sneaker.org

Dealing with the likes of Comcast (and AT&T for that matter) is by far one of the most frustrating experiences. Here is just one small little example of why (see the full transcript below).

In summary: Comcast lists “Basic Cable” as one of the services on their website. It turns out that Basic cable really means just “Limited Basic” and does not include “Expanded Basic”. The pricing for Expanded Basic (or for what the agent then calls “Standard Cable”) are not published anywhere on the Comcast website. Additionally, Comcast refuses to provide a pricelist of their services. Does the FTC even pay attention to Cable companies and their ridiculous tactics??

user Guest_ has entered room
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:09:58 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
analyst Junel has entered room
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:10:12 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Hello Guest_, Thank you for contacting Comcast Live Chat Support. My name is Junel. Please give me one moment to review your information.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:10:14 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Thank you for visiting Comcast.com. What questions can I answer for you?
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:10:37 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
What is the price for Expanded Basic Cable. It doesn’t show up on the website.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:11:00 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Thank you for that.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:11:22 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
The price for the Expanded Basic Cable is $55.95.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:11:52 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
And where can I see that on the Comcast website?
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:12:19 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
It is the same with Standard cable.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:12:50 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Okay, but I don’t see that on the website either.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:13:53 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I do apologize for the inconvenience. Maybe the website is not wolrking properly that is why it doesn’t show up
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:14:23 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
In that case the website hasn’t been working correctly for months, since it’s been the same.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:15:22 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
So you can confirm that you too do not see the pricing for Expanded Basic Cable and Standard Cable on the Comcast website?
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:16:00 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Our website is not yet updated for now, but we have it in our datebase if the customer wants the Expanded Basic Cable or Standard cable service.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:16:25 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I can confirm that I am able to see the pricing for both cable service.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:16:32 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Do you have a full price sheet for the various offerings that you can email to me?
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:17:32 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I do apologize for that. We are not allowed to send an e-mail to our customers.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:17:46 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
My previous question was specifically regarding the Comcast website — the pricing is NOT listed on the Comcast website.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:17:59 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
You cabn check our website for the pricing of your products and services.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:18:50 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
You just told me that the pricing for the Expanded Basic/Standard Cable Service is NOT on the Comcast Website. When I asked for a price list, you say you cannot provide that. And now you’re telling me to again check the website.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:19:30 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
What I mean is that you can check other products and services in our website.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:20:07 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Yes, but I am asking for the written pricing for the Expanded Basic/Standard Cable Service.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:20:16 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Which is not on your website.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:20:37 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I already gave you the price for the said cbale service
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:22:09 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I want to see the published price — either on the website or on an official pricelist.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:24:01 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
May I have your complete address and your zip code please so that I can check the available promotions in your area?
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:24:44 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:24:56 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Thank you.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:24:57 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Please give a minute or two to pull up your address.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:27:07 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Please provide me the complete address.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:27:08 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Thank you.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:27:51 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Please provide me the complete address.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:28:58 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Why do you need the complete address to provide me pricing information?
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:29:07 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I’ve given you the city and the zip code already.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:30:04 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
We need the complete address so that we can properly check the address.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:30:37 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I’m inquiring about pricing, I’m not inquiring about availability of the service.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:30:35 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I can give you an aprroximation but for the fixed amount, I need your address.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:30:53 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Can you email me ANY pricing information at all?
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:31:10 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I have provided you the price for the said service.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:31:21 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
That was not my question.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:31:48 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
What is that>?
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:32:11 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
I’ll ask again: Can you email me any pricing information at all?
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:32:48 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
We cannot send any e-mail. I do apologize for that.
Guest_(Fri Jun 19 2009 17:33:33 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Okay. Thanks for trying. I know it’s not your fault, but the fault of the company. Have a good afternoon. Bye.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:34:11 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
You are most welcome.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:34:18 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Thank you for choosing Comcast and have a great day. Comcast appreciates your business and values you as a customer. Our goal is to provide you with excellent service. If you need further assistance, you can chat with one of our Customer Support Specialists24 hours a day, 7 days a week at http://comcastsupport.com. To close this chat, please click the “end session” button at the top of the chat window.
Junel(Fri Jun 19 2009 20:35:00 GMT-0700 (PDT))>
Analyst has closed chat and left the room
analyst Junel has left room

Epilogue: All I really want is Internet and phone service (AT&T can’t provide more than 384Kbps at my home, too far from CO), but given Comcast’s brilliantly creative “pricing” structures, getting just Internet and phone service is more expensive than getting Internet, phone and cable! IMHO the FTC should regulate the “price engineering” that pervades Comcast’s business practices.)

written by sneaker \\ tags: Cable television, Comcast, Evil Corporations, financial engineering, FTC, Monopoly, price engineering, pricing

(Note: This post was originally posted on the K9 Ventures blog. I am cross-posting it here.)

Rajeev Motwani

I was in complete disbelief when I read the first tweet yesterday evening that Stanford Computer Science professor Rajeev Motwani had passed away. I was still incredulous and hoping that it was untrue until the sad news was verified in a email sent to the department. Even now as I write this with Rajeev’s picture on my screen, it’s still hard to believe.

In March of this year Rajeev agreed to be an advisor to K9 Ventures. I was very excited to have Rajeev on board as an advisor for K9 and as a personal mentor. His untimely passing is a shock that will reverberate through Stanford and the Valley.

My introduction to Rajeev began as a student in the PhD program at Stanford CS. Rajeev was the head of the PhD program when I joined, and he was the defacto advisor to all incoming students until they found their own advisor. He was responsible for making sure that every student find a new home within the department in a timely manner. I can still remember Rajeev’s advice to all the students — that your only job in the first quarter is to find an advisor. And to not worry about requirements like Comprehensive Exams and Qualifying Exams and focus on the research. His mandate to us was that a PhD should make an incremental contribution to human knowledge. That phrase stuck in the back of my head throughout my PhD work and proved to be a good filter to test potential thesis topics.

Even Rajeev didn’t know that in my first few interactions with him, I felt quite intimidated. Intimidated because of the immense respect I had for his intellect, his ability and his judgment. Even though my research interest was in the field of Human Computer Interaction, since my advisor (Terry Winograd) was on sabbatical at Google for the first year that I was at Stanford, I was fortunate to interact with Rajeev a little while longer than I otherwise would have.

When I decided that I wanted to enter the field of Venture Capital, Rajeev was one of the first people I contacted. He was instrumental in opening several doors for me and made valuable introductions to other VCs and firms on Sand Hill Road — leading to several valued relationships. As just one datapoint, it was through Rajeev’s introduction that Refocus Imaging obtained its funding.

Rajeev truly was a pillar of Stanford Computer Science and of Silicon Valley. He touched and helped so many people — as students, advisees, entrepreneurs, colleagues and friends. He directly or indirectly contributed to the formation and the success of numerous startups (Google being the most notable, but there are many, many more). I am incredibly thankful to Rajeev for this advice, his mentorship, and the role that he played in guiding me in choosing my path not only as a student, but for life.

I feel truly fortunate to have interacted with and learnt from Prof Motwani. At the same time, I am deeply saddened at his sudden and untimely passing. I sincerely wish Rajeev’s family all the best in this difficult time and beyond.

written by sneaker \\ tags: PhD, Rajeev Motwani, Silicon Valley, Stanford, Stanford CS

The following is the review I posted on Amazon.com for Tina Seelig’s new book: What I Wish I Knew When I was 20:

Simply fabulous!, April 18, 2009

I’ve had the good fortune of seeing Tina Seelig at Stanford on numerous occasions. So when I pre-ordered her book, I knew that it was going to be good. But little did I know that it was going to be *this* good.

Like a fast car going from zero to sixty in three point some seconds, Tina’s book has blasted straight to be amongst the top books I would recommend to anyone. It is one of the few books that I can say I’ve literally read cover to cover in one sitting. It is so full of amazing stories and anecdotes — each one with a unique lesson, but at the same time it is also one of the easiest books I’ve read. The prose flows beautifully and each chapter hits home with its lessons — not just one lesson, but multiple ones.

At one point in reading the book I felt like I needed to start underlining and marking the pages with the great quotable quotes in the book — till I realized I would end up marking up almost every page or at least every other page! I had to reconcile myself to thinking that this is just my first read, and that this is one of those books you have to go back to reading again and again because it’s impossible to absorb all its wisdom in one go.

I would strongly recommend this book for any person who has ever had even an iota of self-doubt or career angst. It is a book that should be “required reading” for any high school student getting ready to go to college, any college graduate going out into the workforce, and for any person even remotely thinking about doing anything entrepreneurial. Tina shows us that it’s okay to sometimes not know what you’re doing, and sometimes the best opportunities are right there in front of us, just waiting for us to seize them. We can’t always wait for someone else to push us up or forward, sometimes you just have to reach out and do that for yourself. And it’s okay to fail, because the best lessons come from failures and failures are very often the springboard to bigger successes.

Tina tells us to “Never miss an opportunity to be fabulous” — and I can say with conviction that this is yet another occasion where Tina Seelig has done exactly that — been fabulous. Do yourself a favor and read this book.

written by sneaker \\ tags: book review, books, Tina Seeling, What I Wish I Knew When I was 20

Image via CrunchBase

Earlier this week, Kathleen Richards of the East Bay Express published an article titled: Yelp and the Business of Extortion 2.0. The main point of the rather scathing article is that Yelp offers to hide negative customer reviews of businesses on its website, but for a price.

Jeremy Stoppelman, the co-founder and CEO of Yelp, posted a rebuttal on the Yelp Official Blog: Kathleen Richards - East Bay Express and several followup posts as well (see the Yelp Blog for more).

Now normally, such blog banter wouldn’t hit my radar and even if it did, I would usually ignore it. However, the Yelp story hit a nerve and prompted me to post about why I am a little dubious of Yelp.

In December 2006, I had a bad experience at a local business (Tea Time at 542 Ramona St, Palo Alto, CA 94301). I posted a review on Yelp. Here is the full text of the review:

Manu K.

Palo Alto, CA

1 star rating

12/19/2006

Yikes! I’m so surprised to see the other reviews for this place on Yelp. Here’s why:

Three of us were meeting for a business meeting at Coupa Cafe at 10:30 AM. Coupa happened to be very crowded and so we decided, hey, why not go next door to Tea Time since it was empty. And I mean empty, there were no customers there at all.

We go into Tea Time and find a place to sit. Turns out all the power outlets happened to be along the wall where there was only seating for two. There being three of us, we pulled up a extra table and chair, ordered a pot of tea and sat down do chat and do a demo.

A couple of minutes later, the guy running the store (apparently not the owner) comes by and tells us they “we’re not allowed to change their seating configuration because they have all these other customers that they need to accommodate”. May I remind you that we were the ONLY customers in the store at the time

We told him we would put things back in their position when we leave, but he insisted that he had to put the chairs back in their position right away. So we told him to give us our money back first and merrily went on our way to one of the several other great places Palo Alto has to offer.

What amazes me is how someone can be so silly as to piss off their only customers in the store and that too to make sure they can keep their chairs in the right position!

So we obviously have the worst  possible opinion of this place and I bet that their lack of attention to customer needs will render them out of business soon. Afterall, this is the Valley — lots of people go to cafe’s to plug in, get on the net and talk shop, the beverages/deserts are often the perks which come as side effect. So here’s wishing all the best to the guy/gal who owns this place — they’ve still got a lot of learning to do about how to run a business.

I posted the review and then also emailed a copy to my cohorts who were with me. A while later, when I visited Yelp, I figured I would check to see if my review was still there. I was shocked to find that when I looked through all the reviews for Tea Time, my review, with its 1 star rating was no where to be found.

A little further digging today, right before writing this post, showed that the negative review I wrote only shows up when I am logged in to my Yelp account. When I log in to my Yelp account, Tea Time has 47 reviews. However, when I visit the site in another browser, without logging in to my account, it only shows 46 reviews.

Now I’m not an avid “yelper”. This was the one time I felt that my experience with a local business was bad enough to warrant taking the time to write a review on Yelp about it. The fact that the review doesn’t show up for anyone except for me, seems to suggest something that needs further review. Jeremy has written about their black-box algorithm, but I can see how and why an algorithm should be used to compute the final ranking for a business. However, removing a full review, which is the raw data, seems inappropriate to me.

I would be perfectly okay with allowing the business to rebut the review given by a particular user and and if a business takes the time to do so, perhaps it should reduce the weight assigned to the review accordingly. However, I think it is inappropriate to not show or remove a review.

I am perfectly willing to give Yelp the benefit of the doubt here. They have a great site and I use it often to check reviews (but don’t write many). But my faith and trust in Yelp’s site would be considerably higher if I the one review I took the time to post, would actually show up on their site. If they have a rational explanation, I’m all ears and would welcome a response in the comments.

written by sneaker \\ tags: extortion, rankings, reviews, Tea Time, Yelp

Web 2.0. Yes, that wonderful, wonderful world of Web 2.0. Where information and technology will solve all of the worlds problems, make it possible for us to communicate instantly with anyone, where all human knowledge will be instantly searchable in nanoseconds, and yes, it will also eradicate poverty, achieve universal tolerance, global literacy and intergalactic peace.

All hyperbole aside, Web 2.0 has been a wonderful thing. Today, we can search human knowledge using Google, we can communicate instantly with friends and family using Facebook, we can publish our thoughts and share our opinions (like I’m doing here) with the world using Wordpress and we can publish/receive news (like a plane landing in the Hudson river) while it happens on Twitter, all among a myriad of other things. For the record, I love Web 2.0 (as a user) for its ease of use and for the so many immensely useful services it provides (though I must admit I’m not a fan of the business models that often accompany Web 2.0 companies, especially advertising related models).

Image from ConnectionCafe

But, “Houston, we have a problem.” The problem is what I would call “information fragmentation” in the world of Web 2.0. Yes, each Web 2.0/social media site in isolation may be very easy to use, but to try and get all of them to cooperate and more importantly keep track of all our information is becoming a complete nightmare. Here is just a short list of just some of my information assets:

• Personal Blog: www.sneaker.org
• Professional Blog: www.k9ventures.com/blog
• Twitter: @manukumar and @k9ventures
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Plaxo Pulse
• Flickr
• Google Reader
• Google Talk
• TwitPic
• FriendFeed
• Netflix

Gosh, I can’t even keep track of them in a list, and I certainly don’t want to link to all my accounts on various services for privacy concerns. Just recently, I discovered that I had a MySpace page! I didn’t even know I had a MySpace page, and in fact, I used to take pride in saying that I didn’t have one (they built their network by being spammers in my opinion). Until I discovered that I did — probably one I set up years and years ago, and never thought about it twice after that. (I have since promptly deleted the MySpace page, so that I can stick to my assertion that I do not have a MySpace page!)

Our bits are spread out all over the web. In fact, it’s probably more accurate to say that bits of us are spread out all over the web. Subtle difference. The deluge in the number of services out there has now resulted in new services (like FriendFeed and Ping.fm) which try to help you take control of all your media and interactions. However, aggregators only work in theory. In theory, the pitch for an aggregator is that “We will be the one stop shop for X.” The problem is that there are a dozen one stop shops. And so you ultimately end up building an aggregator to aggregate the aggregators! The travel industry is a great example of this with the airline sites, then sites like Expedia, Travelocity and Orbitz. Then sites like TripAdvisor, Kayak, Vayama. I’m just waiting for the next level up (Update: Didn’t have to wait too long, as soon as I finished this post and went back to check on my feeds, I found this on TechCrunch: Travelzoo’s Fly.com Launches Yet Another Travel Search Aggregator). It’s the Madoff scheme (Ponzi is becoming too old for people to know what it means any more!) of aggregators.

Likewise in social media, everyone is trying to aggregate everyone else. Till recently, I had my Twitter tweets being cross-posted to my Facebook status. I recently severed that connection. Now I have FriendFeed aggregating my tweets, my Google Reader shares, my blog posts all together. Oh, and I also have a FriendFeed tab in my Facebook profile. Everything is going in circles, I guess that must be the true indication that I have embraced Web 2.0 and social media, and more so, that I feel caught up in its embrace. An embrace of so many tentacles that it’s like being caught in, oh, oh, wait for it… a Web!

Lets make this more concrete with some examples:

1. Blog comments: When you post to a blog, you typically have comments on the blog. But then you also have trackbacks and pingbacks. And now you also have tweetbacks. The conversation has been splintered. I can get comments on the post, I can get tweets back in response to the post, I can get an email, I can get a phone call, a direct message on twiter, a like on FriendFeed or now even on Facebook, a comment on Facebook. It’s just all over the place. Fred Wilson has argued in his posts that (paraphrasing) comments should be treated as a first class citizen — as a true part of the conversation that is ocurring. But, comments are now being splintered all over — on Twitter, on FriendFeed, on Facebook, on blogs, in emails and in direct messages. Capturing that conversation has become and continues to become more of a challenge. There have been some good steps like Disqus integrating FriendFeed comments, but that is only the beginning.
2. Status messages: Status messages are everywhere. And the buzz on the web is that status is the hot thing, popularized by Twitter and Facebook’s “What are you doing?” question. (Fred Wilson says that “Status is the ultimate social gesture”) But there is also GoogleTalk status. When I update my GoogleTalk status it is seen by people in my contact list who are also on GoogleTalk. But there is no (simple) way of connecting that to my Facebook status (emphasis on simple, though Xoopit recently announced GMail and Facebook integration through a plugin), to my Plaxo status, to my LinkedIn status. Ping.fm provides some hope of being able to do this. And I’m sure if I took the time to figure out the map of where all I want my status messages propagated (and avoid any circular references) it may very well do the trick. But, all of these services are supposed to be mass-market services. It shouldn’t require this much effort and thinking to make it all work right. While on one hand I am pleased by the diversity of options, on the other hand I lament that there are simply too many options.
3. Pictures: I made a conscious choice to not post pictures on Facebook. Even though Facebook is intended to be for friends, there is a huge amount of intermingling of family, friends, teachers, co-workers, professionals and business contacts on Facebook. Yes, they provide a way to keep all these lists separate, but it just takes to much work. So I have my pictures on Picasa, in private albums that I share selectively. But then I also have a Flickr account and I also have a TwitPic account for posting images to Twitter.

I think the point is clear by now and so I won’t keep beating a dead horse. Web 2.0 and Social Media are wonderful and great, but at the same time they provide us with a plethora of options accompanied by a lack of easy interoperability (the kind that my mom could figure out). Information is being produced and created in unprecedented ways and at an unprecedented rate. It is being shared in unprecedented ways at an unprecedented rate. But, it is being fragmented in unprecedented ways. This is problem and an opportunity (as always). However, this is one case where I’m skeptical if just yet another technology (Google!?) will be able to help vacuum together all our digital bits from all over the Web.

written by sneaker \\ tags: comments, facebook, Fred Wilson, google, information fragmentation, social media, status, Twitter, web 2.0