Damn, my iPad got slightly damp in the rain, and stopped working. Annoying. Not even a lot of rain. (My sonim was fine)
If only there was an iPad2 to replace it with. Oh, err...
2011-03-02
Stolen car and recovery fees
Well, I have ranted about how there are too many nanny-state regulations to protect consumers. To be honest that is a bit over the top - I understand that without a lot of this there would be so many dodgy companies it would be unbearable.
What gets me though is when the laws penalise the citizen for no good reason, as happened to a friend of mine last week.
He had the mis-fortune to have both his cars stolen! Yes, someone broke in through the patio doors during the night while they were asleep, took the car keys and stole both cars!
No idea what they were used for but they were abandoned a few days later. They were not substantially damaged in any way, upright, and on the road, and not illegally parked or anything.
Now, when this happens you have all sorts of silly and annoying costs - new keys (expensive these days), valeting the car, that sort of thing. Sadly this can add up to less than the insurance excess, as is the case here.
What you don't need is extra costs you did not ask for. In this case the police obviously wanted to do proper scene of crime stuff on the cars, and so they wanted them "recovered" to a secure depot for them to do that. They would not allow the owner to go and get them himself.
Now they have finished he is expected to pay £250 for each car to cover the cost of recovery. Recovery he did not ask for and did not need or want. Something the police wanted to do, not him.
This is outrageous, obviously, and surely cannot be right. The yard where they are held are holding them to ransom, so he has no choice but to pay. Surely this extortion and/or theft? You would think so!
Apparently the Road Traffic Act allows the police to recover vehicles, even if not illegally parked, even if not causing any obstruction. Cars in a circumstance where they could be validly parked with no problem. However, as they were stolen and left they have been "abandoned", and so the police can recover them. The law goes on to say that the owner then has to pay for the recover, and storage, and any parking charges that may apply and the car can be held until paid!
This is clearly just wrong in these circumstances. There are many where this is sensible I am sure. If the owner abandons a car, then fine, make them pay, but this is a case where the owner has clearly done nothing wrong. The owner has not asked for the car to be recovered or stored. The owner is the victim of a crime and being punished. How is this valid or fair?
To add insult to injury the recovery company operate a set of rules, which they have clearly made up, where "if the car has to be lifted off the road then we charge £250, but if it can simply be towed then we charge £150". The law on the other hand says if the car is on the road, upright and not substantially damaged then the prescribed fee is £150. Only if it is substantially damaged is the charge £250. Not having keys present is hardly "substantially damaged" by any stretch of the imagination. But they have the car and will not let him have it unless he pays the inflated sum of £250 each.
So, I feel sorry for my friend who now has the hassle of dealing with all of this as well as dealing with the insurance company (who are also making his life hell) when it will not reach the excess anyway so he has to pay it all out of his own pocket.
But seriously, how do we have laws allowing you to be effectively fined for something you did not do when you are the victim of a crime? That is madness.
What gets me though is when the laws penalise the citizen for no good reason, as happened to a friend of mine last week.
He had the mis-fortune to have both his cars stolen! Yes, someone broke in through the patio doors during the night while they were asleep, took the car keys and stole both cars!
No idea what they were used for but they were abandoned a few days later. They were not substantially damaged in any way, upright, and on the road, and not illegally parked or anything.
Now, when this happens you have all sorts of silly and annoying costs - new keys (expensive these days), valeting the car, that sort of thing. Sadly this can add up to less than the insurance excess, as is the case here.
What you don't need is extra costs you did not ask for. In this case the police obviously wanted to do proper scene of crime stuff on the cars, and so they wanted them "recovered" to a secure depot for them to do that. They would not allow the owner to go and get them himself.
Now they have finished he is expected to pay £250 for each car to cover the cost of recovery. Recovery he did not ask for and did not need or want. Something the police wanted to do, not him.
This is outrageous, obviously, and surely cannot be right. The yard where they are held are holding them to ransom, so he has no choice but to pay. Surely this extortion and/or theft? You would think so!
Apparently the Road Traffic Act allows the police to recover vehicles, even if not illegally parked, even if not causing any obstruction. Cars in a circumstance where they could be validly parked with no problem. However, as they were stolen and left they have been "abandoned", and so the police can recover them. The law goes on to say that the owner then has to pay for the recover, and storage, and any parking charges that may apply and the car can be held until paid!
This is clearly just wrong in these circumstances. There are many where this is sensible I am sure. If the owner abandons a car, then fine, make them pay, but this is a case where the owner has clearly done nothing wrong. The owner has not asked for the car to be recovered or stored. The owner is the victim of a crime and being punished. How is this valid or fair?
To add insult to injury the recovery company operate a set of rules, which they have clearly made up, where "if the car has to be lifted off the road then we charge £250, but if it can simply be towed then we charge £150". The law on the other hand says if the car is on the road, upright and not substantially damaged then the prescribed fee is £150. Only if it is substantially damaged is the charge £250. Not having keys present is hardly "substantially damaged" by any stretch of the imagination. But they have the car and will not let him have it unless he pays the inflated sum of £250 each.
So, I feel sorry for my friend who now has the hassle of dealing with all of this as well as dealing with the insurance company (who are also making his life hell) when it will not reach the excess anyway so he has to pay it all out of his own pocket.
But seriously, how do we have laws allowing you to be effectively fined for something you did not do when you are the victim of a crime? That is madness.
HD and SD TV
Well, I am pleased that Sky have swapped HD and SD channels round. Well, many of them. Odd that a few are not swapped like BBC1/BBC1 HD...
Anyway, this afternoon I actually got to see what it was like not being able to tell the difference. Eye drops for an eye test making everything bright and blurry for a few hours.
Anyway, this afternoon I actually got to see what it was like not being able to tell the difference. Eye drops for an eye test making everything bright and blurry for a few hours.
OFCOM's speed report
Speed of broadband lines is an interesting issue, and OFCOM have once again released a report that focuses on the larger ISPs.
Statements like "The average broadband access download speed UK users experienced rose 5% to 6.2Mbps, but this is less than half the average headline speed they pay for, communications regulator Ofcom says." just show some serious misunderstandings.
If you are paying for an "up to 8Mb/s" line then you are getting what you are paying for if it is 500K. In fact, you are only not getting what you pay for if it is over 8Mb/s (when you are getting more than you are paying for).
Oddly, I don't recall this being an issue when people purchased 56K modems. Unlike ADSL1 where a significant proportion of people get the full 8128K sync rate, 56K modems rarely, if ever, got 56K.
There are a lot of issues that affect the apparent speed of a connection. It is not simply a matter of "how fast can I download a big file", though that is obviously an important point. As speeds get higher factors which previously did not matter, such as the software in the TCP stacks at each end, the load on the sending server, the latency on the link, and the impact of low levels of packet loss, can have more and more noticable effects. In many cases what an end user sees as "slow" can be a latency issue or a DNS problem and not a line speed issue at all.
So, in light of that, it seems odd that there is so much focus on line sync rate.
For some time the A&A site has not headlined speeds, but listed technologies (ADSL1, ADSL2+, FTTC, FTTP). We then explain in the more detailed pages that, for example, ADSL2+ as a protocol will allow sync rates of not more than 24Mb/s.
It is a shame we can't use common phrases like "up to" and people understand. Perhaps by saying "not more than" people will. Who knows?
To be honest, for the vast majority of people, the difference between 10Mb/s and 40Mb/s is not relevant. Indeed, the 6Mb/s OFCOM quoted is really good as it allows iPlayer and the like (assuming there are not latency and packet loss issues). Yes, faster is generally better, but it gets to a point where the line speed is not the bottleneck.
The problem is people compare headline speeds. We have the crazy situation that one telco can do 100Mb/s fibre links, so another is looking at changing the settings, using gigabit ports, and being able to quote it as 101Mb/s. It makes no odds but people will buy the faster speed. This is why lines are often quoted as line sync rate, e.g. 8.128M for ADSL1 rather than IP throughput (e.g. 7.15M for 8.128M sync). If you have one ISP saying "up to 7.15M" and another saying "up to 8M" then which do you buy? In that case the line is exactly the same, it is just where you measure it.
Anyway, we decided OFCOMs voluntary code of practice was, this time, actually impossible to adhere to. We have not signed up to it. We have our own set of commitments which we think are better.
A&A Speed commitments
OFCOM code of practice
Note for example OFCOM define "the minimum guaranteed access line speed" as "the 10th percentile of the ISP's similar customers". Indeed, lines "at or below" this are considered to have a fault. This is, of course, totally crazy, as 10th percentile is a moving target (if you fix lines below it, or they leave then the target moves up). Also, by talking of "similar customers" you make the range narrow. e.g. if we were to say "ADSL1 lines very close to the exchange" we can expect the 10th percentile to be 8128K sync (as more than 90% of ADSL1 lines very close to the exchange get that top speed). This means that *all* of those customers are at or below the the minimum guaranteed access line speed of 8128K. The fact there is the hard limit on top speed of ADSL1 actually makes the best and fastest lines considered "at fault". Even looking at all customers on one line type, like ADSL1, there is huge incentive to not fix dodgy lines as that keeps the 10th percentile rate lower. An ISP that actually tries to fix slow lines makes their stats look worse and worse as the 10th percentile rises. Someone made these rules with no thought at all.
There is a point about "the spirit" of the code and not "the letter", which is carte blanche to ignore almost all of these annoying details and so make the code a waste of time. The writers of the code clearly want at least 10% of all lines or all ISPs to be considered to be faulty on an ongoing basis. That is clearly the "spirit" of the code.
Our code says we will actually monitor all lines all the time, making that available to customers, and use it to assess the problem, considering the causes of slow speed (like loss and latency) as well, and taking slow speed reports seriously. It even says we will monitor how well carriers are working in their core network and tackle issues we find.
I think our code is much better. It is also a lot easier to follow the "spirit" rather than the "letter" as it is worded in terms of objectives not specific percentiles and rules.
Statements like "The average broadband access download speed UK users experienced rose 5% to 6.2Mbps, but this is less than half the average headline speed they pay for, communications regulator Ofcom says." just show some serious misunderstandings.
If you are paying for an "up to 8Mb/s" line then you are getting what you are paying for if it is 500K. In fact, you are only not getting what you pay for if it is over 8Mb/s (when you are getting more than you are paying for).
Oddly, I don't recall this being an issue when people purchased 56K modems. Unlike ADSL1 where a significant proportion of people get the full 8128K sync rate, 56K modems rarely, if ever, got 56K.
There are a lot of issues that affect the apparent speed of a connection. It is not simply a matter of "how fast can I download a big file", though that is obviously an important point. As speeds get higher factors which previously did not matter, such as the software in the TCP stacks at each end, the load on the sending server, the latency on the link, and the impact of low levels of packet loss, can have more and more noticable effects. In many cases what an end user sees as "slow" can be a latency issue or a DNS problem and not a line speed issue at all.
So, in light of that, it seems odd that there is so much focus on line sync rate.
For some time the A&A site has not headlined speeds, but listed technologies (ADSL1, ADSL2+, FTTC, FTTP). We then explain in the more detailed pages that, for example, ADSL2+ as a protocol will allow sync rates of not more than 24Mb/s.
It is a shame we can't use common phrases like "up to" and people understand. Perhaps by saying "not more than" people will. Who knows?
To be honest, for the vast majority of people, the difference between 10Mb/s and 40Mb/s is not relevant. Indeed, the 6Mb/s OFCOM quoted is really good as it allows iPlayer and the like (assuming there are not latency and packet loss issues). Yes, faster is generally better, but it gets to a point where the line speed is not the bottleneck.
The problem is people compare headline speeds. We have the crazy situation that one telco can do 100Mb/s fibre links, so another is looking at changing the settings, using gigabit ports, and being able to quote it as 101Mb/s. It makes no odds but people will buy the faster speed. This is why lines are often quoted as line sync rate, e.g. 8.128M for ADSL1 rather than IP throughput (e.g. 7.15M for 8.128M sync). If you have one ISP saying "up to 7.15M" and another saying "up to 8M" then which do you buy? In that case the line is exactly the same, it is just where you measure it.
Anyway, we decided OFCOMs voluntary code of practice was, this time, actually impossible to adhere to. We have not signed up to it. We have our own set of commitments which we think are better.
A&A Speed commitments
OFCOM code of practice
Note for example OFCOM define "the minimum guaranteed access line speed" as "the 10th percentile of the ISP's similar customers". Indeed, lines "at or below" this are considered to have a fault. This is, of course, totally crazy, as 10th percentile is a moving target (if you fix lines below it, or they leave then the target moves up). Also, by talking of "similar customers" you make the range narrow. e.g. if we were to say "ADSL1 lines very close to the exchange" we can expect the 10th percentile to be 8128K sync (as more than 90% of ADSL1 lines very close to the exchange get that top speed). This means that *all* of those customers are at or below the the minimum guaranteed access line speed of 8128K. The fact there is the hard limit on top speed of ADSL1 actually makes the best and fastest lines considered "at fault". Even looking at all customers on one line type, like ADSL1, there is huge incentive to not fix dodgy lines as that keeps the 10th percentile rate lower. An ISP that actually tries to fix slow lines makes their stats look worse and worse as the 10th percentile rises. Someone made these rules with no thought at all.
There is a point about "the spirit" of the code and not "the letter", which is carte blanche to ignore almost all of these annoying details and so make the code a waste of time. The writers of the code clearly want at least 10% of all lines or all ISPs to be considered to be faulty on an ongoing basis. That is clearly the "spirit" of the code.
Our code says we will actually monitor all lines all the time, making that available to customers, and use it to assess the problem, considering the causes of slow speed (like loss and latency) as well, and taking slow speed reports seriously. It even says we will monitor how well carriers are working in their core network and tackle issues we find.
I think our code is much better. It is also a lot easier to follow the "spirit" rather than the "letter" as it is worded in terms of objectives not specific percentiles and rules.
2011-03-01
When is save 20% not save 20%? (pic)
Why I have no intention of ever using ADR
We are forced to provide ADR to customers. That is an "alternative" dispute resolution, using an arbitrator as an alternative to the courts.
To be honest I never saw the point, country courts are cheap and simple and easy to handle. They are fair (loser pays) and have controlled costs so low risk.
I am all for sorting out disputes if they arise - don't get me wrong. We are even quite happy to err on the side of the customer if things are not clear in a dispute. We do try to avoid ambiguity by having things like call recording and ticketed email systems, and so on, but lets be fair with customers!
It is the nanny state that insists on ADRs for all telcos and ISPs.
Thankfully we work hard to avoid disputes in the first place and to ensure they are resolved if ever they happen. We are keen to be fair in our terms and dealing with customers, and for that reason we have never had a matter actually go to ADR. Phew! FYI, we pay for ADR, win or lose!
I was already pretty resolved to avoid matters going to ADR as I have heard horror stories from other ISPs where decisions are made against the ISP/telco on what are apparently quite clearly wrong grounds. The ADR decision is binding on the telco (but not the customer!).
After a discussion today I am even more resolved to not go to ADR. Thankfully this is not yet a dispute, but has involved discussion with the ADR (to decide if to take on a dispute). The exact details are probably considered confidential, but the nature of the potential dispute is simple and generic.
In a possibly unrelated matter, I think there is no reason not to discuss what would happen if a customer asked for a directory entry for their VoIP number from us.
We make it clear when ordering that we have no facilities to provide directory entries. Also that access to directories are via Internet access to web sites, etc. The important point is that we have no way to get people listed, as yet. Nobody has asked, and that is why we have never investigated further.
I would stress that this is something we are working on anyway, as it seems like it may be useful, even though customers have not asked until recently. It is also something we would have to do if BT directories asked us. So we may as well preempt it and try and get it sorted. It will take time.
Common practice is indeed that telcos have a contract with BT directories, and pass all new and changed directory entries to BT regularly. BT then provide access to the database to companies providing directory services.
The problem would be if someone insists that we are "required" to provide directory information to BT, and to state that to our customer. We would not like that.
There are two relevant parts to the regulations, GC8 and GC19.
GC19 is pretty simple even if it does not fit with common practice. It is a regulation making it clear that if BT (or anyone else doing directory services) comes to us, we have to accept requests from them to enter in to an agreement to provide directory information.
That does not mean we have to approach BT or anyone else. Whilst that is indeed common practice, it is not required by that regulation. So, no quibble that we comply with GC19.
There is one other regulation, GC8, which requires us (and every other telco) to offer directory information, e.g. a phone book, which includes all numbers from all telcos (that want to be listed). We normally do this via Internet access, but we can send a real phone book if needed (and can charge for it too).
This is a possible sticking point. If we do not provide the directory information to BT directories, then no telco can comply with GC8 as they are not providing our customers number in the directory and hence not providing all numbers of all telcos.
However, in my opinion, we are in fact the only ones that can comply with GC8, as we can get the local phone book, staple our customers details in it, and send it out. Thereby ensuring it does have all numbers including our customer's number. This assume no other telco is in the same spot as us, in which case nobody complies with GC8. If the phone book we send has all directory numbers in it then we comply, simple as that, in my opinion.
The potential argument is that unless we provide the details to BT then nobody else can comply with GC8. Well, to be frank, so what? That is their problem. I am not responsible for ensuring other telcos comply with GC8! I can comply with GC8. Yes, it is silly and pointless, but it is compliant, and that is what matters.
Basically GC8 means that directory compilation companies have to come to us else they are not complying with GC8. And, of course, if they do that we have to sort a suitable contract with them and provide the data (as per GC19). So the system works and hang together.
The issue is what happens when it does not work - when BT directories have not asked use for directory information. Who exactly is in the wrong there?
Well, the way it is all worded, to me, it is clear. We comply with GC8 and GC19. Other telcos are not complying with GC8. So it is everyone else that is in the wrong and not us!
Why argue this though?
Because I try my hardest to "do the right thing", and if someone says to our customer that we are not doing what is required, that is something I object to. We do what is required, in my opinion. We do what is agreed with the customer, which is also very important. The fact we do not follow common practice is not the point, and to be honest if someone said we are not following common practice I would not be upset. I do not try to be conformist :-)
So where now?
Well, given that one person, after many years and many thousands of numbers, wants a number in the directory, we have approached BT... again... and again... and eventually got someone that may have some clue and be able to progress matters. We have to get another reference number from OFCOM and then sort the standard contract and the technical means to send the data, but why not? I expect it will take months.
Also, it seems, after a lot of badgering, that a customer has managed to get BT directories to list his entry directly. Well done.
But what of ADR?
If it is true that the arbitrator cannot understand that being "technically correct" is still being "correct", then we will have problems if any dispute does get to ADR. Yes, this would, in my opinion be a close one, in that to comply with GC8 we would have to staple someone's details in to a BT phone book and send (on request and payment) to any of our customers that asks for it, but close to the line on the "correct" side of it is still "correct"!
Anyway, I can't do anything about a non dispute that will go away, even if someone has made statements about the company that are not strictly true. I'll just have to put up with it, and ensure we take every step to avoid ADR in future.
There are, in theory, ways to avoid ADR, including a rather nasty one... If the matter is going to court then it cannot go to ADR. This means that any dispute where we are asking our customers for money will go to court and not ADR, sorry. I am all in favour of the courts. My experience of them has been good mostly.
As usual, I'll keep trying to do the right thing...
To be honest I never saw the point, country courts are cheap and simple and easy to handle. They are fair (loser pays) and have controlled costs so low risk.
I am all for sorting out disputes if they arise - don't get me wrong. We are even quite happy to err on the side of the customer if things are not clear in a dispute. We do try to avoid ambiguity by having things like call recording and ticketed email systems, and so on, but lets be fair with customers!
It is the nanny state that insists on ADRs for all telcos and ISPs.
Thankfully we work hard to avoid disputes in the first place and to ensure they are resolved if ever they happen. We are keen to be fair in our terms and dealing with customers, and for that reason we have never had a matter actually go to ADR. Phew! FYI, we pay for ADR, win or lose!
I was already pretty resolved to avoid matters going to ADR as I have heard horror stories from other ISPs where decisions are made against the ISP/telco on what are apparently quite clearly wrong grounds. The ADR decision is binding on the telco (but not the customer!).
After a discussion today I am even more resolved to not go to ADR. Thankfully this is not yet a dispute, but has involved discussion with the ADR (to decide if to take on a dispute). The exact details are probably considered confidential, but the nature of the potential dispute is simple and generic.
In a possibly unrelated matter, I think there is no reason not to discuss what would happen if a customer asked for a directory entry for their VoIP number from us.
We make it clear when ordering that we have no facilities to provide directory entries. Also that access to directories are via Internet access to web sites, etc. The important point is that we have no way to get people listed, as yet. Nobody has asked, and that is why we have never investigated further.
I would stress that this is something we are working on anyway, as it seems like it may be useful, even though customers have not asked until recently. It is also something we would have to do if BT directories asked us. So we may as well preempt it and try and get it sorted. It will take time.
Common practice is indeed that telcos have a contract with BT directories, and pass all new and changed directory entries to BT regularly. BT then provide access to the database to companies providing directory services.
The problem would be if someone insists that we are "required" to provide directory information to BT, and to state that to our customer. We would not like that.
There are two relevant parts to the regulations, GC8 and GC19.
GC19 is pretty simple even if it does not fit with common practice. It is a regulation making it clear that if BT (or anyone else doing directory services) comes to us, we have to accept requests from them to enter in to an agreement to provide directory information.
That does not mean we have to approach BT or anyone else. Whilst that is indeed common practice, it is not required by that regulation. So, no quibble that we comply with GC19.
There is one other regulation, GC8, which requires us (and every other telco) to offer directory information, e.g. a phone book, which includes all numbers from all telcos (that want to be listed). We normally do this via Internet access, but we can send a real phone book if needed (and can charge for it too).
This is a possible sticking point. If we do not provide the directory information to BT directories, then no telco can comply with GC8 as they are not providing our customers number in the directory and hence not providing all numbers of all telcos.
However, in my opinion, we are in fact the only ones that can comply with GC8, as we can get the local phone book, staple our customers details in it, and send it out. Thereby ensuring it does have all numbers including our customer's number. This assume no other telco is in the same spot as us, in which case nobody complies with GC8. If the phone book we send has all directory numbers in it then we comply, simple as that, in my opinion.
The potential argument is that unless we provide the details to BT then nobody else can comply with GC8. Well, to be frank, so what? That is their problem. I am not responsible for ensuring other telcos comply with GC8! I can comply with GC8. Yes, it is silly and pointless, but it is compliant, and that is what matters.
Basically GC8 means that directory compilation companies have to come to us else they are not complying with GC8. And, of course, if they do that we have to sort a suitable contract with them and provide the data (as per GC19). So the system works and hang together.
The issue is what happens when it does not work - when BT directories have not asked use for directory information. Who exactly is in the wrong there?
Well, the way it is all worded, to me, it is clear. We comply with GC8 and GC19. Other telcos are not complying with GC8. So it is everyone else that is in the wrong and not us!
Why argue this though?
Because I try my hardest to "do the right thing", and if someone says to our customer that we are not doing what is required, that is something I object to. We do what is required, in my opinion. We do what is agreed with the customer, which is also very important. The fact we do not follow common practice is not the point, and to be honest if someone said we are not following common practice I would not be upset. I do not try to be conformist :-)
So where now?
Well, given that one person, after many years and many thousands of numbers, wants a number in the directory, we have approached BT... again... and again... and eventually got someone that may have some clue and be able to progress matters. We have to get another reference number from OFCOM and then sort the standard contract and the technical means to send the data, but why not? I expect it will take months.
Also, it seems, after a lot of badgering, that a customer has managed to get BT directories to list his entry directly. Well done.
But what of ADR?
If it is true that the arbitrator cannot understand that being "technically correct" is still being "correct", then we will have problems if any dispute does get to ADR. Yes, this would, in my opinion be a close one, in that to comply with GC8 we would have to staple someone's details in to a BT phone book and send (on request and payment) to any of our customers that asks for it, but close to the line on the "correct" side of it is still "correct"!
Anyway, I can't do anything about a non dispute that will go away, even if someone has made statements about the company that are not strictly true. I'll just have to put up with it, and ensure we take every step to avoid ADR in future.
There are, in theory, ways to avoid ADR, including a rather nasty one... If the matter is going to court then it cannot go to ADR. This means that any dispute where we are asking our customers for money will go to court and not ADR, sorry. I am all in favour of the courts. My experience of them has been good mostly.
As usual, I'll keep trying to do the right thing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
QR abuse...
I'm known for QR code stuff, and my library, but I have done some abuse of them for fun - I did round pixels rather than rectangular, f...
-
This is an appeal for (sensible) comments. I am working on revised A&A tariffs for broadband. For those that are not sure how they wor...
-
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo... -
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...