Crastinate

It can’t be done. There’s too much bureaucracy. There’s too much red tape. The powers that be won’t let it happen. Have you heard these phrases before?

I’ve always found that my best ideas are the ones that receive the most pessimism. I think the majority of the world wants to believe that the status-quo is close to the best solution possible. Minor tweaks might make that best solution possible and that is why minor tweaks is all that gets a positive reaction from these people.

Minor tweaks don’t solve problems. Minor tweaks make solutions better solutions. eBay wasn’t a minor tweak. The iPhone wasn’t a minor tweak. Blogging wasn’t a minor tweak. If you want to change the world, even in the smallest way, you’ve got to make something that shifts the way people think. That’s what solves problems. That scares these cynics so they respond accordingly.

If you’ve got an idea that people say would be great, but there is too much in your way to make it happen, you might be sitting on something that really can solve something.

Uncategorized joseph shmulewitz

I was discussing internet fame with the most unlikely of people today. The owner of Sleepytime Motel (where I stayed last night) was telling me the pressure he deals with now that Sleepytime is being rated on popular travel sites.

Sleepytime Motel is rated the #1 hotel in Lewiston, ME on TripAdvisor.com. The owner was telling me that the #1 status has brought in more business, but along with it, more pressure to perform. All you need is one bad review and you’ve lost your spot at the top as well as lots of potential business. I won’t be the one to knock Sleepytime off its pedestal. I had a wonderful stay. The room was nice and immaculately clean. The staff was extremely friendly and helpful. I highly recommend anyone staying in that area to stay there.

It’s amazing how the smallest of motels in a small town in Maine is affected so much by Web 2.0. So much, in fact, that it affects behavior and has added another pressure and incentive to provide a good service.

Uncategorized joseph shmulewitz

According to a blog post by Jason Kincaid at Techcrunch, the VC firm ratings site, TheFunded, is being sued by a VC firm that received a bad review by an anonymous reviewer. According to Jason

There are a lot of VCs who hate TheFunded for exposing character flaws, and posting term sheets.

Jason also quotes a response from TheFunded’s founder Adeo Ressi

When TheFunded was conceived, we understood that some investors might attempt to take legal action against the views of entrepreneurs. In order to prevent this form of censorship, TheFunded has been carefully designed and takes extensive measures to protect the anonymity all those who share their opinions on the fundraising experience. TheFunded does not store IP addresses, email addresses, or any other personal information associated with a Member account in any database or any file system operated by the company.

This is exactly what every company should be doing. If you must have a member directory, save an email address with permission. I have written about this previously when speaking about Google but this approach applies to all websites. TheFunded has respected its users and allowed them to truly stay anonymous even on the company servers. I commend you Mr. Ressi for your restraint when it comes to collecting your users’ information. We should all reward companies that choose this route to protect their users. I smell a trend. Which companies out there can claim that their users are “Truly Anonymous?”

Uncategorized google, joseph shmulewitz, privacy, web 2.0

I’ve got too many ideas. If you are an entrepreneur, or feel like you’ve got some entrepreneurial spirit in you, you know what I mean. I have too many products I want to develop and not enough time or money to do it. Most of these products are things that I really want developed and want to use. Because of this, from time to time I’ll just post the idea up on this blog and request that someone out there make this product to improve the world. Here is today’s product request.

The Efficient Texting Service

Problem: I’ve got an unlimited data plan on my phone. I can send emails around the world for free. So why am I paying $5 a month for 200 text messages per month? I can go to any site on the web! Why does a few lines of text have to cost me anything? We’re being ripped off.

Notes: You can send text messages from your email. Each wireless carrier has its own way of doing this or you could use a service called Teleflip where all you have to do is send an email to the phonenumber@teleflip.com (example: 9175556789@teleflip.com). Not only will your message be sent to that person’s phone, but also the replies will come back to your email.

Solution: Text Routing Service (TRS)

How it works: A simple piece of software is installed on your phone that has a data plan. This software takes any text message that you send out and instead of routing it through the phone networks, sends it out to phonenumber@TRS.com via your data plan. TRS then sends the message to the recipient as either a text message or an email depending on the recipient’s preferences. If the recipient doesn’t have a TRS account, then it just sends it as a text message. The reply to that text message would go through TRS as well and you could choose to receive replies as texts or emails.

The result would be that you would never pay for a text message you send out from your phone. It would always go through your data plan. If the recipient uses the same service, then you would be essentially emailing/chatting with each other for free. Isn’t that what texting really is?

This is just the basic idea and I’m not sure of all the technical details behind it. But there are smart programmers out there who can figure out how to do this well. Let me know if someone develops something like this. Not only will I be grateful, but will review and promote the program. So hop to it.

Temporary solution

I added an email address to the contact info of my friends who text a lot. This address is their cellnumber@teleflip.com. When they text me, I email them back via this address. That way, we keep on texting, but I’m not getting charged per text. It’s not a great workaround, but it works for now.

Uncategorized joseph shmulewitz, text messaging

I’ve been asked to talk about early termination fees (ETFs) and my thoughts on them. To preface this post, I am not a lawyer, and do not recommend that anyone use my opinion as legal authority. Please consult a lawyer for an expert opinion on the matter. With that out of the way, let’s discuss.

The recent headlines have been filled with information about wireless carriers’ ETFs including ones about the recent court case where the judge ruled Sprint’s ETF in California illegal. While most consumers are happy about this ruling, I think it’s too early to celebrate. Whether this goes down as a landmark case or just a hiccup for Sprint when it gets overturned in appeal, it’s important we break down why the current ETF rules aren’t logical and how they can be fixed.

From a macro level, ETFs seem very logical. As a cell phone user, I am entering into a contract with a wireless carrier. I agree to accept a certain cost and quality of service in return for my promise to use (and pay for) the service for the life of the contract (usually 2 years). When analyzing the situation, however, we run into some very big problems:

1. The cost does not stay the same. As stated in previous posts, wireless carriers change their rates all the time. Therefore, the contract is not guaranteeing me a fixed cost over the life of the contract.
2. I can receive wireless service without signing a contract. The main reason most people sign a contract is to get a subsidized price on a phone. The argument for the ETF from the carrier is to recoup the losses they had on the subsidized price of the phone. The ETF, though, is not a different price for different phones. If I buy a $200 phone that should have been $400, the carrier is out $200. If I buy a $50 phone that should have been $100, the carrier is out $50. The ETF for both phones would be the same. Something is wrong with that line of logic.
3. Having a contract that clearly states that the contract can change defeats the purpose of having a contract all together. As I said, I’m not a lawyer, but this just seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, let’s look at it from a wireless carrier’s point of view. Verizon, AT&T and others have spent billions of dollars in investment into the telecom networks that run our nation’s wireless service. They shouldn’t be banned from locking in customers to contracts that have penalties if those customers jump ship. It is that expected steady stream of revenue that allows these carriers to continually invest in the network. So how could telecom keep customers locked in without pissing them off? Here are a few suggestions:

Locked Rates

A truly locked rate regarding all fees that the carrier sets would stop people like me from jumping ship when small rates change.

One Year Contracts

Customers who have less than 6 months on a contract and want to leave are more likely to just wait out the contract rather than go through the hassle of fighting the ETF. In today’s modern age of rapid advancing technologies, you can’t tie people down for two years. It’s just too long. One year would be perfect. 18 months would be less perfect but might work as well.

ETFs that Reflect Actual Losses

The ETF should be directly related to the loss generated by the carrier for that contract. So, if the only difference between a contract and no-contract account is $100 off a new phone, then the ETF should be $100 and should be pro-rated to decrease over the life of the contract.

Educated Customer Service

I cannot push this point enough. Customer service representatives should be knowledgeable and well versed in the carrier’s contract. If a user chooses to leave and legally can, reps need to let them leave without a fight. Additional offers are nice and greatly appreciated, but if a user declines and chooses to leave within their rights per the contract, then let them go.

or….

Eliminate ETFs and Provide the Best Service

This is the best option but one I expect few carriers to take. Provide the best service and you’ll get the most customers. The market will go towards the service that works for them best.

Those are my suggestions. If anyone has any more, please provide them in the comments. I’ll update this article with the ones that seem to be most popular.

Also, for a good laugh, listen to this 27 minute call with Verizon about basic math found on Verizon Math. Extremely funny.

Uncategorized joseph shmulewitz, telecommunications