The agents on the phone are incentivized to get the customer off the phone as soon as possible. That is in the phone agent's best interest. Where this eventually leads to is that agents will tell a customer anything they want to hear to get them off the phone. Especially when confronted with a problem so big that they cannot easily fix it, a problem that is a can of worms, a problem that might involve any kind of followup, etc.
Why could Comcast pick this kind of incentive for customer service? Because they want to have bad customer service.
1. How many problems have you had with your Comcast service? [x] Zero [_] Less than one
2. Which of the following problems have you experienced with Comcast? (Please check all that apply.) [_] Was unable to express in words how happy I was with Comcast service! [_] Could not reach enough Comcast people to express my joy with Comcast service. [_] The online payment system has a bug that will not allow me to pay more than the actual price for the service.
3. How would you rate your Comcast service? [_] Fantastical [_] Amazing [_] Wonderful [_] Marvelous [_] Good
Thank you for your feedback. As a reward for sending us feedback, would you like to receive craptacular email offers from selected Comcast partners? [_] Yes! Please fill my inbox to overflowing! [_] No. (but fill my inbox anyway)
> Wikipedia has come to dominate without requiring any policy changes. > Netflix has also come to dominate without requiring any policy changes. > SpaceX is doing just fine without any policy changes.
Without regulation to stop innovation, the innovation happens. Unless the ruling class can hinder innovation, it upsets existing business models. Examples: There was a thriving industry that supported the manufacture and maintenance of everything related to horse drawn buggies. There was an industry that sold lanterns and oil before the scourge of electric lighting came along.
That is why the ruling class should must hinder innovation, to protect the rich. Things must change such that the peasants must get permission from the ruling class in order to innovate.
(sad but the way some people seem to actually see it)
In 50 years when we have self driving cars and technology has changed everything, NASCAR will probably be replaced by a more modern sport, such as BitTorrenting competitions.
Unfortunately, Creative Commons (and also open source licenses!) beautifully hacked around making copyright the unavoidable default. Making it almost impossible for something to merely exist in the public domain.
An innovative way to fix creative commons (and maybe also open source licenses) is to legislate that ALL copyright licenses (like CC, and GPL, etc) require that some amount of money be paid for use of the license. That way politicians can rationalize that they have added value* to the economy.
* here's another idea to add value to the economy: break all the shop windows on main street -- those businesses will have to pay the glass companies for repairs -- thus stimulating the economy!
The problem with innovation is that it upsets existing entrenched business built upon the inefficiencies that innovation tends to eliminate.
That is why you must convince the ruling class to allow us mere peasants to create innovation. Even if the innovation doesn't affect the legislators, it certainly affects their friends, or those who put money into their pockets while whispering things into their ears about how wonderful inefficiency is.
The Internet upsets information monopolies. (Encyclopedias, dictionaries, other reference information, public domain information that you must pay a price to obtain, etc) The same as libraries, but at your fingertips, any time, anywhere.
The Internet allows artists to sell their content directly to consumers cutting out the exploitative and vastly inefficient dinosaur middlemen.
The Internet allows the creation of cloud services, that upset less efficient businesses. (Example: Uber, Lyft. But I could also repeat: Netflix, Amazon Prime)
And these are just the most obvious examples.
Innovation like self driving cars is going to upset so many people that we may never get self driving cars. Self driving cars are the realization of a dream -- come true. Saving vast amounts of wasted human intellect and productivity. Yet we may never get them because: taxis could become Johnny Cab (self driving, while spewing inane small talk), insurance companies want more accidents, car ownership may decline affecting dealers and auto makers.
Innovation like electric cars threatens big oil -- despite that we should have begun serious work on electric cars, decades ago. Why did GM wastefully destroy all those beloved and perfectly working electric cars when California changed its law to no longer require a minimum percent of EVs?
Innovation like SpaceX threatens fat dinosaurs sucking at the government teat.
I could go on. But there are major problems with innovation. That's why we should not do it.
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
Getting Google to block a site does not make the site go away.
Going after Google instead of going after the site which Google conveniently identified for you is just plain stupid and shows complete ignorance of how the intarwebtubes work.
Other search engines will still show the site. Pirates using the site will continue to share the location of the site with other would-be pirates.
So can a ${countryX} court order Google to block all Canadian commercial sites because they represent immoral greedy Western blasphemous values and are illegal under ${theoryX} laws?
But wait. If I understand the RIAA / MPAA correctly, merely copying leaves holes all over the internet. After all, each time you copy something, you stole it.
It is better to Cut and Paste rather than to Steal and Paste.
In 1980, IBM knew perfectly well that the Mainframe was the dog and PC's were toys. By 1990, IBM was struggling to be competitive with PC's which were fast becoming a bigger industry than mainframes.
In 1980, IBM knew perfectly well that the profit was all in the hardware and software was just a necessary add on that you wrote in order to sell hardware. Steve Jobs back then said something like: "the software tail that wags the hardware dog". By 1990, look at Microsoft. By 2000, it looked like Microsoft was about to take over the world -- just as open source was starting to gain traction.
In 2000, when it was on top of the world, Microsoft thought the OS and locally installed applications was the dog, and the web was the tail. Today, the local OS is irrelevant and applications run on the web, are integrated with all your devices (running different OSes).
If you cannot get good enough Netflix service in your home, then it is YOUR LOCAL ISP's fault. It is their job to deliver bandwidth to you from one or more other networks. Where that bandwidth originates (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, YouTube, No-Name, etc) is none of your ISP's business.
Netflix pays handsomely for bandwidth at their end. Your local ISP needs to charge you enough to deliver good service at a competitive price while making a reasonable profit.
A bee keeper believes that he owns the bees. After all, it is his bee boxes that the bees use to make honey. The bees make honey just for the bee keeper because the bees have no other motivation or reason to make honey.
The bee keeper may not realize that the bees are free to leave at any time. If the bee keeper makes the bee box unusable for its intended purpose, the bees will leave. Maybe not instantly. But definitely.
On the post: Post Merger-Failure, Comcast Still Dedicated To Treating Customers Like Shit
Re:
Why could Comcast pick this kind of incentive for customer service? Because they want to have bad customer service.
On the post: Comcast Thinks Using Misleading Polls Will Somehow Fix Its Horrible Reputation
Customer Service Feedback
[x] Zero
[_] Less than one
2. Which of the following problems have you experienced with Comcast? (Please check all that apply.)
[_] Was unable to express in words how happy I was with Comcast service!
[_] Could not reach enough Comcast people to express my joy with Comcast service.
[_] The online payment system has a bug that will not allow me to pay more than the actual price for the service.
3. How would you rate your Comcast service?
[_] Fantastical
[_] Amazing
[_] Wonderful
[_] Marvelous
[_] Good
Thank you for your feedback. As a reward for sending us feedback, would you like to receive craptacular email offers from selected Comcast partners?
[_] Yes! Please fill my inbox to overflowing!
[_] No. (but fill my inbox anyway)
On the post: Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
> Netflix has also come to dominate without requiring any policy changes.
> SpaceX is doing just fine without any policy changes.
Without regulation to stop innovation, the innovation happens. Unless the ruling class can hinder innovation, it upsets existing business models. Examples: There was a thriving industry that supported the manufacture and maintenance of everything related to horse drawn buggies. There was an industry that sold lanterns and oil before the scourge of electric lighting came along.
That is why the ruling class should must hinder innovation, to protect the rich. Things must change such that the peasants must get permission from the ruling class in order to innovate.
(sad but the way some people seem to actually see it)
On the post: Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
Both lawyers are locked in a steel cage suspended from the court ceiling until one wins.
On the post: Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
Re: Re: The problem with Innovation
On the post: Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
Re: How to fix Creative Commons
just in case it is not clear that the above is sarcastic
On the post: Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
How to fix Creative Commons
An innovative way to fix creative commons (and maybe also open source licenses) is to legislate that ALL copyright licenses (like CC, and GPL, etc) require that some amount of money be paid for use of the license. That way politicians can rationalize that they have added value* to the economy.
* here's another idea to add value to the economy: break all the shop windows on main street -- those businesses will have to pay the glass companies for repairs -- thus stimulating the economy!
On the post: Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
The problem with Innovation
That is why you must convince the ruling class to allow us mere peasants to create innovation. Even if the innovation doesn't affect the legislators, it certainly affects their friends, or those who put money into their pockets while whispering things into their ears about how wonderful inefficiency is.
The Internet upsets information monopolies. (Encyclopedias, dictionaries, other reference information, public domain information that you must pay a price to obtain, etc) The same as libraries, but at your fingertips, any time, anywhere.
The Internet allows artists to sell their content directly to consumers cutting out the exploitative and vastly inefficient dinosaur middlemen.
The Internet allows the creation of cloud services, that upset less efficient businesses. (Example: Uber, Lyft. But I could also repeat: Netflix, Amazon Prime)
And these are just the most obvious examples.
Innovation like self driving cars is going to upset so many people that we may never get self driving cars. Self driving cars are the realization of a dream -- come true. Saving vast amounts of wasted human intellect and productivity. Yet we may never get them because: taxis could become Johnny Cab (self driving, while spewing inane small talk), insurance companies want more accidents, car ownership may decline affecting dealers and auto makers.
Innovation like electric cars threatens big oil -- despite that we should have begun serious work on electric cars, decades ago. Why did GM wastefully destroy all those beloved and perfectly working electric cars when California changed its law to no longer require a minimum percent of EVs?
Innovation like SpaceX threatens fat dinosaurs sucking at the government teat.
I could go on. But there are major problems with innovation. That's why we should not do it.
On the post: Austria Wants To Bring In Google Tax For Snippets -- Including Single Words
Re: Their twisted logic.
What about letters of the alphabet?
(the subtitle on TD said: how low can you go?)
On the post: Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
Google Translate
Therefore, Google is unable to understand the order.
On the post: Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
Re: Re:
Netflix not providing service based on location is to comply with the law.
Google cutting off Canada would be likewise.
On the post: Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
Re:
They would also stop focusing on Google and focus on websites actually engaged in infringement.
Clue: there are search engines other than Google that let people find infringing content.
On the post: Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"
Going after Google instead of going after the site which Google conveniently identified for you is just plain stupid and shows complete ignorance of how the intarwebtubes work.
Other search engines will still show the site. Pirates using the site will continue to share the location of the site with other would-be pirates.
On the post: Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally
That sword cuts both ways
On the post: Lawyers Threaten SomethingAwful For Using Photo In Movie Review
Re:
It is better to Cut and Paste rather than to Steal and Paste.
On the post: Payroll Giant ADP And Zenefits Get Into Ridiculous Spat That Has Already Resulted In A Lawsuit
Re: Which is the dog and which is the tail?
In 1980, IBM knew perfectly well that the profit was all in the hardware and software was just a necessary add on that you wrote in order to sell hardware. Steve Jobs back then said something like: "the software tail that wags the hardware dog". By 1990, look at Microsoft. By 2000, it looked like Microsoft was about to take over the world -- just as open source was starting to gain traction.
In 2000, when it was on top of the world, Microsoft thought the OS and locally installed applications was the dog, and the web was the tail. Today, the local OS is irrelevant and applications run on the web, are integrated with all your devices (running different OSes).
On the post: Payroll Giant ADP And Zenefits Get Into Ridiculous Spat That Has Already Resulted In A Lawsuit
Re: Re: Owning the Customers
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects ISP Stay Of Neutrality Rules, Which Officially Go Live Tomorrow
Re:
If you cannot get good enough Netflix service in your home, then it is YOUR LOCAL ISP's fault. It is their job to deliver bandwidth to you from one or more other networks. Where that bandwidth originates (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, YouTube, No-Name, etc) is none of your ISP's business.
Netflix pays handsomely for bandwidth at their end. Your local ISP needs to charge you enough to deliver good service at a competitive price while making a reasonable profit.
On the post: Payroll Giant ADP And Zenefits Get Into Ridiculous Spat That Has Already Resulted In A Lawsuit
Owning the Customers
The bee keeper may not realize that the bees are free to leave at any time. If the bee keeper makes the bee box unusable for its intended purpose, the bees will leave. Maybe not instantly. But definitely.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects ISP Stay Of Neutrality Rules, Which Officially Go Live Tomorrow
I better say goodbye now!
Thanks TechDirt! I enjoyed your site for many years while the intarwebs were still working.
Next >>