Why AT&T Should Give Me a 93% Discount on U-Verse Internet

So, I recently moved. At my new house, I signed up for AT&T U-Verse TV and Internet. So, what happens this week, before I've even received my first bill? DSLReports and Engadget break the news that AT&T will begin imposing a 250 gigabyte per month cap on U-Verse Internet service. This already has me reconsidering my options.

Switching to DSL (I've heard a lot of good things about DSLExtreme) would be my likely choice, as I've had some pretty bad experiences with Time Warner Cable's Internet offerings. Plus, from what I understand, DSL and U-Verse run over the same copper pair, so I'd also have to change my TV provider. Time Warner Cable isn't all that attractive, and I had some bad experiences with the DirecTV customer service people before deciding on U-Verse. But that's really beside the point, and not why I'm breaking out the Blogger account for the first time in almost a year.

No, I want to lay out why AT&T should be giving me an 93% discount on my U-Verse service. It all boils down to simple math:

I have the U-Verse Max plan, which offers download speeds of 12 megabits per second. I even did the math in AT&T's favor, and used a non-leap year February as the definition of a month, being 28 days. Now we need to do one more division:

In other words, the bandwidth caps allow me to use just 7% of the theoretical maximum amount of Internet usage I could have in a month. And that doesn't account for the 1.5 megabits per second upload speed. So if I can only get 7% of what I signed up for, I should only pay 7% of what I was paying for before. In other words, a 93% discount.

Since the current charge for U-Verse Max is $45/month, that means I'll be paying just $3.15/month if I were to get the discount. Oh, and the folks with the $65/month Max Turbo plan, which offers 24 megabits per second? They'll barely get 4% of what they signed up for. It actually makes Max Turbo the an even better deal, at a mere $2.60/month.

Figuring out how long it would take at 12 megabits per second to consume the 250 gigabyte per month limit is left as an exercise to the reader. It's simple middle school algebra.

Spirit Airlines Hates Its Customers

Spirit Airlines likes to charge low fares. Really low fares. Absurdly low fares. So low, that they don't cover the cost of hauling the passenger from the gate to the end of the runway. How low? Try $9. But that's apparently not low enough. Yesterday, they announced new, even lower fares. But where do you go from $9?

Of course, if you think you're really going to get to fly somewhere on an airplane for one measly penny, you'd be quite mistaken. For if there's one thing Sprit likes more than really low fares, this is it:

Fees.

Here are a few of them:

• Want to check a bag? $19 if you pay online, $25 at the airport.
• How about another bag? $25. After August 1st, it will be $45.
• Get thirsty on board the plane? $2-3
• Want to pick your seat before you check in? $7. For the middle seat.
• Rather pre-reserve a window or aisle seat? $12. $20 for the emergency exit row.
• Oh, and you actually want that $9 fare? You'll have to join their $9 Fare Club, which costs $39.95 per year.

But all of that isn't new. And much of it is being copied by other airlines, some not exactly known for having low fares in the first place. That one-penny fare also doesn't include fuel. You pay for the seat, but there's an extra fee to actually move it anywhere.

But, buried in that press release about the one-penny fare (which I'm sure Spirit was hoping would get most of the attention), was yet another new fee.

• Want to carry-on your own luggage? Free. If it fits under the seat in front of you.
• $20. If you're a member of the $9 Fare Club and you pay in advance.
• Otherwise, it's $30.
• Or $45 if you wait to pay at the gate.

That's right. For the privilege of hauling your bag through the security checkpoint by yourself (ensuring that all liquids are in 100mL containers or less in a 1-quart zip top plastic bag outside your luggage), dragging it all through the airport terminals and down the jet bridge, and hoisting it in to the overhead bin all by yourself (ok, so you might get another passenger or a flight attendant to help you with that last bit), you have to pay Spirit Airlines a fee.

I want people to pay me to do things themselves. Imagine having to tip the bellman at a hotel for not bringing your luggage to your room, or tipping the valet to park your car yourself. That's what this is.

At the same time, they're lowering the fee for the first checked bag. $15 on domestic flights and $20 on international flights; $10 more if you're not a $9 Fare Club member. So it's actually cheaper to check a bag then not. The airline is charging you more if you do something yourself than if they do it for you.

Does that make any sense? It's like if, at the gas station, the prices at the full service pumps cost less than at the self service pumps.

Actually, yes it does make sense. Spirit's COO lays it out in the press release:

“In addition to lowering fares even further, this will reduce the number of carry-on bags, which will improve inflight safety and efficiency by speeding up the boarding and deplaning process, all of which ultimately improve the overall customer experience,” says Spirit’s Chief Operating Officer Ken McKenzie. “Bring less; pay less. It’s simple.”

So, they want to reduce the number of carry-on bags. So if you charge people to do it, they won't. Simple enough.

Or is it? We have to ask the question: Why are people bringing on so many carry-on bags?

I've already answered that question. Scroll back up. I'll wait.

Ok, I'll tell you again:

• Want to check a bag? $19 if you pay online, $25 at the airport.
• How about another bag? $25. After August 1st, it will be $45.

As I predicted when American Airlines started charging for that first checked bag almost two years ago, when asked to pay a fee to check their bags, many customers will choose instead to carry them on. How do we know this is happening? Ask the flight attendants, who will tell you that passengers have been carrying on more since the airlines started charging to check bags.

So, doesn't that mean that the problem of too-many carry-ons is really the airlines' fault in the first place?

Yes.

And does it also mean that they could solve the problem by simply not charging that fee?

Yes.

But instead of reversing the move that caused the problem in the first place, Sprit has decided to solve the problem by charging yet another fee. It may work too, but not in the way Spirit is hoping.

Fewer passengers on board mean fewer carry ons, regardless of whether or not they check the bags.

So why would the company choose the customer-unfriendly option in the first place, that has the possibility of hurting its business even more?

I can draw only one conclusion:

Spirit Airlines hates its customers.

More Bad Ideas from the Airline Industry

Here's why this is a bad idea:

First, for at least the short term, checking in will take longer as people argue with the agents about the fee. Plus, there will be confusion about who pays the fee and who doesn't. Sure, they lay it out pretty clearly on their web site, but do we really expect all their front line agents to know all the details? And we know customers don't read.

Second, it will make security lines longer as more people who might have otherwise checked a bag now try to bring it through as a carry on to avoid paying the fee. People like me who would check through their liquid stuff will now have to have it as one more thing to pull out of the back and place in a separate bin along with my shoes, laptop, and sweater/coat.

Third, boarding will take longer while people try to find room for all that stuff they didn't check. People trying to stuff it in the overhead bin, figure out how to get it under their seat, and finally having to check it through anyway.

The ultra-low-cost carriers like Ryanair, Allegiant, and the late, unmissed Skybus can get away with this because their fares are so low that I actually buy the argument that they're simply operating on an a la carte model where you pay for the services you want. I have a harder time buying that argument from American, where we won't be seeing the fares going down (and most people won't notice if they keep the fares lower by doing this in lieu of simply raising fares) and their fares aren't and won't be substantially different from their competitors.

Done Voting? Good. Pay More for Gas.

Sigh.

Guess all those conspiracy theorists that were saying gas prices were down just for the elections were true. They're already going up.

Where's my hydrogen-hybrid RX-8?

So How is the Air?

On my way home from work today, I heard a story on the radio that an Environmental Protection Agency study had determined that California has the second dirtiest air, after New York. No real surprises there I guess, having spent plenty of time in LA.

But then they said that the study was based on air quality surveys taken in 1999, the most recent year that information is available. So in other words, California had the second-dirtiest air seven years ago. While it's nice to know how bad things were then, it would be a bit more useful if they had more recent data. Or if the study had come out, say, six years ago.

Honolulu Still Doesn't Get It

From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

He learned from City Council members that widening the entire roadway means a speed-limit reduction from 45 mph to 35 mph.

Let's see: Traffic congestion on Fort Weaver Road is a problem, so we'll add another lane. Good. But we'll also lower the speed limit.

Um, yeah. That makes sense.

In my opinion as a driver who learned to drive in Southern California, Hawaii's speed limits are already lower than they should be, and the cynic in me assumes that it is to generate additional revenue from speeding tickets. Whenever there is any sort of traffic accident in Hawaii, the media will nearly always say something along the lines of "speed may have been a factor."

Get over it already. Hawaii drivers aren't bad drivers because they drive too fast, they are bad drivers because the driver's education system in Hawaii is bad. Speed doesn't cause accidents, speed differences do.

I Want My Money Back

First they go to WalMart and steal plasma TVs. Now they're using the money we (the taxpayers) gave them to buy expensive shoes and purses.

Another Way the Airlines Screw Passengers

A conversion my father had with a Continental Airlines gate agent yesterday lead to my realization of another way the airlines are screwing passengers. You see, the airlines have put Regional Jets on a lot of routes, not only those formerly operated by turboprop aircraft, but also those formerly operated with larger jets like 737s and DC-9s.

So why is this a problem? It's simple. There's not a lot of space for carry-on luggage in the cabin of RJs, so like on turboprops, most "carry-on" bags need to be checked. The airline will let you drop off your bag on a cart next to the aircraft, and you pick it up on another cart after the plane lands. Different airlines have different names for this. For example, Horizon Air calls it a la cart.

So how does this screw the passenger? As my father learned, the airline will not be responsible for damage to bags checked plane side. Most passengers know that fragile items should be carried on, to avoid the possibility of their items being damaged when passing through the baggage systems or as a result of rough handling by airline employees. Checking a bag plane side helps as it avoids some of the machinery, but it is still subject to rough handling when being loaded into the aircraft's cargo compartment. By using RJs instead of larger jets, the airlines force passengers who had hoped to avoid damage to fragile items by carrying them on to check them anyway, with the bonus that the airline will not pay for any damage that results.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

At first, this survey sounds nice, makes it sound like Mac OS X and *BSD boxes are safer.

However, you can't actually draw any conclusions from it. Look at this:

Of the 235,907 successful break-ins researched as part of this study, 65.64 percent, or 154,846, were made against Linux-based systems. Microsoft Windows computers accounted for 25.19 percent of all break-ins recorded, while Mac OS X or BSD-based computers accounted for just 4.82 percent of all breaches recorded.

It breaks down percentage of successful break-ins by platform. This doesn't tell me much of anything. What you would want to know is what was the percentage of successful break-ins for each platform.

Neither the MacCentral article, nor the mi2g press release give an indication of how many of each platform were studied. I suppose I'd have to buy the report to get that info.

Matai calls adoption of Mac OS X and BSD Unix "an accelerating paradigm shift" thanks to professionals who "don't have the time to cope with umpteen flavours of Linux or to wait for Microsoft's Longhorn when Windows XP has proved to be a stumbling block in some well chronicled instances."

Professionals don't cope with umpteen flavors of Linix. Normally, they'll pick one (genernally a commercially supported distribution like Red Hat or SuSE) and stick with it. Home hobbists may play around, changing from Fredora to SuSE to Gentoo to Debian to Mandrake, and so on, but a professional running a commercial server isn't going to do that. And about the problem of waiting for Longhorn after the problems with Windows XP, well, they're forgetting Server 2003.

I'm not saying that people should stick with Linux or Windows servers rather than evaluating Mac OS X or another BSD. People should evaluate their needs, and decide which platform works best for them. The point I'm trying to make is that this study doesn't mean much at all.

Paying too much

I don't get it.

I've used one of these cameras. The image quality isn't that great. 10x optical zoom is nice, but still, only 0.3 megapixels and 640x480 resolution. You can't really get all that many images on a floppy disk, and unlike flash memory card based cameras, you can't avoid carrying around lots of disks by getting a larger disk. For $270, you can definately do better.

Windows XP Service Pack 2

So Windows XP Service Pack 2 is finally done and on its way.

Looks like Microsoft still doesn't quite get it. I found the following paragraph from an article on PC Magazine's web site to be rather interesting:

Microsoft has included a programmatic interface for Windows Firewall that allows an application to do things like set FirewallEnabled to FALSE, add itself to the list of AuthorizedApplications, or change the configuration of GloballyOpenPorts. Our concern here is that a malicious application could turn off Windows Firewall or, more likely, mark itself as an authorized application. Corporate administrators can disable some or all local configurations, which will prevent programs from making changes; but ultimately, Microsoft maintains, individuals still have to be smart about what apps they run. Even the best deadbolt won't protect your house once you've let the bad guys in.

The way I see it, they gave the keys to the dead bolt to the bad guys. Suppose one way or another, I manage to get some malware on my system. This malware then has the ability to disable the firewall and do whatever it wants. Thanks. Looks like I'll still be recommending a third party firewall such as ZoneAlarm.

A while back, Bill Gates was quoted as saying something along the lines of there isn't a need for perfectly secure software, since we have firewalls to protect us. At the time it seemed absurd to me: What happens if your firewall software isn't secure? Now, Microsoft shows they can't even get the firewall right.

I posted some of this on Slashdot, too.