Link: Orange simplifies data by capping at 30MB | The Register

Orange has launched its unmetered-mobile-data tariff for the UK - but unexpectedly capped it at 30MB a month. The tariff is available to pre-paid as well as contract customers, and costs a fiver for evening and weekend use, or £8 for anytime unmetered data access. Only it’s not as unmetered as one might hope.

When will the madness stop? The redefining of the word ‘unlimited’ started with broadband providers, and seems to have now spread to the world of mobile. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the UK’s watchdog that supposedly stops false claims in ads, is quite happy to sit back and let this happen.

Watch this space, as rumours are abound the industry is about to change the definition of the word ‘free’ to mean something that costs money. It’s nothing that an asterisk and a bit of small print can’t handle..

Link: I’m a freak of nature | Herald Sun

My previous two blog entries have been about Australia. With the New South Wales Government planning to give smog warnings for Sydneysiders by text, and a whole heap of statistics from two recent surveys on Australian texting habits, it all seemed good in the land down under.

But wait.. Apparently the whole country is wasting it’s time - at least according to one journalist.

I’M probably a freak of nature: one of the few Australians who have never sent or received a text message. A Luddite? No, I just think it’s a waste of time.  It is bad for our thumbs. And our souls.

Never received a text message? What, not even one from your mobile network, or a spam? Even the wrong number?

Shocking. Maybe he hasn’t actually got a mobile, and spends his time walking around with tin foil on his head chanting ‘the rays of evil, they’re seeping into my mind!’.

Like it or loath it, text is here to stay. A zillion and one surveys - and 250m messages sent per month in Australia alone - can’t be wrong.

Link: Mobile Phones Could Wipe Car Ignition Fobs

Owners of some new Nissan motor cars are being advised to keep their mobile phones away from the keyless-ignition fobs which are used to start their cars, as the phones can “wipe” the fob memory. The problem is limited to the 2007 Altima and G35, and the problem can be avoided by keeping mobile phones at least an inch away from the fob.

The Tennessean newspaper said that if owners send or receive calls while their phones are touching the fob, there’s a chance the fob’s electronic code could be erased. Once erased, the fobs cannot be reprogrammed, and owners can restart their engines only by using the spare fobs sold with their cars, a Nissan spokesman told the newspaper.

Link: icWales - PC apologises for texting from dock

There’s a time to text, and a time to leave the phone alone…

A POLICEMAN accused of “pleasuring himself” in front of a female prisoner in the back of a patrol car had to explain to a jury yesterday why he was sending text messages from the dock during his trial.
 
“I’ve had a number of well-meaning texts wishing me good luck or whatever, I felt it was simply common courtesy to reply.”

Link: SMS is dead - Twitter proves it | Roland Tanglao’s Weblog

SMS sucks and twitter proves it. When a well funded startup like Twitter which is full of smart people can’t get SMS to scale, then something is wrong. And the something that is wrong is wait for it …. the carriers. The carriers control SMS which is why it sucks. If SMS were NEA it wouldn’t suck but it is not so good-bye and good riddance.

Oh dear me. So based on that argument, the reason I’ve never got the hang of skiing is all the fault of the ski resort, the holiday company, the instructer, the snow itself, and everyone apart from me damnit. I mean, I’m clever - my mum used to tell me that as a kid (and still does on the odd occasion).

I particularly like the thought that ‘SMS sucks because the carriers control it’. Er dude, have you ever wondered how mobile data works - maybe pixie magic? And what does Twitter use? For the love of..

(Thanks Stefan for the tip!)

BBC NEWS | Technology | Mobile TV predicted to be a hit

Being rather sad, I was thumbing through the BBC News website over the weekend on my mobile whilst enjoying a nice cup of tea and breakfast in bed. This story caught my eye, and I meant to blog about it - but forgot til I was talking to someone about mobile TV earlier.

Tucked away towards the bottom of the article was this wonderful statement:

For example Vodafone’s service in the UK is delivered via 3G which has a maximum capacity of around 15 users per 2km radius.

Come again? Yep, it says around 15 users per 2km radius. Wow, that’s so impressive. There’s more people with Sky dishes in my road than that - which is saying something as it’s a small cul-de-sac with only about 20 houses.

Wonder what that conversation sounded like at the Vodafone product development meeting..

Link: Orange Value Promise not as much value as promised | The Register

Having spent the past few weeks merrily redefining the the word ‘unlimited’ even more so than it’d been screwed previously by their competitors and the broadband sector, Orange have apparently set their sights on price matching.

Back in the day, price match meant just that - retailer B would match retailer’s A’s price - and sometimes even beat it, whilst nodding with gritted teeth as the poor sales bloke waves goodbye to a large chunk of his commission. However, Orange don’t seem to get that. Cue a run-in with the Advertising Standards Agency and Trading Standards..

Orange UK is falling short of its promise that it can match the tariff from any other network, right down to the way it’s charged, for business customers.

When one customer asked Orange for an unlimited data tariff matched to a competitor they were told: “We do offer Orange Value Promise but we do not match ALL deals especially promotional deals with ALL networks. We only select a few in which we match.”

This comes despite the commitment outlined on its website. Promising to match some of the competitors’ less competitive tariffs, at your discretion, is hardly compelling.

Right, I think I get this. If Orange feel that a competitors tariff is close enough in cost and description to their own, they can match it. That’s very generous, pat on the back to the marketing bods at Orange who came up with that wheeze.

Think it couldn’t get any worse? Check this, from the same article.

Orange has been in touch to make it clear that their billing system isn’t capable of supporting a tariff like Web ‘n Walk; it’s just too complicated. Therefore they have no obligation to offer it; according to clause 2.10 of their terms and conditions, despite what they promised.

This is particularly odd given the recent launch of their own unmetered tariff for consumers.

I’m.. well.. lost for words. So the great citrus have just launched a tariff, that apparently offers ‘unlimited’ web browsing, but their billing system can’t support it - and even if it could, they’re under no obligation to offer it anyway.

You just couldn’t make this stuff up.. If anyone from Orange fancies getting in touch and clarifying this little mess, I’d love to hear from you.

Remember that company that I blogged about a few days ago? The one that the first part of the word rhymes with ‘yoda’, and the second part is a misspelling of ‘phone’? With me? Good. Well, I’ve just heard something interesting on the anonymous tips grapevine. And sod it, in the interest of free speech I’m going to name them.

A while back, in November 2006 to be precise, Vodafone had a little problem with overcharging their customers for premium SMS. It wasn’t a huge amount of overcharging - an additional 12p per premium SMS to be precise - but all those 12p’s added up. Quite a bit of press coverage later, and a rather embarrasing Vodafone press office initially denying all reports, and they admitted their was a problem. A few weeks later of refunding and wiping egg off their face, it all went quiet.

Roll forward to April 2007. My source indicates that Vodafone have been at it again for at least two weeks, but this time we’re talking a huge amount of overcharging. Apparently, due to a ‘malfunction’ in one of their billing engines, thousands of Vodafone customers were being charged £5 for *every* premium SMS they received - whatever the tariff. So 25p plus normal network charges would end up costing you over a fiver. Text your favourite radio station a handful of times in one day and you could easily be £20-£30 out of pocket.

Of course everythings fine and dandy in the land of Vodafone as they claim to have fixed the problem and refunded everybody at the end of April. With interest, compensation for inconvenience, and a nice goodwill gesture for being so utterly crap? I doubt it somehow.

It’s yet another nail in coffin for the world of premium SMS - and what with consumer awareness of premium sms and voice ‘rip-offs’ at an all time high of late, no wonder they want to keep it quiet.

Link: Network Operators Trying to Restrict Hyperlinks to their Websites

Here’s an interesting story, courtesy of Cellular News.

The “blogosphere” has been buzzing about a legal statement on the Cingular website which restricts how people are allowed to create a weblink from their website to the Cingular website. As we have bookmarked the press pages of practically every cellular operator who have an English press service - we sat down and took a random selection to see what their websites said about people linking to them.

Interesting. This sort of thing has potential to directly affect blogs such as this one, as we’re forever linking off-site as part of the postings. A quick glance through the article reveals that there are no issues with linking to any of the UK operator sites, apart from Vodafone - who say:

1.6 You may establish a link or “deep link” to the Site from your site, provided that you have obtained Vodafone’s prior written consent and that in Vodafone’s sole discretion, the context is relevant and the link or its description is not detrimental to Vodafone.

So from now on, we’ll be referring to them as V**f***, and putting little a asterisk next to their name pointing to the small print at the bottom of the page, which’ll say:

We can’t link to this, but guess the operator. The first four letters rhyme with Yoda, the next four is a misspelling of ‘phone’. Work out the correct website, then enter the following URL after the first slash.

It’s either that, or we’re going to only say nice things about Vodafone - which, to be honest, we can’t guarantee. In our quest to be fair, balanced, and on the odd occasion rather scathing, it can’t always be good. Otherwise this site would turn into the equivalent of a Communist country’s state TV channel.

However.. if anyone from Vodafone wants to get in touch and give us permission to carry on how we were, merrily plugging their new products and services and directing traffic (and potential new customers) to their site, please get in touch. The address is [edited due to our new terms and conditions not allowing us to link to our own site]

“Better charge my Three phone,” I thought to myself. I’d left it in my jacket when I returned to the hotel.

I found the charger just a few minutes ago, hunted for the phone, plugged it in… hold on a moment…

Arse. I looked at the screen. It was counting away — 1:55:13. I was connected to a call! It seems that the handset had called the Three customer service number (the first in the address book) by mistake. Looks like I forgot to lock the keyboard.

Triple arse.

I hung up immediately, flicked on the laptop and logged into ‘My Three’ to see what the damage was. Annoyingly, My Three only tells you how many minutes you’ve used up, how many texts/pictures/video mins you’ve got left and so on. It doesn’t tell you about international calls.

“That’s 55p a minute by 105 minutes,” I thought to myself, “Why doesn’t their system just hang up???”

Then I checked out the standard Three international call rate from Switzerland. It’s 80p a minute. 80p! 80p!

That’s an £84. EXCLUDING VAT. What a total 100% arse.

I seem to walk into these things, I really do. Last time it was that sodding Vodafone data bill. YES that was my fault, ultimately, because I should have checked that they’d kept me on the right plan. And now I’ve been a victim of the rather sensitive N73 keyboard.

Quardruple arse. I’ll phone them and see what the chaps in India can do about it. They’ll probably count it as an international call and it will remain my problem.

Link: Txt speak approved for exams - New Zealand news on Stuff.co.nz

The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) is still strongly discouraging students from using anything other than full English, but says credit will be given if the answer “clearly shows the required understanding”, even if it contains text speak.

I think I’m a hardliner when it comes to English. You have either spelt CONSTANTINOPLE correctly or you have spelt it incorrectly. I don’t think there should be a gray area around this. Otherwise what’s the point in having a written English exam?

I don’t agree with ‘oh we know what little Johnny means when he writes “I woz goin on a trip n I forrrrt I saw a burd.”‘ So you don’t damage little Johnny’s self esteem? Nonsense. Little Johnny’s going to get a wake-up call when he enters industry.

It’s that, or give every student Microsoft Word’s spell-check facility.

I’m looking down my recent calls list.

I made a call last night at 1130pm to a colleague for 27 minutes.

I was billed 7 quid by T-Mobile for that call.

EXCLUDING VAT.

That’s 36p a minute, to call someone on another mobile network, after I’m out of my bundled minutes.

What the hell is this industry playing at? Why are we still be nutted for THIRTY SIX PENCE a minute?

You know, 10 years ago, when the miracle of mobile calling was a fresh, delightful experience, we all nodded in agreement. Obviously it cost money to deliver a conversation to a mobile device, so no one had an issue with it actually costing 30-40p a minute to make calls.

I completely despair at two things: -

- One: The operators for charging stupid rates. You’re a sodding commodity. Get real. After I’ve used up my minutes, there’s no excuse to hammer us for almost 40p a minute. Even on Vodafone’s top service plan, I was astonished to find that I’m still paying 35p+ VAT for calls.

- Two: The apathetic British public. I reckon the wool has been pulled over our eyes. We seem to accept that it’s fine to be nailed by these service providers after we go over our standard minute allowance. No one seems to care though. Some of my friends earning £1,200 a month don’t think twice about living with a £120 a month mobile bill. 10% of your income??

Anyway.

I selected the T-Mobile ‘relax 50′ plan. 750 minutes, 42 quid a month, plus some texts, ex VAT.

That works out at 6p a minute, ok?

Good deal.

After I’ve done 750 minutes, they then add on 30p a minute charge if I’m calling another mobile network.

Why?

It’s not as if the networks are being held together with pieces of string and some tape. They’ve been doing interconnects for years. Surely they’ve had time to make it efficient, get some economies of scale and bring the cost down?

Sick. Tired. Pissed off.

I abhore it all.

If anyone ever asks you why the mobile industry goes absolutely nowhere, slowly, this is why. You’ve got fixed line mindset idiots sat in charge who just don’t get it.

Their time is coming to an end soon, especially when some smart cookies enter the industry and make it all 5p/min whoever you call, whenever.

So I’m off to go and buy more sodding allowances from T-Mobile.

I am seriously going to have to start saying ‘er, sorry, have you got a landline I can call please?’ when I have to phone clients. I have a huge problem paying 36p a minute for such a shite bog standard commodity.

The worst possible thing you could do today is to phone up and say ‘Hi, Ewan, I’m calling from Ofcom..’ I will bite your head off.

Has anyone got a solution? Like a wickedly good badly publicised price plan from Three or something that I should be using? Any recommendations apart from the current UK wide consumer strategy of ‘Put Up, Shut Up And Pay’?

It didn’t take me long to deliberate on this one.  It’s with great delight that I award the manufacturers of Bounty, that rather nice coconut chocolate bar, the title of STUPID MOBILE MARKETING CAMPAIGN AUGUST 2006 for their work as set out here.

As and when the mobile marketing company behind the campaign makes themselves known, I’ll be delighted to extend the award to them. 

  Image773 
  Originally uploaded by ew4n.

I’ve set Sky+ to record every episode of ITV’s Love Island (the concept, if you haven’t come across it, is to stick 10 or so Z-list ‘celebrities’ on an island and see which ones sleep with each other). 

Late at night after finishing email and blogging, I’ll flick through and watch the emotional tantrums and fights with a degree of fascination.  Perhaps I’m not getting enough emotional trauma in my own life.

The show is sponsored by chocolate bar, Bounty — so there are small Bounty ads leading into and out of a break. 

I hadn’t noticed the call to action before, but paid attention last night.  On the bottom of the screen it says:

Text Bounty to 63330 - network charges apply

I read that and immediately thought, ‘Why?’

WHY should I text?  What am I getting? What am I signing up for?  Do you just want my mobile?  Are you just trying to measure responsiveness?

What is THE POINT in asking me to text … without giving me any context at all — except the fact Bounty is sponsoring the show and wants to, I imagine, ‘reach’ me my mobile. 

So I have NO idea what to expect. 

Well done to the copywriter who thought that one up. 

So let’s find out. 

I’ve just sent off the text……

Ok, a reply has arrived:

Oh dear. My first response was not to transcribe the text here but to burst out laughing. 

The reply reads:

Rediscover the moist and tender taste of Bounty and you could enjoy a holiday in Fiji, see your local Woolworths for details.

I *KID* you not.  That’s the reply!

See your local sodding Woolworths?  The last time I was in a Woolworths was when I was about 8.  There’s one in the High Street but I tell you this, having interacted with Bounty through my perferred medium of mobile, there’s not a chance in hell that I’m going to follow their request and pop into Woolworths ‘for details’.

For details?  What the hell is that about.

At the VERY LEAST I thought they’d send me back a link to a wap site, you know, with product information.  I was thinking there might be an opportunity to enter a competition, …  maybe a voucher to get a discount off some Bounty ice creams or something.  They might have even invited me to sign up to some text updates about the show, which, of course, stick the Bounty brand in front of me every time they send an update. 

But no.

Dear reader, can you believe the state of our mobile marketing industry today?

WHO is responsible for this?  Please use your contacts and find out what muppet thought this was a good use of resources.

WHAT marketing director let the Bounty tropical heat get to their head and authorised this patently STUPID mobile marketing plan?

WHO owns the shortcode? What poor aggregator had the conversation ‘Right.. right.. yes, a shortcode.  Uh huh.  Keyword ‘Bounty’, yeah.  Ok, and it’s a wap site, is it, you’ll be wanting?  Some sort of 3-stage text competition?  A mobile game or downloads? Oh. No?  Just a reply?  Ahh… er, ok….’

You have to wonder at the balls of the advertising company to put this out to the public. 

1. There’s a call to action, without any reason.  Perhaps it’s at the top of the show?  Who knows.  All I saw was that writing on the screen.

2. When I send off a text via MOBILE my expectation is that I get to do something BY MOBILE when you write back.  Enter a competition.  Send off my address for some samples or something.

3. I do NOT expect to be told that it’d be MORE CONVENIENT TO YOU if I could pop down to Woolworths and hunt around for ‘more details’.  I want the SODDING details on my mobile.  DUH. 

Yup, totally incensed.

Thus, the SMS Text News award for STUPID MOBILE MARKETING CAMPAIGN (AUGUST 2006) goes to Bounty.

Update: I’m looking on Google for the Bounty website and I’m not seeing it anywhere.  I just did a Google for ‘bounty’.  Nothing. You’d think the marketing chaps could have at least taken out a Google ad for anyone wanting information on Bounty.  They needn’t have done much — just a blank page saying ‘Please switch off your computer and go to Woolworths’ would have been as effective as the text message. 

I hit Wikipedia for some answers. Cool.  That delivered:  Bounty, owned by Masterfoods/Mars.  I visited the Masterfoods/Mars site.  Geez that was dreamt up in 1999, wasn’t it?  I hunted around for a Bounty site.  Lost patience.  So, have a look at Snickers.  Right?  Ok, now imagine it’s coconut, basically.  Or, if in doubt, why not pop down to your local Oracle (Woolworths) for more details?

Now, I remember, I once met a chap from MasterFoods at a networking event ages ago.  I said I was in ‘mobile’ and he was quite interested to learn more as he said words to the effect of ‘we know nothing about mobile’.  I think I emailed him but got no response.  Who, I wonder, is going to put their hands up and say they run mobile strategy for MasterFoods?  I wonder if there’s a position open?

Woolworths, by the way, are here.