[ NNSquad ] Re: What do users want

[Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com>]

Brett Glass wrote:
  [quoting and responding to me]
> >  . Unlimited usage, including running servers.
>
> Actually, not true. Most of them would not know what a server was if it jumped up and bit them. And they have no idea at all that when they are pirating music via file "sharing" applications they are running servers. 

Yeah, they don't know it by name.  But the ones who want to share files 
want to run those apps.  Block them and you'll piss them off.

> > That's not going to be true of the average user.  I swear to you that I know somebody who is convinced that if he does anything besides look at net sites, his computer will burn up or melt down.  He's even afraid to download and keep, say, a PDF or WMV file.  
>
> WMV files actually can contain executable content such as worms and viruses. Our mail server has an option to block them, and most of our users leave it turned on.

I should have been clearer.  This guy has no problem with clicking a 
link to a PDF or JPG or WMV file and having it display in his browser. 
He's afraid to control-click and make a permanent copy onto his hard 
disk.  AFAIK, that's no more dangerous than playing it the first time.

> You don't need to. Just use Windows' "normalized" names (dir /x).

I'm going to try that to see if I can clean up that mess.  I tried 
deltree and it failed on some of the directories.

> > What they want is "no surprises".  If they buy net access for $40/month, then they expect to pay $40/month (plus a few odd $ for taxes).  Not to find an extra $30 tacked onto their bill because they watched a few episodes of their favorite shows on CBS's website.  So "all you can eat" really means "all that _most_ users _will_ eat".  
>
> That's all that "all you can eat" EVER means. Same as at a buffet.

Not exactly.  I'm sure a typical buffet restaurant gets the occasional 
500 lb guy who can eat as much as three normal people.  I'm sure they 
lose money on him, but usually it's better not to make a fuss -- as long 
as you make money on _most_ of your customers, having an occasional 
customer who eats more than the fixed price will cover isn't a problem. 
 OTOH, if the 500 lb guy (or the compulsive eater who will literally 
stuff himself until he is in pain) keeps showing up again and again, 
they will probably have a quiet talk and ask him not to come back any more.

> We always throttle users. Any user, even the little old lady who only surfs on Sundays, can get a bandwidth-sucking worm or Trojan.

I'd guess that's "_especially_ the little old lady..." because she's 
more likely to be clueless about trojans and suchlike.  And to use IE 
instead of FF because her computer came with IE installed.  Microsoft's 
default settings for IE are an open invitation to trojan makers.

> Heck, they're intimidated by any e-mail program. Period. Any user who has a POP mailbox is effectively a power user. Ever wonder why Hotmail is such a success, even though it lets Microsoft spy on your intimate e-mail? Because people don't even feel comfortable using an e-mail client.

Why am I not surprised?

> Actually, this is not the case. We get our users onto Firefox and off of IE as fast as we can. And if they are capable of handling an e-mail client, we give them Thunderbird or Eudora.

Good for you!  When Time Warner took over Comcast's customers in 
Southern California, they provided a program to convert your machine to 
their network.  It updated your mail, newsgroup, etc. settings in IE and 
Outlook.  If you were running anything else, you were on your own.  I 
called up for support, and after waiting about an hour, got somebody 
whose basic attitude was, "we don't support any mailreaders except 
Outlook/Express."  I was able to persuade him to give me the names of 
their mail and news servers, and, luckily, I _am_ savvy enough that I 
was able to get my (and my wife's) machines going again with just that.


> Not correct. Firefox and other Mozilla-derived browsers are, by most accounts, in the 20-30% range. Some sites peg it as high as 40%. See
>
> http://www.kottke.org/05/02/browser-stats

Ummm... That's a site mostly visited by unusually savvy people (like 
us).  That would be like using the browser statistics for slashdot. 
Wikipedia gives the following results from TheCounter.com:

IE: 82%
Mozilla + Netscape 7: 13%
Safari: 3%
Opera: .5%
Netscape 4: <<1%


> > I'm glad I'm not running an ISP.
>
> You probably would not enjoy it. It's not fun being attacked, badgered, and told how to run one's business by people who have never done it and do not understand how.

That's part of it, but the real reason is that I'm completely clueless 
about the important parts of running a business -- guessing what people 
will buy and how much they will pay for it -- and on the other side, 
getting a team of people to work together.

Look Brett, I'm not really interested in regulating _you_.  The service 
you provide is something that anybody can get into, if they have the 
guts and knowhow, so you are subject to competition.  If you don't have 
any, it's because you're doing such a good job that there's no margin 
for a competitor.

I (and others on this list) are concerned about companies like TW, 
Comcast, Verizon, Rogers, that have geographical monopolies (because of 
the high cost of stringing cable/fiber) and hence little or no 
competition.  Then they use their monopoly position to force users into 
a narrow vision of how the Internet should be used -- one that favors 
them over anybody else, of course.

When Comcast injects RST packets into a TCP connection, they do it for 
their own benefit.  Sure, they are probably a little worried about the 
bandwidth those filesharing apps use.  But I suspect a large part of 
their motivation is that the filesharing competes with their own, 
high-profit services.

If those large ISPs continue to try to break the Internet, I will be 
writing Sens. Feinstein and Boxer to support regulation because without 
it, we will have only the kind of Internet that Comcast, TW, and Verizon 
want us to have.

    [ Time to start closing down this thread.  The return
      of the buffet analogy is a sure sign.
                                            -- Lauren Weinstein
                                               NNSquad Moderator ]