When Microsoft acquired Skype, Skype was an awesome product and a very viable challenger to the traditional telcos. Many pundits would say it's not as good today as it was before and they are likely right, and that's due largely to integration into the rest of the Microsoft platform. But the real story about the Skype purchase continues to be playing out month after month, as Microsoft reveals what many of us have suspected for some time. They want to be your phone company. And they are doing this by working with the telcos, not against them as the Register UK points out.
After the purchase was announced former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer met with CEO's of telcos to assure them that Microsoft wasn't their competitor, and that instead they were a valued partner, beginning to engage more with the telcos to be a vibrant sales channel for them for services like Office 365, Xbox as well as the new line of smartphones that eventually came about with the now failed Nokia acquisition. It was in in those meeting that Ballmer laid out the plan of how Microsoft would be using Skype to make them more money by providing them an enterprise offering that would allow the telcos to not see defections to the likes of 8x8, Switch, Mitel and others. Because Skype's growth was occurring on the mobile platforms, Ballmer started with the wireless side of the house at the operators and with the latest move, Microsoft is moving more deeply into the enterprise market by appealing to their broadband side. In essence Microsoft is doing what it always has done. Sell through channel. License its software and be the technology supplier. In this case, its going after the lucrative voice market. The carriers dumb pipes carry the data, which in this case is the voice packets the same way they carry Outlook content, Word or Excel or PowerPoint files.
Basically, Skype already proved that as an Over The Top provider of decoupled telephony services that it could use the telcos pipes to deliver reliable and feature rich telephony services without the carrier selling those, as long as the customer had broadband access. So this is really a full circle play, but with one change. The efforts are now with the operators support and blessing vs. where Skype was the enemy. With the news about Skype For Business and their newer Skype Meeting Broadcast, Microsoft is readily taking on the established players and saying again to the telcos, be our pipe, be our distribution partner, sell our services, carry our packets, but get out of the business of carrying voice...because with the Skype core, MSFT can do it better, cheaper and innovate faster, as video calling, something the telcos have tried to do since 1964, points out.
With the recent news, all the so called "partners" of Microsoft who are telcos, VoIP providers or conference providers may have to start to worry. If Microsoft was your so called friendly partner, are they now your frienemy or even enemy? But as carriers like AT&T, BT, Verizon and others want to be less reliant on voice revenues, sell more data and networking solutions in the Information Services sector, is this really bad for them? I think not. It's good for them, as long as the pipes are level for everyone.
P.S. And if you wondered why Citrix is looking to dump GoToMeeting, all you have to look no farther than this news.
What a great idea. Let international travelers have an option that saves them money when roaming outside the USA. That's the premise behind Verizon's new TravelPass.
Unfortunately, as with any new product offering, there's always some teething pain it seems. In this case it's a clear lack of communications between marketing who told us all about it, the notification team, roaming team and billing team. Here's the scenario and the outcome, which was good in the end, but may serve as a warning to others who want to use it.
- Problem One-TravelPass isn't Automatic. You have to opt-in by checking a box on the VZW web site or contacting customer support to make it active. If you think it does without opting in, expect a big roaming bill.
- Once you activate it, it will work when you are in the countries it works in. It doesn't work everywhere in the world so it's important to check the country list. If you don't check, you can expect a big roaming bill.
- Once you start using it, after you land in the foreign country you will get an alert to opt into some roaming plan. You don't want to because you're already registered for TravelPass, but if you're not in one and think you are, you can expect a big roaming bill if you don't buy the other package. This is where Verizon's billing and notifications teams need to get their act together. Conflicts between what plan is active when, where you are, what countries are in all will cause confusion.
- Once you pass 50MB of use you're going to receive another false positive alert by SMS, then about 15 minutes later you'll receive an email telling you the same thing. Once again if you've got TravelPass active, and you find yourself in a TravelPass country, it won't matter. But the real problem arises when you've grown comfortable with TravelPass and don't realize you're not in a TP country and you end up with a big roaming bill.
These are all easily fixed, but at Verizon Marketing, Billing, Roaming and Notifications may all need to get on a call and sort out what they're doing, because as of day four of this service being available, it's sure confusing.
I travel so much and as a result naturally have to address the many issues that can get in the way of "staying connected" while on the road. The biggest one has always been reliable cell coverage in hotel rooms, especially when I'm in a high-rise hotel that hasn't installed a neutral or carrier specific DAS system. The DAS allows for the cellular coverage to be extended, which is why at airports Boingo's other business, that of operating DAS systems is so important to travelers of all types.
The second is reliable broadband. One that not only downloads fast, but uploads fast as well and is free of any port blocking, deep packet inspection or firewalls that disrupt real time communications.
Recently though, I ran into the most hilarious and serious condition of all. I was staying in an AT&T Wi-Fi powered hotel (formerly called SuperClick) the hip Hotel Indigo in San Diego when I realized that not only was my cell coverage on both AT&T and T-Mobile powered iPhones poor, but that while they were both connected to the Wi-Fi network, neither of them had Wi-Fi calling working.
My call to AT&T Wi-Fi support, yielded no support as they put the burden on AT&T Wireless. AT&T Wireless support were clueless as to why it wouldn't be working (ironically the same phones on another AT&T Wi-Fi/SuperClick property in Miami worked perfectly for both operators on the 32nd floor of the Intercontinental.) They promised to look into the matter but two weeks later, no one has called. What's worse is I sent a LinkedIn message to the former CEO of SuperClick who now works for AT&T --no reply, as I wanted comments before I penned this. On the other hand, a friend at T-Mobile was very interested in hearing that an AT&T Wi-Fi powered hotel was blocking their traffic, comparing it to the situation at the Opryland Hotel and Conference Center were Marriott was blocking third party Mi-Fi's from working. And we all know what kind of fine that levied.
Oh, and as for being connected. My Verizon LTE coverage was good, not great, but at least I could place and receive phone calls. That's why I call the game "Cell Phone Roulette" When you're in a hotel. You never know which mobile operator will work or not.
Years ago Time Warner Cable exerted enough pressure on AOL that when the company was a part of Time Warner that the senior team forced AOL to kill their fledgling VOIP service and ultimately AIM phone line, a service which could have rivaled Skype in its era.
Well it seems that Time Warner Cable which now is deploying WiFi hotspots that are under the TWCC Passpoint SSID are still down on VOIP. Basically their firewall prohibits calls via Cisco's Jabber or CounterPath Bria from working with hosted or cloud VoIP service.
This experience mirrors what is experienced with their home cable modem/router/access point from Arris. Those devices default to blocking SIP traffic from any provider but Time Warner Cable. Of course at home the firewall can be turned off but when you're out and about the traffic just won't pass on their network.
Given the FCC is picking on hotels for blocking WiFi devices one has to wonder when they set their sights on the cable guys blocking third party voice services or any other traffic type.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Recently I moved into a flat in Los Angeles where I be, well, for a while. The network is supplied by Time Warner Cable, a company that has reportedly some of the worst customer service in the industry. Hopefully their acquisition by Charter will change that.
Here are three examples. The landlord upgraded to the 300 meg service, something that not everyone usually signs up for. Time Warner had been under delivering to the landlord, so a quick call with him before I moved in revealed that the cable modem was one of the older types that wasn't capable of speeds faster than 50 megs. Score one for TimeWarner Cable. Charge for service that can't be received.
Yesterday, with the "new" Time Warner supplied Arris Cable Modem I was trying to make VoIP calls using Switch and OnSip and found myself challenged. Some calls on some iOS devices with Bria and OnSip would work. Others wouldn't until I played with ICE, STUN and Turn settings. Switch and Bria would only work on the Mac with a VPN. The testing revealed something was blocking the network, and thanks TR Missner, a long time friend and the Chief Network Architect at Switch I was able to quickly ask Time Warner Support to turn off the firewall, give me access to the back end of the Cable Modem and voila, no more blocking of SIP signaling and media with the Firewall turned off.
Today, I solved the third problem. Speed. Using the Arris Wi-Fi the best speeds I could get over Wi-Fi using 802.11n was 100 megs. I added my own Apple Time Capsule (latest model) which offers 802.11 ac and here's my speeds now.
The funny thing is the rule of thumb that TWC is telling customers is that if they want to get their full speeds they need to be hard wired. The reality is they are providing equipment that doesn't have the capability to deliver the Wi-Fi speeds, yet my Apple Time Capsule does the job.
Here's the rationale. Just as when I was younger I never bought an all in one stereo system, preferring components instead, the same applies to Internet connectivity. By using the cable modem as just that, and as a router, but my own Wi-Fi gear I'm taking advantage of the gigabit capabilities of the router, Time Warners super fast network to the premise and getting what's being paid for, all without the overhang of the carrier imposed restrictions.
It feels good to be home, as this was the same setup I had in San Diego...
L.A. Now it feels like home.
Pal PhoneBoy, an uber, uber geek has penned a very descriptive piece on the new AT&T Wi-Fi calling functionality.
Yesterday, I went to the AT&T Store here in Miami and updated my SIM to a xxxx27 version from an xxxx25 edition that dates back to my iPhone 5 era as I've been on NANO SIM's since the day they came out and nothing from AT&T ever came along suggesting an "upgraded SIM." (I guess this is one reason why Apple is pursuing the idea of a SoftSim concept.)
My experience was fairly similar to my first day on T-Mobile Wi-Fi. Once you get onto a Wi-Fi network the indicator changes from AT&T to AT&T Wi-Fi and where you once didn't have great coverage, you now do.
All my calls went through perfectly, but there's been no one on the other end to talk to who was on HD Voice on AT&T yet where as on T-Mobile almost all my friends on iPhone's or Samsung Galaxy's seem to be in HD land already.
I also contacted Verizon and added HD-Voice, which is a free upgrade and their rep claimed that HD Voice is interoperable now between carriers deploying it. That's something that needs to be proven out. If so, then services like SWITCH and UBERConference, Calliflower, WebEx and GoToMeeting all need to add the same HD-Voice codecs so when people dial in, vs. App In to the calls, they sound pristine. I just wonder how long it will take for that day to come.
I've been using T-Mobile Wi-Fi calling and HD-Voice since they rolled out the service on one of my iPhones. Now, AT&T has added the same features almost a year later. But there's a hitch. You need to have a newer version of an AT&T SIM card and that requires a visit to your local AT&T store.
That's a point that the AT&T web site and media coverage fails to point out even though the web page lists many caveats, restrictions and limitations.
I'm excited that AT&T is adding Wi-Fi calling, at least until more buildings and hotels become DAS equipped. We're entering an era where land lines are becoming more and more extinct and LTE coverage in building gets patchy and spotty. Wi-Fi is more plentiful and far more available, thus getting coverage and network access in the mobile first era makes Wi-Fi calling essential, and removes the need for Skype or another VoIP service provider who already has Wi-Fi calling capability from being in place.
This opens up a whole other argument. Equal Access to the mobile operator's networks. But that's for another day.
This is all about the sharing economy and focused on delivery services. Over the past year I've gotten excited about Amazon Fresh and the potential it has. I've learned to use Uber with great success and from the two have seen economical benefits of scale and at the same time seen how when mistakes go bad there's a utter lack of owning the problem in the field until you get to someone with authority.
While many local governments are quick to condemn Uber these days, siding with aging taxi and limo fleets, they're avoiding a whole other set of "transportation" companies that deliver other items. So perhaps it's time to look at how the Uber Model that seems to benefit the customer more, as I've had a far higher percentage of great rides vs. a far lower percentage of great deliveries over the past 10 months or so here in the USA.
Let's face it Uber works well because the driver and passenger communicate effectively, when the on-board technology functions (Mapping, GPS) properly and the last, but most important part, the driver knows what he's doing and where he or she is driving. However, a driver who is unable to navigate the region or who has incorrectly programmed their GPS, who is not receiving real time traffic updates, doesn't know alternative routes of the local travel patterns by day part can almost always bring frustration to even the most patient traveler.
Amazon Fresh is a great concept. Think FedEx for food deliveries. Originally Amazon used their own drivers and a hub and spoke distribution model to get your food to you literally same day or overnight. But as they expanded I began to experience delivery issues-food not arriving on time, being delivered to the wrong address, confusion in the field, and eventually seeing a shift from private delivery to the US Postal Service. As those shifts in trial services evolved the time of delivery window was missed and delays seemed to arise as the post office wasn't using their local postmen to deliver but drivers from other stations who had no familiarity with the various communities.
Compare this to Dominos Pizza who used to have a 30 minute guarantee, or even FedEx and UPS whose route drivers are trained to deal with delays, and which have in place policies that immediately cover mistakes or delays in delivery. Those service all put the burden on their drivers, never make the problem the customer's and never put the blame on the shipper. They own the problem and the solution.
Over in Portugal I made extensive use of the SuperMercado at El Cortes des Ingles for food, grocery and household goods deliveries as the service was accessible on the Web and via an App, much like Amazon Fresh. What I found was loyal, dedicated employees, who showed up on time, with the orders and who checked to make sure the order being delivered was what was ordered. And, what's more, the deliveries always arrived on time or even earlier than scheduled by no more than an hour. No order was ever late, and no order ever arrived with anything incorrect. The reason was quite simple. The orders were pulled by one person. Checked by another and then the delivery person also checked the order when leaving the distribution center, and counted boxes/containers and bags, all of which were marked #x of y to ensure that nothing remained on the delivery truck.
Recently though I've experienced food delivery orders that have been both outstanding or downright horrible. It's so hit and miss, I'm going to stop being a paying Guinea Pig as the experience from the many services all suffer from one issue. They don't have a way to cure the problems quickly other than giving a refund. These services include Delivery.com, GrubHub, DoorstepDelivery and Postmates, all part of the sharing economy, where an Uber like approach is applied to the idea of delivery of food from restaurants, pizzerias, sandwich shops and cafes.
From these experiences two consistent threads have emerged: when there's a problem with the order, the delivery service never wants to take the blame. They also have no way to cure the problem.
In every case the delivery company throws the problem back on the food establishment and often the workers at both have no real authority to cure the problem short of giving credit or a refund. Unfortunately, a credit when one is hungry doesn't solve the problem of hunger, nor does blaming the other party do anything to show ownership of the issue. That makes it the customers responsibility, as the delivery supplier is seeking to remove themselves from curing the problem they may have created or perpetuated. As an example, asking Postmates to cure the problem by reordering and handling the delivery results in this statement:
unfortunately, we do not have permission to place orders for customers due to sensitivity issues with personal information. you will receive an email confirmation regarding your refund within 24 hours and you are free to place another order and the delivery cost will be waived by us.
I'm not sure what's sensitive or personal about my order. The driver had plain site view of the order information. Postmates has knowledge of my address, credit card number, name and phone number. If personal information and privacy are concerns, then only take cash, not credit, and double blind the driver and the customer. That would mean not knowing my name, address, unit number, apartment number, phone number so their "reply" doesn't really hold water. What's more it's really unclear if they are acting on my behalf or the suppliers (but the same argument could be made around FedEx and UPS as the customer of the merchant is paying for the service of delivery, but the merchant is their actual customer.)
What have I experienced:
- Soggy sandwiches and fries packaged in clear plastic boxes or styrofoam containers. As the steam from the items (often burgers or steak sandwiches) comes off the bread and meat, the box turns into a sauna. The result, a wilted roll, and a very damp, and cooled off sandwich as the moisture cools. Fries that are soggy or worse, wet, damp and cool.
- Pizzas delivered ice cold. This has happened so often with "outsourced" delivery I'm giving up order food from any place that doesn't have their own drivers. I remember the days when pizzerias had their own delivery teams, and their vans and cars had hot boxes in the back or trunk, and the driver used a thick thermal bag to ensure the pie arrived hot. Today, with the shared economy, drivers are lucky to have a hot bag to hold the pizza box, may deliver by bike messenger (in SF this is normal) or simply have too many orders to deliver and the food arrives cold. I also recall my nights in Philadelphia and New York where delivery was on-time, hot, properly prepared and delivered and where the delivery person was the same person from the restaurants and pizza joints, not a person who was "shared." But those days are gone.
- Multiple Amazon Fresh orders delivered to a house on a different street in my neighborhood because the GPS info from Google Maps was wrong. After the first time, Amazon's Customer Service Team made notes to my account, but when it happened a second and third time after a series of properly delivered orders it became apparent the hard work done by Customer Service to make sure the customer data was updated wasn't making it to new and different modes of delivery as Amazon refined their distribution model.
- Delivery times or delivery windows missed to the point where the supplier/restaurant was closed and unable to correct errors with the order or make the order over again.
But, mistakes in delivery that are correctable, and don't impact your health and well being are one thing. Screwing up and delivering cold food that should be hot, and not wanting to own the solution falls not on the delivery company working for third parties, which is what Delivery.com, GrubHub, DoorstepDelivery and Postmates all do. The ownership of the delivery failure falls on the establishment to correct for their customer, and then address what went wrong with the delivery team. Telling the customer the problem isn't their's to cure, other than a refund is avoiding the issue and leaves one hungry. But when both parties blame the other, and claim there's no solution, it clearly means the expectation of a properly handled delivery was a failure by both parties.
On other hand, delivery services that adapt and are equipped to handle hot and cold deliveries as they take on the role of customer agent will thrive. As in Portugal, that means inspecting the order before leaving the supplier's premises, counting items, evaluating the temperature of the items, both hot and cold, then having the properly equipped vehicle to maintain temperature (health and sanitary issues can arise if not) and when making the delivery. This also requires the driver to do more than count the items and scamper off. They also need to make sure the customer is happy that the order was delivered complete and correctly. Unfortunately, Delivery.com, GrubHub, DoorstepDelivery and Postmates never do more than count items, and leave, relying on an email or app message to ask "was everything ok" and if you say no, simply chalk it up and not own the solution.
Compare this to Uber which uses data to improve their services, and never at the cost of a passengers health and welfare. Of late I've seen significant improvements where newer drivers are actually better prepared than newer drivers as recent as six months ago. This is both due to data and a new program where veteran drivers go out into the field to have "test rides" to make sure the new drivers do things right. As one driver who talked about the new program said, "I have a near 5.0 average, so I'm asked to evaluate new drivers. I'm more like a teacher than an instructor, as I correct their mistakes, I don't just tell them what to do and hope the do it right."
Companies which use human evaluation, mystery shopping and data to improve performances, will be more Uber like, where the company never make the passenger the cause of issues when a driver does something wrong. If a bad route is taken or bad driver behavior is reported to them that will quickly yield a credit, a note of appreciation/apology and a survey to see how happy you were with their actions. Delivery.com, GrubHub, DoorstepDelivery and Postmates fail to do any of that. They just "eat their mistakes" but don't really correct the problems.
In my view, local governments need to not look at Uber as the enemy that is destroying the taxi business, but as a company that is doing more things better to improve transportation of people for less money and doing it better. Instead the laws and regulations for delivery of items by these new upstarts and their field force needs to be viewed in such a way as to how local regulations are applied and how they can insure that the customer's expectations are able to be met, safely and in a healthy manner. For example, does the delivery company maintain sanitary conditions in all vehicles? Are the drivers all wearing gloves? Are the drivers tested for health concerns? Flu? TB? Viruses? Is the box or bag being kept at the proper temperature?
In my book all these new services, like Uber, are great in concept, as they are providing us with greater choices, more flexibility and better options. They are often good for the environment, and result in increasing employment and bolstering the economy. Unfortunately, they are not always good at what their underlying premise is. That being delivery of what was purchased, the way it was purchased, and for when it is supposed to arrive.