justified in my position. I knew that a single post on a no-name blog wasn’t going to do anything so I turned my blog post into a letter; Presented in a slightly more diplomatic fashion of course. I mailed it out the next day but really never expected a response.

Apparently, the great Nintendo must have head his pleas for redemption of a sorted issue. They tracked him down at his home with a phone call (gotta love the Internet). Please note he used snail mail to make them aware of this troubling feature abuse. Using the following points they explained the reasoning behind the layout of the controller etc…

• Not much QA is done on Virtual Console games, after all these games were well tested 15+ years ago. They just make sure the game runs and send it out.
• If you compare the button letters of a GameCube controller to a Super Nintendo controller you can see that they match up perfectly. It’s the GameCube button layout that’s messed up.
• Nintendo does not have a mechanism in place to “recall” a VC game.
• Nintendo designed the Classic Controller for the virtual console and thus it is the preferred method of input. (read “Cough up the cash, that’s what we made that classic controller for.”)
• Nintendo reps have no fore-knowledge of upcoming VC games (I had to ask about Pilotwings).

Even after sending him a free classic controller to enjoy the Nintendo freedom. It hasn’t swayed his opinion of the pricyness of hotness, yet has really sucked him in as a big N evanglist to the new classic controller.

This is a great segway into my complaint over Wii Strikers and online play. I love the game - it can easily be the best game since the console game out (in my mind it easily rivals Wii Sports, Tiger Woods, and Excite Truck). There have been many hours of tears, sore fingers and wrists and spilt drinks over jubilation.

However, thankfully they included that wrist strap on the controllers because I do not know how many times I have cursed the day when playing online that the connection drops. I (almost*) know it’s not my side of the connection, because I have run speed tests before and after playing when the connection will drop and there is no change in the speed. So either it’s Nintendo’s servers, or the other players - I find it odd that other players would be so routine to drop off.

What I find strange as well as when I first got the game - online play was crisp (albeit connection drops weren’t a problem then either). Now when I can log in - game play freezes and stutters. What’s with this? Granted I use the notorious *Comcast at home for the connection and with the recent debacle over traffic shaping it really wouldn’t surprise me if the Wii has been mistaken for something that they would shape.

So Nintendo - I know this lame - but I challenge you to find me and surprise me with some token of your affection seeing as how I must be your greatest evangelist (at least in Richmond Va - there I gave you a hint to find me). I need this fixed - because without confidence in online play with Strikers why should the future online games be any better. Wake up folks if the 360 and ps3 can have it - it has to be available for the Wii. The experience is what it’s all about and in my opinion the experience without online play severely limits the future of this as a legitimate big player in the console arena.

This week the Economist has a great article about the apparent “labor shortage”. They state a radical opinion:

The best way of encouraging workers to stay put and work hard is to treat them properly, not to use schemes more reminiscent of the imperial days of bonded labour and coolies.

I wonder really how radical is this idea? It seems pretty common in the USA - granted management doesn’t like this apparent loss of power but it is the way things must be to keep the good guys around. I love using myself as an example in this case, while the family mocks my moves through the food chain - I feel it’s important as a cog in the American capitalism to keep management honest. They must be held accountable not by threats but the ability of their resources evaporating. I have come to the conclusion that all parts of business are about incentives  - there is no heart in business.