June 8, 2006 at · Filed under internet, mobile
despite my carrier's (t-mobile) weak/non-existent/pathetic marketing of ringback tones (they call it Caller Tunes?) i have subscribed to the service and started using it.
the default ringback was terrible. some hip-hop tune by some unknown group with very questionable quality. this was a smart move by t-mobile, because i immediately went online to replace it.
a few observations:
- the pricing is too high, but unlike ringtones which i can download any MP3 i want without paying, for this service to work i must buy the ringback from the carrier
- the interface to change ringback tones is terrible on a consistent basis across their web, wap and ivr. the ivr is the worst, and is impossible to navigate. the wap is ok, but you can't preview the ringback.. the web is ok, but could be greatly improved
- the feature of customizing the ringback based on caller-id, time of day, holidays and more is extensive, but probably will not be used by most users unless they improve the user interface
- the selection of ringbacks is very limited
i think they should be a bit less greedy and offer an option for users to upload their own MP3 files. i would be willing to pay a higher subscription fee if they let me upload my own content (there is probably no chance they will adopt this idea..). they can actually make more money this way, since one the problems of ringback tones is that people forget to change them, so charging a higher subscription fee and letting the user upload may actually increase their revenues (still there is no chance they are going to do it..)
April 27, 2006 at · Filed under mobile, politics
the wsj had a story today of a preemptive move by Cingular and Verizon Wireless to prevent the FCC from starting to regulate mobile content. so in order to stop the regulator from getting involved, they came up with their own set of rules, which seem much more restrictive than what is applied to network television and broadcast radio.
Both carriers have draft policies that go into what types of content is decent enough to be accessible to their subscribers. they also list words/phrases that can not be used in ringtones. for example, according to Cingular’s new policy a ringtone can not include the following words (partial list…):
Ass — Balls — BJ — Breasts
Condom — Corn-hole — Fart — Fornicate
Fudge packing — Insemination — Laid — Lesbian
Masturbate — Naked — Nipples — Nutsack
Orgasm — Pee pee — Penis — Piss
Porn — Puberty — Ruby red bag — Scrotum
Semen — Sex — Shit — Sit on my face
Sixty-nine — Smegma — Teabagging — Testicles
Uncircumcised — Uterus
Verizon Wireless had an even more exhaustive list (with many terms i did not understand..)
it must have been interesting sitting in these meetings and debating whether to allow users to hear a ringtone that has words like “camel jockey” or “spank the monkey”. there must have been heated debates on the merits of each phrase.. now that’s the type of brainstorming i’d like to take part in. they probably brought in teenagers as experts on the subject matter, to make sure something like “poontang” does not escape their blacklist.
they go into further detail, defining what type of images may be displayed (”no nipple, no nipple covers, no nipple shadow…” - it seems they really investigated the nipple issue in this post wardrobe-malfunction world), what could be included in the name of the images (no “Bootylicious”), what names for ringtones (no “Grandma pregnant with uncle” ??), what type of video content (i thought the quote from the title of the post is great).
it seems like a very tough task, keeping up with all the indecencies around us. and how to cast a wide enough web to catch them all. Verizon Wireless tried to address the challenge by dividing the problematic content into categories such as “Lingerie - Female” and “Medium Short Rear Nude - Female”. For example, in the definition of “Medium Short Rear Nude - Female” it says that the image “can include a full rear view, but not with legs up or apart”.
i think this is INSANE and troubling. probably the best example you can get of why the carriers should not have such a level of control over the network. just to be clear, this is not talking about the content that the carrier publishes, but rather rules that will apply to ANY content provider that wants to offer content to the subscribers of the carrier.
it is also a good example why the most affective form of censorship is self-censorship fueled by fear (e.g. China..). the carriers are taking an ultra conservative approach, just to keep the FCC off their backs.
i think a much more reasonable approach would be to require content providers to notify subscribers accessing their site that it includes explicit content, so they can choose to go somewhere else. that’s it. without going into the details of defining what is decent and what is not, and censoring free speech in the process.
April 26, 2006 at · Filed under mobile
a US research firm just published results of a recent survey into adoption and usage of video handsets (see NY Times article).it seems that over 25% of users now have a mobile phone that supports video, but only 1% use it…
i think the 1% is actually high, considering the fact that:
- the video services are outrageously expensive
- the content sucks
- the network speed is not great
- you have to also pay for the traffic
the research also found that the video handsets and video services are not causing people to switch between carriers.the mobile carriers are getting it all wrong again. they need to lower the cost of the service, bundle in the traffic cost (so it’s not a separate charge), and focus on the right kind of content.the most natural video content, and the one the carriers focused on, is bringing in the TV broadcast and cable channels. sounds like the right thing to do. but i think it may be the wrong type of content for a mobile device.
the screen is small, the quality is low and most likely people will not tune-in at a certain hour (e.g. to trun it on at 9pm catch the Sopranos or Lost), so it’s more logical to focus on short videos, that can be accessed on demand. this is where i think the carriers will start seeing adoption going up, and some viral marketing scenarios (assuming they are going to charge reasonable prices).
will be interesting to see how long it will take them to figure it out.
