Thursday, September 2, 2010
One topic that periodically hits the news headlines, and thereby the blogosphere, is the issue of truthful advertising of broadband speeds. The question, really, is whether the statement "up to" a certain speed can actually be substantiated, trusted, and regulated by the FCC and FTC. Virgin Media took the lead on this issue recently by voluntarily opting to change their messaging strategy in an attempt to remain above reproach (and probably spur their competitors to do the same). But is a wide-scale change, specifically a regulated and mandated change, in messaging really called for?

First, let's start with defining the grievance. What's the beef? The problem, as most consumers have identified, lies in the fact that advertised speeds for broadband services most commonly boast the highest allowable speed using "up to" phrasing. However, such messaging falls under criticism when the broadband customers cannot achieve said rate. Now, of course, nobody ever promised consistent and guaranteed speed, but the supposition is that if the advert says "up to" that I would periodically and not-so-rarely get up to that speed. In many cases, however, the customers do not.

And so it is concluded, the broadband provider must have been dubiously planning this deceit. Now, that is possible, and certainly does take place. But, as one in the industry, I'd like to offer a pause for some objective criticism of the critics, shall we?

First, consider all of the factors that contribute to the connection speed of a network terminal--how many of those are within the Broadband Provider's control? When connection speeds were low at my office, the problem was eventually traced to an issue from the punch panel to my desk. Second, don't be so quick to presume the promise of speed was so dubiously presented. Many broadband providers are starting to offer simple speed calculators on their sites to allow customers to test their connection speeds.

Ultimately, however, as a one not only in the industry, but specifically involved in marketing, I'd like to explore this topic of "published rates." It is often not the contract rates that are in question, it's the advertised rates. Virgin Media has decided to publish their average speed in lieu of their optimal speed. But, do we expect that to be the norm in advertising? Mortgage rates are often advertised "as low as" what a good borrower could qualify for. C-Stores advertise the price of regular unleaded, not premium, on their signs. Airlines publish the anticipated arrival times, not considering the potential for disaster, technical failure, weather, etc. Are these deceitful--intentionally trying to mislead the buyer? I don't believe so.

Most importantly, "up to" rates are no more misleading than an "average" published speed. Average means that still 50% of subscribers will fail to reach even that par. Among those who do fall within the average, they will certainly not do so consistently -- they will enjoy spikes of speed during low-traffic times and dip well below average during peak usage hours. It remains a select few customers who could count on a consistently average speed.

Should the lying stop? Absolutely. Is it as easy to regulate as you might think? Not really. Are the broadband providers as universally unscrupulous as accused? Hardly. In fact, as is common with categorical prosecution, many are blamed for the sins of few.

Labels: Broadband Speed, C-store, Published Rates, Virgin Media

posted by Nick Carter at 11:08 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, July 6, 2010
We have all done it, right? Sit down for coffee at your favorite hot-spot: Panera Bread, Starbucks, and even several C-Stores now have them. Pop open the laptop, connect, and open a browser window. But, before your can really connect, your browser is redirected to a screen requiring your agreement. If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's probably because you just click 'I Agree' too fast to even realize it's happening. It's a habit. Nobody reads those things anymore, right?

Free WiFi Users - What you Need to Know:
As a user, what do you need to know about these agreements? Well, I must confess, I'm no attorney, nor should you take this as legal advice. However, in my opinion: just click 'I Agree.' As I will expound upon below for WiFi providers, these agreements are meant primarily to protect the provider from legal ramification of yours (or your fellow users) indiscretion. Despite the paranoid ramblings that Google is trying to own the world's data, or that Facebook holds people's data hostage, the simple fact is 99.9% of the Terms of Use found on any web page or WiFi hotspot falls under the CYA category, not the world-domination category.

In any case, what is your alternative? Approach the barista and ask for an addendum to the agreement before you click I Agree? Are you going to write it out on a cocktail napkin and have a waitress initial it? Just click 'I Agree' or go buy an air card -- which, by the way, likely has the exact same terms of use.

Free WiFi HotSpot Providers - What you Need to Know
Now, if you're the provider of these WiFi services, your Terms of Use are not so inconsequential. So, without being construed as legal counsel, allow me to offer some technical know-how that might shed some light on why you should take these agreements seriously (and, if you don't have one, get one).

• First, any activity on the internet is identified first and foremost by IP Address. Seeing as how it is unlikely that you are assigning unique IP addresses to your users, this means that if someone sits down, hooks up, and hacks a system: when the breach is found, all fingers point to you! If fraudulent emails are sent, illegal content uploaded, DOS activated, etc. -- you're hands are dirty.
  
• With this in mind: realize that you CAN indemnify yourself within the terms of use, AND log the identities of your users for forensic purposes in the future. First, talk to your lawyer about an indemnification clause. Second, disclose in your terms of use that you will store something called a MAC Address, and then do so. Finally, require some identifying information before log-in. WiFi is a privilege, not a right, and it's perfectly acceptable to ask for an email address before granting access.
• With all the criminal risks covered, there is still the issue of loss or damages. If you are the provider of a service--even a free service that's a privilege not a right--courts have affirmed you're liable for that service's performance. That is, of course, unless you disclaim such liability. If a business owner connects momentarily to send a big proposal to his hot prospect, and it never goes through. Or, if sensitive information is compromised on your unsecured network, you need to be able to wipe your hands and say, "Not my problem." Get a lawyer to write your Limitation of Liability clause and make sure that's the case.
  

Labels: C-store, Free Wifi, I Agree, Terms of Use, Wi-Fi

posted by Nick Carter at 10:09 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The blizzard conditions that have hammered over one third of the U.S. have most grade-schoolers thinking about days and weeks of no school and tons of sledding. But the execs of many retail outlets, convenience store chains, and even the representatives on Capitol Hill have a little bit more bleak outlook. While sales of bread, milk, and of course sledding gear are likely sky-rocketing, on the whole, snow days are not good for the economy.

First of all, travel is down for obvious reasons. So, of course fuel sales are down, but in fact c-stores don't make most of their money on fuel sales. It's the peripheral items that make their businesses float. And, while fewer people are driving, that means less Little Debby's, 36 oz. slushies, fountain sodas, and the like.

Other retail is feeling the same strain--especially in the midst of one of the year's biggest shopping holidays: Valentine's Day. When a blizzard struck Indianapolis on Valentine's Day two years ago, hospitals prepared for a baby boom in November. Do the math. And, while that may seem like a splendid way to spend Valentine's Day to the consumer, the retailers aren't so pleased. Most of the common Valentine stock is perishable--flowers, chocolates, cakes, etc.--cannot be stocked away for next season.

There are other economic indicators that dip during a blizzard, too. New home construction hits a stand-still. Home sales are postponed due to the inability to show, list, and even perform inspections for closings. Countless businesses lose days and weeks of valuable productivity. And, as Reuters reported, local and state municipalities are asking for federal aid to cover the cost of digging out.

But this is common to any snow storm. The phenomenon with this most recent onslaught of snow is how widespread it is. We're not talking about one mall, one city, or on region seeing a slow-down for a few days. This blizzard has affected over a third of the nation, and 8 of the 10 most populous states in the Union.

The snow may be melted by March, but it will be 3rd quarter before the full economic impact can be measured.

Labels: C-store, Convenience Stores, Economy, Retail, Snow Storm

posted by Nick Carter at 4:53 AM Link to this Article  1 Comments

Thursday, February 4, 2010
When the average consumer thinks of wireless broadband, they consider it synonymous with mobile broadband. Wireless and Mobile devices are so tightly interwoven in our day-to-day lives, we naturally assume that anything wireless implies that it is mobile and vice-versa. In fact, I had to be corrected on numerous occasions when I first joined the Accel Networks team. I had to change the way I thought about wireless broadband.

Or did I? The truth about fixed wireless broadband is that it still shares much of the same benefits associated with so-called "mobile" broadband. Of course, as the name clearly says, it is fixed. It is provisioned for one location and, although the last-mile connection is serviced wirelessly, it functions within the c-store, retail store, kiosk, or what-have-you in much the same way as wired broadband solutions do.

So why not drop the mobile connotations altogether? Well, consider for a moment what mobile broadband effectively accomplishes. I'm at home, pull out my smart phone, pop open a browser. Instantly, I'm assigned an IP address (if one isn't already assigned) and routed to the internet via the nearest cell tower. I slide it into my pocket and drive to my in-laws for dinner, pull it out, and repeat. What's happening? I'm effectively provisioning a connection all over again, and in real-time.

Ask yourself this: how many times does a small business move locations? Tier-2 office spaces offer 1 or 3 year lease options because of the agility that growing businesses need. Even retail is always vying for the better location, and if a high-traffic corner can be had you'll break the most costly lease to get there. Or consider expanding businesses entering new markets, new locations, new strip-malls, emerging communities, etc.

How long does it take to get these new locations online and running when copper cable has to hit the d-box, then the punch panel, before finally getting the POS system onto the company network.

Perhaps "mobility" is not the right term, but the business concepts that come to mind are very reminiscent of mobile applications: agility, flexibility, speed of transition, and of course (as Verizon and AT&T are warring over in advertising today) the ubiquitous nature of the network.

So, the next time you get corrected over the jargon -- mobile vs. fixed wireless -- consider this: fixed wireless broadband is anything but immobilized.

Labels: C-store, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Retail

posted by Nick Carter at 8:37 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments