A Quick 'note to self' and appeal to anyone who may know if this already exists. If it doesn't, feel free to pinch my idea but tell me when you've built it so I can use it!
I used to belong to LoveFilm but I found that even though my subscription was cheap as chips, I wasn't using it often enough to justify the cost. I was having films delivered which I never got around to watching and just sent them back again. Many of the films were 'older ones' which Amazon sell for about £3 each. I realised I can just buy the films I want to watch cheaper than hiring them (plus I get to keep them with the option to watch again one day).
My son just asked my if we still had LoveFilm because he wanted to watch Bruce Almighty. I checked and found that you can buy that film on DVD for £3.76 and BluRay for £9.52. On DVD it is cheaper than my old LoveFilm subscription.
I was about to buy it when I had another idea. That film is often broadcast on ITV or Film4 so I suggested we may as well keep an eye out for it and when we see it in the listings, we can watch it or record it.
My wife often mentions that she'd like to watch 'Along came a spider' when it is next on TV. That is another film which always seems to be on TV but by the time I realise, it is halfway through (and more than the hour so I can't even go to the +1 version of the same channel).
Herein lies the issue which I think is in need of an app.
How about an app which firstly connects you through to IMDB, Wikipedia or some other online movie database which you can use to create a wishlist of films you want to watch at some point if they were to be broadcast but are not so urgent that you need to purchase or hire them right now. With a list created, you then find the data for the TV listings and compare that to the films wishlist. As soon as one of your film matches the listings, the app alerts you via email, text, pop-up message etc. This could be a smartphone app but could also be built-into the set-top box listing services themselves. By placing a film in a wishlist, a set-top box could automatically record it when it finds a channel which is broadcasting it. The list could be refined - 'only on non-commercial channel', or 'only in HD'. The app could also build up history statistics to give you a rough idea of how often a particular film is broadcast and therefore how long you can expect to wait until it comes around again.
OK - off you go and build it please. Let me know when it's ready :-)
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Monday, 8 April 2013
Essex County Council Elections May 2, 2013
April 12, 2013
Thank Crunchie - it's Friday.
Over the last few days I've exchanged more Tweets with the Chelmsford Lib Dems. I also heard from one of my many posts on the various Labour Facebook pages. I've emailed Richard for some more information.
I was prompted to update the blog following a Conservative party election broadcast on BBC1 just before the One Show. I can stand most treatments for these but this went too far. They asked members of the public if they are paying more or less for their council tax. They broadcast people saying it had stayed the same. They then 'corrected' them by saying their council tax has reduced by 10% in real terms because this Government has helped freeze council tax.
So - in my book - that is 'stayed the same'. The public got it spot on and were still told they got it wrong.
In Chelmsford (on average), it has gone up slightly from £1489.91 in 2012/13 to £1498.36 in 2013/14. Let's not split hairs. If it is costing more, it has gone up. If it is costing less, it has gone down. Trying to play the 'in real terms' card doesn't really cut it. The main increase is due to the 3.49% rise for the police by the new Police Crime Commissioner followed by Chelmsford City Council's 1.98% rise and a 1.41% average rise for the parish councils.
Here's the video - Council Tax question from 1:15:
April 10, 2013
Notification of Election Candidates - a spectacular PDF document which tells me who the election agents are in each division. This apparently is where claims,
notices, writs, summons, and other documents intended for the candidates can be sent. All very nice but absolutely nothing here which adds to my quest to find out why these candidates would like my vote.
Next document is due on April 17th - 'Notices of Polls'. Not sure if this will help but we'll wait and find out. In the meantime, I'll continue looking on the doormat and online for additional clues and I'll report back here as soon as a potential answer is uncovered!
However, a fantastic response from the Lib Dems. I tweeted a link to this blog and it got a reply from Chelmsford City Council and councillor Mark Springett.
I totally understand the stance of the City Council - they are not allowed to promote any of the candidates and it is their responsibility to do that themselves.
Hats of to Mark Springett who has provided a link to the Lib Dems' Chelmsford website which has news which is up-to-date along with loads of information about their ECC election manifesto pledges. Clear, easy to understand and all making perfect sense in plain English. All those mentioned duly followed.
Not so good from Labour - No replies to any of my posts on the various Facebook pages.
April 7, 2013
A few weeks ago, we had some Poll Cards placed through the letterbox. I've just got round to looking at them.
It is far from clear but it appears I am being asked to vote on Thursday May 2, 2013. It tells me when and where but it doesn't tell me anything else. So I went to have a look.
There is a website address: www.chelmsford.gov.uk/elections. Strange because on the Poll Card it says Essex County Council. Odd.
The web page tells me a lot about elections; registering to vote, voting by post, types of elections, how to register, voting by proxy, election results, voting in person, polling stations and even how I can stand to be elected. Everything except what I wanted to know - some things about who is standing for the elections to lead me to a decision about who to vote for.
Ah. At the very bottom of the screen a small and insignificant link - 'upcoming elections' followed by 'Essex County Council Elections'. Bingo?
No. the next page take me through more of the same plus 9 PDFs the only useful one being 'Statement of Persons nominated'. This shows me the names and addresses of the people standing for the election in my 'division' (whatever that is).
David Howell, Jeremy Jacobs, Mike Mackrory, Jean Murray and Nicholas Tidman.
The previous page informs me that further information will be published on April 10, 2013 including 'notice of poll' and 'notices of election agents'.
Well, call me impatient but I tried to find some information from these people about why they want me to vote for them. I didn't do very well:
David Howell has no Twitter, website or LinkedIn pages and I can't find his phone number or an email address. He does seem to be on Facebook via about 6 pages although none of these tell me anything useful. Not knowing which one to use, I posted a question on all of them. We'll see if I get an answer.
Jeremy Jacobs has no Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, phone number or email address I could find. The only way I'll find out anything from him is to write to him.
Mike Mackrory is listed on the Essex County Council web page. He has a website on the EssexInfo.net but it doesn't work. His phone number and email address is listed but I could find nothing on LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook. I am familiar with the occasional letter he posts through my door so I'll look out for that.
Jean Murray lives just round the corner from where I work. She is a City Councillor so her phone number and email address is listed on the City Council's website. She apparently isn't using Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn either. I found the Chelmsford Conservative's website but that only shown 1 link to a page about a councillor. This turned out to be a mistyped URL which took me to a Japanese page about cemeteries. The latest news entry is September 2011 which didn't really inspire confidence.
Nicholas Tidman has no contacts details whatsoever including all of the above I 've already mentioned.
I'm presuming all these people would like me to vote for them but I fear they are not making it very easy for me. Do they think I'll vote because of their political party? Perhaps they think I'll prefer them based on the street they live in or maybe their name sounds friendly?
The only common thing is their address. This is the 21st century. the age of the social web, smartphones and free WiFi. Am I really expected to write a letter to each of them and ask them to provide me with their manifesto or other reasons they'd like me to vote for them? Sounds like something I'd be expected to do in 1913 not 2013.
I think I'll hold judgement until Wednesday when more information is being published on the City Council website.
I'll update this later in the week!
Monday, 18 February 2013
Police channel Live!
I've been meaning to write up my opinions about live video in relation to the police service.
It follows some experience of using UStream, Bambuser and Google+ Live Hangouts as well as observations of early attempts to explore the use within the police service. There is certainly a case for forces to consider all social media channels including the live video options like Bambuser and Google+ Live Hangouts.
Most forces use Twitter, Facebook pages and YouTube as a minimum SM set, and choose to use others like Pinterest, Flickr, AudioBoo and Google+ pages as well. There are hundreds of SM sites and there is no force however large which tries to use them all. With every new major SM site which comes to the attention of forces, a decision has to be made about whether to join in or leave it out of the mix.
This decision is made more difficult as budgets are cut in all areas including those departments within forces who are held responsible for developing and maintaining the social media sites. Assessing and managing risk when using social media is vitally important for forces. Twitter is perhaps easier to manage than more complex sites like Facebook which has a huge range of variables to deal with and which tends to change its features and functionality regularly. The very nature of social media requires interactivity which requires forces to be constantly alert and monitor all the time. SM sites which utilise live audio, video and text messaging raises the risks considerably.
Forces would also have to consider the applications when live video would be most effective. Perhaps to broadcast a live meeting so that people who cannot attend in person can experience and even take part interactively.
This approach has been successful with the use of CoveritLive which uses typed text to both broadcast the event and take questions interactively. It goes without saying that to add live audio and video so remote participants can see and hear the meeting live would be an improvement to the experience. In fact, a live video experience will enhance any publicly arranged event which is designed to be seen by a live audience.
How about live updates throughout a major incident? Would live video be suitable? Risk has to be a factor here. If a force is planning a press conference which is being covered by the live broadcast media, the risks for error or embarrassment are high and must be managed carefully. In this situation, every detail is highly planned and managed with hours spent briefing the presenting officers. Live police press conferences are conducted on police terms, not those of the journalists.
A recent example cited was a 43 second live video broadcast of a landlord making a statement. There was nothing in this broadcast which made it necessary to have been live. There was no live reaction from anyone else and the statement would have had equal effectiveness if it had been pre-recorded. This doesn't mean days and weeks after a particular event - pre-recorded could just mean to record the statement, check it back and then publish it seconds later.
The risk in doing this live was raised because there was no control about mistakes or a comment which may have come across in an unintended context. Because of this, it may explain why the statement was scripted and read from a a piece of paper. This video has been watched nearly 20,000 times since it was broadcast live in June last year but it only received 4 live views.
In contrast, another broadcast earlier in 2012 which featured live video of police dog puppies received 187 live views. This was a planned live event which was well publicised in advance and included a simultaneous live interview on the local radio station. Interactivity was handled live via the radio interview and throughout the broadcast via a Twitter hashtag question and answer session.
I think it is important to consider how much broadcast TV is really 'live'. There is considerable risks for broadcasters too so they carefully risk assess everything they broadcast, especially the live stuff. Consider the BBC 10 o'clock news. This is a flagship programme which is broadcast live but look at it more closely and consider how much is really live. Before the broadcast, the entire news team will rehearse and check their equipment to ensure nothing will go wrong. The title sequence is recorded which links to the present who is live. But what the presenter says isn't ad-lib; everything is scripted in advance and delivered via autocue. This prevents the risks of stumbles, blips and hesitation. In addition to the live introduction will be an overlaid caption graphic and background graphics all of which will be prepared in advance. The first live piece to camera will be followed by a pre-recorded report, several minutes in length which would have been edited. In many cases, this will be followed by a live segment where the studio presenter interviews the reporter from a remote location. This pattern continues in this fashion and usually concludes with a live weather forecast. A live telethon, live chat show and live children's show reveals a similar story and is littered with lengthy pre-recorded clips.
It is interesting to note that only 9 minutes of an hour's programming on BBCNews24 was actually live; all the rest was pre-edited segments and reports. Of that 9 minutes, 5 minutes was the newsreader and 4 minutes was the weatherman. 90% of the newsreader's contributions were visually overlaid with pre-recorded material while the presenter voiced over them. The newsreader's voiced segments were 100% scripted via auto-cue. The weatherman's 4 minute slot was 'truly live'. He didn't have a rigid script and was largely ad-libbing whilst changing his own graphics. So the question is - hats off to the weatherman for true 'seat-of-your-pants' live broadcasting. The newsreader by comparison had it easy.
The point to all this is that 'live' is not as easy as it looks; it requires planning rehearsals and is consistently interrupted by 'non-live' inserts. There will be situations which will suit live video for police services but certainly not all. In some cases the risks would outweigh the advantages and in other cases there just are no advantages regardless of the risks. The challenge isn't to take a new technology and try to find a fit for it. The challenge is to consider live video along with a range of tools and use it appropriately, either on its own or in combination with others for purposes which lend themselves to the medium.
It follows some experience of using UStream, Bambuser and Google+ Live Hangouts as well as observations of early attempts to explore the use within the police service. There is certainly a case for forces to consider all social media channels including the live video options like Bambuser and Google+ Live Hangouts.
Most forces use Twitter, Facebook pages and YouTube as a minimum SM set, and choose to use others like Pinterest, Flickr, AudioBoo and Google+ pages as well. There are hundreds of SM sites and there is no force however large which tries to use them all. With every new major SM site which comes to the attention of forces, a decision has to be made about whether to join in or leave it out of the mix.
This decision is made more difficult as budgets are cut in all areas including those departments within forces who are held responsible for developing and maintaining the social media sites. Assessing and managing risk when using social media is vitally important for forces. Twitter is perhaps easier to manage than more complex sites like Facebook which has a huge range of variables to deal with and which tends to change its features and functionality regularly. The very nature of social media requires interactivity which requires forces to be constantly alert and monitor all the time. SM sites which utilise live audio, video and text messaging raises the risks considerably.
Forces would also have to consider the applications when live video would be most effective. Perhaps to broadcast a live meeting so that people who cannot attend in person can experience and even take part interactively.
This approach has been successful with the use of CoveritLive which uses typed text to both broadcast the event and take questions interactively. It goes without saying that to add live audio and video so remote participants can see and hear the meeting live would be an improvement to the experience. In fact, a live video experience will enhance any publicly arranged event which is designed to be seen by a live audience.
How about live updates throughout a major incident? Would live video be suitable? Risk has to be a factor here. If a force is planning a press conference which is being covered by the live broadcast media, the risks for error or embarrassment are high and must be managed carefully. In this situation, every detail is highly planned and managed with hours spent briefing the presenting officers. Live police press conferences are conducted on police terms, not those of the journalists.
A recent example cited was a 43 second live video broadcast of a landlord making a statement. There was nothing in this broadcast which made it necessary to have been live. There was no live reaction from anyone else and the statement would have had equal effectiveness if it had been pre-recorded. This doesn't mean days and weeks after a particular event - pre-recorded could just mean to record the statement, check it back and then publish it seconds later.
The risk in doing this live was raised because there was no control about mistakes or a comment which may have come across in an unintended context. Because of this, it may explain why the statement was scripted and read from a a piece of paper. This video has been watched nearly 20,000 times since it was broadcast live in June last year but it only received 4 live views.
In contrast, another broadcast earlier in 2012 which featured live video of police dog puppies received 187 live views. This was a planned live event which was well publicised in advance and included a simultaneous live interview on the local radio station. Interactivity was handled live via the radio interview and throughout the broadcast via a Twitter hashtag question and answer session.
I think it is important to consider how much broadcast TV is really 'live'. There is considerable risks for broadcasters too so they carefully risk assess everything they broadcast, especially the live stuff. Consider the BBC 10 o'clock news. This is a flagship programme which is broadcast live but look at it more closely and consider how much is really live. Before the broadcast, the entire news team will rehearse and check their equipment to ensure nothing will go wrong. The title sequence is recorded which links to the present who is live. But what the presenter says isn't ad-lib; everything is scripted in advance and delivered via autocue. This prevents the risks of stumbles, blips and hesitation. In addition to the live introduction will be an overlaid caption graphic and background graphics all of which will be prepared in advance. The first live piece to camera will be followed by a pre-recorded report, several minutes in length which would have been edited. In many cases, this will be followed by a live segment where the studio presenter interviews the reporter from a remote location. This pattern continues in this fashion and usually concludes with a live weather forecast. A live telethon, live chat show and live children's show reveals a similar story and is littered with lengthy pre-recorded clips.
It is interesting to note that only 9 minutes of an hour's programming on BBCNews24 was actually live; all the rest was pre-edited segments and reports. Of that 9 minutes, 5 minutes was the newsreader and 4 minutes was the weatherman. 90% of the newsreader's contributions were visually overlaid with pre-recorded material while the presenter voiced over them. The newsreader's voiced segments were 100% scripted via auto-cue. The weatherman's 4 minute slot was 'truly live'. He didn't have a rigid script and was largely ad-libbing whilst changing his own graphics. So the question is - hats off to the weatherman for true 'seat-of-your-pants' live broadcasting. The newsreader by comparison had it easy.
The point to all this is that 'live' is not as easy as it looks; it requires planning rehearsals and is consistently interrupted by 'non-live' inserts. There will be situations which will suit live video for police services but certainly not all. In some cases the risks would outweigh the advantages and in other cases there just are no advantages regardless of the risks. The challenge isn't to take a new technology and try to find a fit for it. The challenge is to consider live video along with a range of tools and use it appropriately, either on its own or in combination with others for purposes which lend themselves to the medium.
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Saturday, 1 December 2012
Live web broadcasting - a few notes
I have just watched West Midlands Police conduct their first attempt at a live broadcast using Google Plus and YouTube. The result is embedded below:
I firstly wanted to say a big congratulations to Chief Inspector Kerry Blakeman and his team at West Midlands Police for organising this event and for taking the risk of being first in what is fast becoming an environment where risk aversion would normally stop this kind of thing at the first hurdle. We have to be willing to try out these technologies to push the envelope of new media and communication technologies. It will not go right first time and there will always be room for improvement but, all things considered, this was a really good 15 minutes of material.
I haven't joined a live video broadcast online before. My first concern from about 20 minutes before the 'go live' time was "Am I in the right place?". If you go to a real event, show, meeting or concert there is a build-up to the main event. The first reassurance is that others have also arrived so you're in the right place. You then progress through a series of other activities; talking to others, buying a drink, reading the programme or the meeting agenda, taking your seat, listening to the audience announcement about switching off mobile phones, the dimming of the lights and finally - the event actually begins.
In my opinion, an online meeting would benefit from these experiences too. It would be reassuring to know you're in the right place. Google plus just didn't give that reassurance and I wasn't sure if the page I was waiting on was going to work or not. In the end, it didn't. I was waiting on the 'Events' page and when 6 o'clock arrived, nothing happened. I switched to YouTube and found the correct channel but there were links to 2 live events. I tried them both but neither of them had started and by this time it was 6:02pm. I then checked Twitter and found a link to a different looking kind of YouTube page which started playing - the event had clearly already started. If you check the start of the recording above, Kerry starts his introduction within 5 seconds of the beginning (and the pause was only to let the sirens die down in the background). Even if you were sitting on the correct page, there is no way you can check sound levels are right or adjust the page to your liking in that short time. In previous Google+ hangouts, it takes at least 4 or 5 minutes for everyone to get themselves sorted out, say hello, check their video and audio is right before things start to happen.
So here are a two suggestions:
Start broadcasting a picture and audio at least 10 minutes before the event is due to start. In this case it could have just been the traffic and sirens. This would reassure anyone that everything is working and they're in the right place. In these conditions a prompt start would be all that is required but it could be beneficial to indicate a 3-2-1 minutes to go.
Keep it all in one place. Comments were coming in on Twitter and there were further comments displayed next to the video stream and also under the Event comments. Kerry was checking Twitter for questions but there was also activity on both the other areas. If at all possible, the meeting room/webpage should contain everything needed for the session. CoverItLive tends to deal with this quite well as it brings in Twitter into the same environment as the video. All of this can be embedded into a web page which can itself provide additional material if needed.
I think Google plus has a way to go before it gets these things right. The interface is too complicated unless you've spend a long time with it. To be useful in this context, it needs to welcome people in who haven't tried G+ before and I think CoverItLive can deal with this better at the moment. The relationship between G+ and YouTube is expected but it also sets up two different locations to view from. I can't see the appeal in providing the live stream directly inside YouTube if it is also there to be used in G+. Better to just conduct the entire event in G+ to provide that 'all-in-one' location and simply archive the entire thing to YouTube when it's finished. This allows YouTube to continue to do what it does best - I really don't think YouTube works as a live video destination.
The overall takeaway for me is to replicate that reassurance you get when taking part in something that is truly live. This may have to include a pre-gathering, the event itself and an after-show party for those wishing to continue their discussions and share their opinions afterwards.
I firstly wanted to say a big congratulations to Chief Inspector Kerry Blakeman and his team at West Midlands Police for organising this event and for taking the risk of being first in what is fast becoming an environment where risk aversion would normally stop this kind of thing at the first hurdle. We have to be willing to try out these technologies to push the envelope of new media and communication technologies. It will not go right first time and there will always be room for improvement but, all things considered, this was a really good 15 minutes of material.
I haven't joined a live video broadcast online before. My first concern from about 20 minutes before the 'go live' time was "Am I in the right place?". If you go to a real event, show, meeting or concert there is a build-up to the main event. The first reassurance is that others have also arrived so you're in the right place. You then progress through a series of other activities; talking to others, buying a drink, reading the programme or the meeting agenda, taking your seat, listening to the audience announcement about switching off mobile phones, the dimming of the lights and finally - the event actually begins.
In my opinion, an online meeting would benefit from these experiences too. It would be reassuring to know you're in the right place. Google plus just didn't give that reassurance and I wasn't sure if the page I was waiting on was going to work or not. In the end, it didn't. I was waiting on the 'Events' page and when 6 o'clock arrived, nothing happened. I switched to YouTube and found the correct channel but there were links to 2 live events. I tried them both but neither of them had started and by this time it was 6:02pm. I then checked Twitter and found a link to a different looking kind of YouTube page which started playing - the event had clearly already started. If you check the start of the recording above, Kerry starts his introduction within 5 seconds of the beginning (and the pause was only to let the sirens die down in the background). Even if you were sitting on the correct page, there is no way you can check sound levels are right or adjust the page to your liking in that short time. In previous Google+ hangouts, it takes at least 4 or 5 minutes for everyone to get themselves sorted out, say hello, check their video and audio is right before things start to happen.
So here are a two suggestions:
Start broadcasting a picture and audio at least 10 minutes before the event is due to start. In this case it could have just been the traffic and sirens. This would reassure anyone that everything is working and they're in the right place. In these conditions a prompt start would be all that is required but it could be beneficial to indicate a 3-2-1 minutes to go.
Keep it all in one place. Comments were coming in on Twitter and there were further comments displayed next to the video stream and also under the Event comments. Kerry was checking Twitter for questions but there was also activity on both the other areas. If at all possible, the meeting room/webpage should contain everything needed for the session. CoverItLive tends to deal with this quite well as it brings in Twitter into the same environment as the video. All of this can be embedded into a web page which can itself provide additional material if needed.
I think Google plus has a way to go before it gets these things right. The interface is too complicated unless you've spend a long time with it. To be useful in this context, it needs to welcome people in who haven't tried G+ before and I think CoverItLive can deal with this better at the moment. The relationship between G+ and YouTube is expected but it also sets up two different locations to view from. I can't see the appeal in providing the live stream directly inside YouTube if it is also there to be used in G+. Better to just conduct the entire event in G+ to provide that 'all-in-one' location and simply archive the entire thing to YouTube when it's finished. This allows YouTube to continue to do what it does best - I really don't think YouTube works as a live video destination.
The overall takeaway for me is to replicate that reassurance you get when taking part in something that is truly live. This may have to include a pre-gathering, the event itself and an after-show party for those wishing to continue their discussions and share their opinions afterwards.
Sunday, 9 September 2012
Mi, Three are[n't so] awful [after all]
Update: November 3, 2012
Still no replacement MiFi in the post and this appears to be why - another message from Three. This time they say they don't have any 'handsets or dongles in stock but we will call you when they come in". I called the Three shop in Chelmsford and - of course - they have several in stock. This brings me back again to my original point about how Three could save themselves so much hassle by making better use of their high street network of shops. As I've said before, this could all have been resolved through the shop stocking low value spares. In this case, why don't they just instruct the shop to release one of their MiFi to me? I could have had it in time for the holiday we've just come back from. At this rate complaint number 3 isn't far away and this time, I'll not only be looking for a straight swap but also some compensation for nearly 6 months without the MiFi.
164 days since unit was sent off for repair.
53 days since first complaint
31 days since second complaint
53 days since first complaint
31 days since second complaint
Update: October 28, 2012
Another call from the lovely people at Three. This time wanting to follow up and ask if I'm happy with the replacement MiFi device the sent. Trouble is, it hasn't been delivered yet. I'm told this is due to a 'technical issue'. I'm assured that it will be here in 3-5 days - in other words, "we didn't sent it the first time".
Update: October 23, 2012
Success at last but only because of Lee the Three shop manager in Chelmsford.
Three called last night and offered an unreserved apology for all that is listed in this blog entry and a replacement MiFi unit. They had clearly read the blog in detail because they quoted a lot of detail mentioned here. I'm a bit disappointed that it was only a replacement (which was due anyway) and nothing in addition as compensation but I was happy to at last receive a communication from them and at least I'll finally have the MiFi back up and running again.
The slightly sour taste in the mouth is the fact that it only came after I contacted the Three shop manager in Chelmsford again for assistance. He was great and replied to my email immediately and promised to chase it again for me. I've emailed him to confirm but I'm 98% sure that Three only got back to me because of his intervention.
Three clearly have had some serious issues with their repair and customer services but I hope someone is listening to customer feedback and will now consider how they can make better use of their high street stores who can help to mop up minor issues before they become big issues. So often the store has said "That's something we can't help with in store - you'll have to go direct to Three for that". In fact there are many things the stores can assist with but they need to be given more trust and responsibility by Three. If that had happened in this case, it would have taken a quick 5 minute visit to the store rather than 5 months of frustration.
Update: October 16, 2012
I have had a reply to my second complaint. It comes within the 10 working day limit which is good but that's where 'good' ends. They think they understand that this must be frustrating for me and then suggest they've tried to call me (not to my knowledge they haven't). They want to 'run some checks' over the phone (charged at 5.1p/min) and then perhaps book it in for repairs! Perhaps they didn't gather that is what I have already done and after three months, I've got nowhere with that option. So it seems I'm still waiting for a reply to the original complaint which is now clocked at the 24th working day with no response after being promised one after 10 working days.Dear Mr White
I’m sorry to hear you’re having problems with your Mi-Fi device charger. I understand this must be frustrating for you. We’ve tried to call you on 07963 630044 about this but we haven’t been able to get hold of you.
The easiest way to find out exactly what’s wrong is to run some checks with you over the phone. If required we can book the charger for repairs. If the device is covered under manufactures warranty it can be repaired/replaced.
Please just give our mobile broadband team a call and they’ll be happy to help. You can reach them on 500 from your Three mobile or on 0843 373 0500 from any other phone (5.1p/min from a BT landline, other networks may vary) between 8am to 10pm.
We look forward to hearing back from you.
Best regards,Here is the email I sent in reply to this one:
Daniel RamThree Customer Services
This response is unacceptable. Please re-read my complaint which relates to your failure to properly respond to my first complaint which was about Three's failure to repair my MiFi device in the first place.
I sent off my MiFi unit to Three on May 23, 2012. It was returned unrepaired on September 6, 2012 after which I complained. It is now October 16, 2012. I still have a broken WiFi charging stand and since June, a broken WiFi as well. It is now 1 year since the MiFi unit was purchased and I have only been able to use it for 7 months of that year. It has been 24 working days without a reply to my first complaint and 146 days since I sent the device for repair.
Please locate and respond to my first complaint, taking into account the resolution you asked me to provide. Returning anything for a further repair is unacceptable following my experience to date with your repair service.
I look forward to your reply and provide a summary of the two complaints and the tracking numbers below for your reference:
David White
Complaint number 2 (Tracking reference A00006890541-00020345849)
Failure to reply to complaint number 1 within your stated 10 working days
Complaint number 1 (Tracking reference A00006890541-00020115878)
Failure to repair MiFi after keeping it for 10 weeks, cancelling the repair and then sending it back unrepaired only when chased by the Three Shop in Chelmsford.
Update: October 5, 2012
As predicted I've had another email from Three automatically generated and exactly the same content as the first one (see Update Sept. 28 below). Still no reply to the first promise to get back within 10 days - it is now 17 working days since they made that promise.
Update: October 2, 2012
Still no follow-up email from Three after 14 working days (they promised they would get back to me within 10 working days). So I've put in a second complaint - this time complaining that they haven't replied to me within the timescales they promised. I have my second complaint tracking number. We'll see what happens next. At this stage, it may be worth referring back to a weekend of bizarre calls to Three when it took several attempts to obtain a PAC code and cancel my contract with them.Update: September 28, 2012
I received an email following my complaint on September 12, 2012 as follows:
Dear Mr WhiteI am no longer on the Three network so I didn't call the number supplied. I waited patiently for the 10 working days which I believe was up on September 26, 2012. It is now September 28, 2012 and Three have still not got back to me.
Thanks for getting in touch.
We’re looking into your complaint and we’ll get back to you within 10 working days.
If you want to talk to us about it before then, please call 0800 358 4916 10am to 7:00pm Monday - Friday. The call is free from a Three mobile, network call charges may be applicable from any other phone.
Thanks
Nauzad Daroga
Three Customer Services
It has now been well over 18 weeks/4 months since the fault occurred.
Update: September 11, 2012
I have just managed to complete the Three complaints form at www.three.co.uk/complaints on advice from the guys in the Three shop, Chelmsford.It took 2 attempts to fill in the form before I noticed it reported validation errors in tiny writing at the top of the form. After that I managed to complete it but referred to this blog entry rather then write it out all over again for a third time.
I eventually obtained the mobile number by plugging the MiFi into the computer and running up the Three software. I missed it out of the form because I didn't have time to run it all up for a third time to get the number again.
Original complaint
Here's a story of a MiFi unit bought from the Three shop in Chelmsford in October 2011.
I took the advice from the shop as I trusted their judgement more. The person on the phone at Three was also quibbling about the items being covered by warranty at all. It was within the year since purchase but the warranty slip in the box clearly stated that the charger and USB leads were covered for 12 months, the battery for 6 months and the actual MiFi for 24 months. The cradle was the only item not specifically mentioned so the assumption is that it is either bundled as an accessory (12 months) or considered part of the MiFi (24 months). Either way, it is not a battery so it is definitely covered.
So I reported it to Three via the website, received the confirmation emails and a pre-paid padded postbag arrived the same week. The padded bag supplied was clearly meant for a mobile phone rather than bits of a MiFi but I can forgive them that. So far so good. I made a detailed account of exactly which bits I was sending back and why, explaining that I'd tested all the components and determined that two items out of the five were faulty. They went off via the local post office with a receipt dated May 23, 2012. I received a further email confirming that the package had been received and that I'd be kept updated on the repair via further emails.
I should point out at this point that my estimated value of the long USB lead was around 30p and the cradle was probably no more than £5. This is a desktop stand which simply supplies power to the MiFi whilst holding it in an upright position on the desktop. There are no lights or other technology inside it. Its the equivalent of the short USB lead built into a moulded plactic base with some rubber feet. The fault with the cradle appeared to be that the USB socket at the back had come loose and a connection had broken as a result. Almost a job worth investigating myself with my jewellers' screwdriver set and soldering iron but as it was under warranty, why not get Three to address the issue.
A few weeks passed with no news so I called Three to get an update. I had to wait at least 30 minutes on hold and when someone finally came back, the wireless phone I was using ran out of power so I never did find out what was going on. Weeks turned into months and it finally reached September 1 when I received an email from repairs@three.co.uk telling me that the repair job had been cancelled.
I tried replying to the email but of course, it was a 'no reply' box so it just pinged back. I tried contacting Three on the phone but I couldn't progress because it always reached a point in the call where I had to input the phone number. MiFi units do not have SIMs which have individual phone numbers so I couldn't progress further that way. Happily, Lee the Three shop manager in Chelmsford was very helpful. He looked up the job on their system and raised an internal job to investigate. He even emailed me a copy of this for my reference - Great work Lee.
On Thursday September 6, 2012 I missed a 'recorded delivery' which I picked up the following day. It contained a brand new USB lead (30p worth), the cradle plus two items I hadn't actually sent them - the shorter USB lead and a mains charger. The cradle was not new and had clearly had stickers removed plus there were some scratch marks around the USB socket at the back - in other words, it looked like they had sent back my original unit. This morning (Sunday) I tested the items which had been returned from Three. The brand-new USB lead worked fine and the MiFi happily took a charge. The cradle however did not work at all. The connection into the socket at the back was loose (just like it was when I sent it off). In other words, the item hadn't been repaired.
This is a place to document the detail of the story and make it public.
My main problem here is not with the Three shop in Chelmsford. I have had many dealings with them and they are always courteous and helpful. The problem is with the black hole that is 'Three online'. You cannot get through on the phone. When you do they don't know what they're talking about. Their warranty repair service is awful. Worst of all is that having invested in high street locations where you can find real people who are very helpful, they don't fully exploit this asset to the customer's advantage. Considering the MiFi which cost around £75 to buy, you have 6 separate component parts - The WiFi and it's battery cover, the battery itself, the desktop cradle, a long USB lead, a short USB lead and the mains charger. Breaking the costs down, I would estimate they are worth £50, £15, £5, 30p, 30p and £4 respectfully.
 |
| The Three shop is in the High Street in the very centre of Chelmsford |
I am now faced with a difficult decision. While all this has been going on, the actual MiFi unit has gone wrong. It accepts a charge and turns on and off but it will not connect to the Three network so it cannot emit WiFi. It's got to go back along with the cradle but I'm not holding out much hope that I'll see them back before they are 12 months old in October. I'll keep you posted.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Apple rule the world
Been thinking about the Samsung vs. Apple battles going on at the moment and the fallout. On the face of it, it seems to be bad move for progress. Technology innovation is moving on at such a pace that it is inevitable that products produced by different manufacturers will offer virtually identical features and designs. I'm no expert at patent law but how is it that this hasn't come up in the past?
Henry Ford invented a car but he didn't prevent anyone else from coming up with a similar device with an engine, four wheels, seats, doors, roof, brakes, gears and a windscreen. If he had, we'd all be driving Model T Fords. There are so many products which are virtually identical - fork, spoon, television set, record player, oven, kettle - this list is endless.
A modern smartphone has to satisfy a basic design criteria. A certain size to fit in the hand and between ear and mouth; a flat screen which is largely the same aspect ratio as a modern TV screen (16:9), a 3.5mm headphones socket, volume control and an on/off switch. This surely limits the opportunities for manufacturers to create products which are distinctly different from each other.
Although I've never owned an Apple product, I've appreciated their design and they've always managed to be distinct enough with their designs to ride above lower quality products which are similar but simply not 'Apple'. Everyone knows an Apple iPhone when they see it. It is easy to see the difference between it and a rival company's phone in the same way that you can tell an Apple laptop from all the others.
Apple is good but choice is better.
Henry Ford invented a car but he didn't prevent anyone else from coming up with a similar device with an engine, four wheels, seats, doors, roof, brakes, gears and a windscreen. If he had, we'd all be driving Model T Fords. There are so many products which are virtually identical - fork, spoon, television set, record player, oven, kettle - this list is endless.
A modern smartphone has to satisfy a basic design criteria. A certain size to fit in the hand and between ear and mouth; a flat screen which is largely the same aspect ratio as a modern TV screen (16:9), a 3.5mm headphones socket, volume control and an on/off switch. This surely limits the opportunities for manufacturers to create products which are distinctly different from each other.
Although I've never owned an Apple product, I've appreciated their design and they've always managed to be distinct enough with their designs to ride above lower quality products which are similar but simply not 'Apple'. Everyone knows an Apple iPhone when they see it. It is easy to see the difference between it and a rival company's phone in the same way that you can tell an Apple laptop from all the others.
Apple is good but choice is better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)