> Clocks were invented how long ago, weren't they?
> I think by now they should have it right and reliable.
... except that governments (by which I mean primarily the U.S. Congress)
decided that time should change on certain dates and then, after much
technology was deployed with that exception hard-coded into it, changed the
dates on which time changed. The original author said "recently, the clock
went off by an hour or so, for no apparent reason" without noting whether
"recently" meant the first Sunday in April, which one might be forgiven for
not remembering as the date on which DST used to commence. While the iPhone
itself may be new, there are probably bits of code in it which pre-date the
change to DST.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Theory and practice differ. In theory, competition is good - until the
> practice of oligopoly competition robs consumers of any meaningful
> choice between virtually (pun intended) identical offerings from
> companies virtually identical to that old whore Ma Bell.
Yes, it would be nice if competition meant lots of different packages to
choose from and, in a way, I'm somewhat surprised not to see this happening
if only as a way for providers to make it more difficult to compare their
offerings to others'. Realistically, however, what happens is that each
company determines the packages which appeal to most teenagers, most
individuals, most businessmen, etc. and come to market with similar
offerings... and, if Company A sees a package from Company B gaining
subscribers and it has no entry in that market segment, it creates one to
fill in the gap. So, in a way, similar offerings is a natural result of
competition on a mass scale.
The real benefit of competition, of course, is price. One company can't make
a fortune by selling a popular package at an outrageously inflated price
because the competition could afford to offer a similar package at a lower
price. That's why all those indistinguishable services cost the same as each
other.
Usually, however, on the other edge of the sword from price is service. This
is not new nor confined to the telecom, let alone mobile, industry. For as
long as I can remember people have been complaining in one forum or another
(in person, on BBSes, and now on the internet) not to shop at Store X or
Store Y because they bought something there and had a problem with it and the
store was not at all helpful. Of course, if they answer honestly, they'll
probably admit they bought there on the basis of best price, and didn't ask
for references or even scan for warnings like the one they just posted before
buying. That, I suppose, is human nature: the buyer trying to get the best
price, and the seller trying to get the sale by cutting corners so they can
offer the lowest price.
One real limit on competition is the contract and, in particular, high
termination fees. Whether the problem is price (i.e., a better option just
appeared), customer service, or coverage area, most consumers are 'stuck'
with their dissatisfaction until their contract is up. Hopefully the FCC can
pressure carriers into adopting sane (e.g. pro-rated) early termination
charges so that consumers can afford to vote with their feet after they make
their choice and find out what the vendor is really like. This may help to
deliver some improvements other than price.
Then again, after they've tried all of the vendors and found them all the
same, I guess they'll agree with Bill that competition hasn't really brought
any real choice...
--
Geoffrey Welsh
.
