Quantum Of Solis (And A Time Of Warner)
The title of the Bond film, Quantum of Solace, stems from an Ian Fleming short story. It says on Wikipedia:
Ian Fleming says that if you don't have a quantum of solace in your relationship then the relationship is over. It's that spark of niceness in a relationship that if you don't have you might as well give up."
Unfortunately, what we're left with is Solis, Obama's nominee for Labor Secretary. Here's yet another disappointment (but, of course, no surprise). From the WSJ, the story of a rigged wireless auction derailed:
The good news is that Republican Chairman Kevin Martin's recent attempt to rig the auction was derailed at the last minute, but the same political forces will be back in the Obama Administration.We say this with confidence because we've learned that one of the politicians lobbying Mr. Martin was none other than Barack Obama's nominee for Labor Secretary, Congresswoman Hilda Solis of California. In an October 3 letter, she urged Mr. Martin to move ahead quickly with an auction with rules that would have benefited a single company, telecom start-up M2Z, at the expense of other bidders.
She did so by playing the race and class cards, suggesting that the auction would make Internet broadband more affordable for poor Hispanics. "As the first Latina to serve on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and a Member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, I am very concerned about our country's stark broadband divide," she wrote.
You have to give her credit for nerve. The way to increase Internet access and affordability is to promote competition to spur investment and keep prices falling. Experience shows that a rigged spectrum auction slows the process of getting licenses into the hands of those companies best able to put the airwaves to use. It would also cheat the Treasury out of the higher revenues that a clean auction would garner.
Far from aiding the Hispanic working class, Ms. Solis's letter was designed to help M2Z, which is backed by John Doerr, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist and donor to Democratic politicians. In a December 9 letter to the FCC's general counsel, M2Z vice president for regulatory affairs Uzoma Onyeije explicitly cited a letter from Ms. Solis to the FCC endorsing the auction.
We're happy to say Mr. Martin scrapped the proceeding following intervention by others in the Bush Administration. But, Solis will be around for a while, and the policies of pretending to aid the poor while aiding rich special interests at the expense of us all are no better than those who aid rich special interests without the pretense. Personally, I'd love to see a competitive free market that would end the monopolies of Time-Warner (in my area) and other companies.
Speaking of the problems with monopoly services...contrary to the claims in the Time-Warner lawyer's snotty letter back to California Atty. General Jerry Brown's office in response to my complaint, the technician who showed up for the umpteenth time at my house told me the near-month of intermittent Time-Warner cable for a pretty large stretch of West Los Angeles was ONLY fixed because I kept complaining and kept complaining "to the right people."
For those in the technical know, he told me it wasn't just "the node," as they originally claimed and kept claiming, it was a problem at the "head end." He said they had divided people working on it, so they didn't figure it out until I kept complaining that my cable Internet and my neighbors' STILL wasn't working, despite Time-Warner's Alex Dudley and others' insistence that it had been fixed. Yes, squeaky redhead gets the working service -- for a lot of people, apparently, which pleased me to no end.
Oh, and regarding snotty lawyer letters back to the Atty. General about me and my complaint, do I really seem a good person to play nasty with? Back when my service was sucky, I had a book to finish and I was off in Paris right afterward, so I'd pretty much forgotten about blogging the Time-Warner's month of frustratingly shoddy and intermittent service (when I had service at all). The snotty lawyer response was a nice little reminder. Thanks!
I did find it cute, too, the suggestion by the snotty lawyer I should have pricey "business" service if I'm sending a large volume of e-mail. Of course, I'm not -- I spend most of my day writing, and typically have a few acquaintances mad at me from time to time for not getting to their e-mail (friends know to put it in the subject line if they need a rapid response). I just wanted the service I'm paying for to work, imagine that, and I'd really love it if Time-Warner didn't have a monopoly where I am, but unfortunately, they do.
On the bright side, after I FINALLY got my complaint to some higher-higher-up in So. Cal -- a lady who called me on her cellphone from a conference she was attending --their technicians have been pretty great. The tech supe in the West L.A. area, a woman named Andrea Jefferson, promises things will be different now that she's in charge. So far, so good. But, what I hate is the fact that I had to scream and yell and scream and yell to get what I was already paying for.
The monopoly status for Time Warner in your town, and for other cable system monopolies in other towns, is brought to you by your town and state government. They do this in the name of regulation and efficiency (smile). Regulation to make sure you get a fair business deal, and efficiency to keep more than one company from laying cable. Time Warner and others pay a yearly "franchising" fee to the town, and may even support the wise members of town government with supporting political contributions.
This has produced a calm and orderly market (smile) for internet services where the companies are not rushed to provide service by threats from cutthroat and unreliable competitors. Those are the competitors that have monopolies in other towns that decided to pick them.
Ending Cable Monopolies Would Benefit Consumers
Andrew_M_Garland at December 28, 2008 1:38 PM
Three years ago we dumped our phone line and went cable for internet. Husband and I both have cell phones, so it made sense. Cable internet access was only $20 then. Three years later they want $60 for internet access only, no television channels. We're about to reverse it, AT&T is coming into our area and offering a package of phone and cable with TV and internet. Husband cannot wait for the day when he gets to make the call to the Charter reps who have previously said "We're the only game in town, whattaya gonna do about it?" Cocky bastards.
juliana at December 28, 2008 3:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/28/quantum_of_soli.html#comment-1617240">comment from Andrew_M_GarlandIn L.A., the City Attorney's office is suing Time-Warner for, among other things, misrepresenting the speed and quality of their customer service and repair service, for excessive service outages, and for causing customers to spend hours on the phone before reaching a customer service rep (and sometimes never reaching one). Have a copy of the suit right here, next to my desk, with the filing date of June 05, 2008, on it, sent to me by Deputy City Atty. Steve Gold. On deadline now, but I'll try to remember to look up what's become of it.
All I ever wanted was to get what I was paying for without having to spend hours and hours and hours fighting for it. The lawyer noted that they gave me some months of free service and discounted service after that -- of course, that was after I told one of their head So. Cal guys that I'd take them to Small Claims Court to sue them for the hours and hours and days and days I spent trying to get my service to work.
Best of all, they initially told me they ignored my complaint about problems with my service (in my neighborhood) because I was the only one complaining. I kept giving the Neighborhood Watch example. I'm also the only one who calls when somebody gets knifed or shot and is lying in the street, but luckily, the police will come based on my one phone call; they don't wait and see if a lot of other people think it's a bad thing, too.
Amy Alkon
at December 28, 2008 3:52 PM
With each passing year, in personal relationships as well as corporate ones, it becomes ever-more amazing how people who are participating in clearly-negotiated exchanges will say "But you never complained!" when they've not kept their part of a bargain... As if everyone else in the world actively wants to take time to engage and make trouble, pressing every point, as if there was no purpose to the contract anyway.
Not that shrinking violets are admirable, either. There used to be a radio-psychology type guy in Los Angeles years ago who had a wonderful aphorism: "You deserve what you accept." He applied it to the self as well as others.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 28, 2008 4:44 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/28/quantum_of_soli.html#comment-1617253">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]Great point, Crid. I kept asking the people who'd kept me waiting on the phone in their Texas call center, and then spoke poor English and couldn't answer my question (did technicians come out on Wednesday and fix the node?)...who's going to give me back my hour I spent waiting on the phone with you...and the four hours previous I spent dicking around with the Time-Warner "customer service" people? I asked the guy if he worked for free. My time isn't their time. My part of the bargain is paying my bill. I'm not supposed to have to run on a hamster wheel, make dozens of phone calls, track down their media guy, track down reps in the office of the president, flyer my neighborhood to get neighbors to complain, too, pitch the LA Times on the story, and have my days hijacked so I can wait for technicians that never come.
P.S. The TW rep told the LA Times reporter that the problem was fixed and they dropped the story. Not true, but the assigning editor had had enough of it by the time I e-mailed them that it wasn't true.
Also, this reminds me to write about Canon and their lens error problem. They fixed mine, but I asked them to fix those of other people who have not mishandled their cameras and to put out press about it offering to do so. No word on that yet. It's a huge problem and they're dumb not to stand behind their product. Typically, customers seem to be told they've got to pay more than $100 to fix something that seems to be a defect in the camera -- an otherwise great camera that I love.
Amy Alkon
at December 28, 2008 5:07 PM
Amy,
I've always found that you were actually rather good about responding to e-mail. Or perhaps my inconsequential mailings were easy to respond to.
Even so, I quite appreciate your responsiveness.
BlogDog at December 28, 2008 6:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/28/quantum_of_soli.html#comment-1617286">comment from BlogDogThanks - and I actually do try to respond soon, or at least e-mail people to let them know I haven't forgotten them. I had e-mailed a bunch of acquaintances to explain that I was working day and night on my book, and wouldn't be that responsive. Most of my friends, though, are writers, and get it...and I don't get bent out of shape if somebody takes a while to respond to me. If I need a fast answer or think they've forgotten, I just e-mail them again. It's really not that hard to know who your friends are and who the assholes are.
Amy Alkon
at December 28, 2008 11:07 PM
wow. makes my service in san antonio seem great. i hardly ever have problems with my att dsl.
mlah at December 28, 2008 11:32 PM
I got AT&T U-verse last October, and have had very little in the way of problems with it. When I have had problems, one phone call, with maybe one or 2 transfers at most, took care of it. And they speak English! Understandable English. The last time I called them, the rep gave me her name, and even the town where she was located, which was in the same state as me. Awesome! I highly recommend them. I just switched my land line to their service, too. One bill - phone, cable TV, wireless internet service, video on demand. Less than $200/monthly, and it includes ALL the high end movie channels. I love it! o.O
Flynne at December 29, 2008 7:06 AM
Sort of off topic, but I just retired from the phone company and one of the banes of my existence was Time Warner. There are apparently at least four different companies called some variation of "Time Warner" and they all hate each other.
Drove me batty trying to figure which brand announcement went with which Time Warner.
Believe me, they had no problem complaining when we screwed it up.
Jaynie59 at December 29, 2008 9:25 AM
I hate time warner too. We currently have dish network, but are about to switch to directtv for about a $40 a onth savings for TV. We do SBC DSL and local phone, its worked out ok.
On the subject of the only game in town, our water company out here just lost the last of it's wells (some went dry, some got contaminated) and so are now buying water, and reselling it to us at a 300% rate increase. Yes, really. Why can't a company that actually HAS water service us? Thank you legislative assholes, that's why!
momof3 at December 29, 2008 1:17 PM
Leave a comment