Reviewing The BLU Deco Mini

Okay, so, your pre-teen kid just dropped and broke their phone and you run down to AT&T or T-Mobile to get them a new one. Suddenly, you find that because you're not upgrade eligible, a basic, cheap phone can easily cost well over $100. BLU to the rescue! What, you say you've never heard of BLU? Well, they're new in the phone game. And their products are junk. They're very similar to all the Chinese junk on eBay, except they're made in America and they're 100% legit. Many Chinese no-name phones have fake IMEI numbers (serial numbers) which can get you into trouble/your phone banned in countries like India, France, and Brazil that track IMEI numbers for police state purposes. The BLU phones have real IMEIs, and actual tech support (which I had to use). Anyways, I'm reviewing the BLU Deco Mini, a quad-band GSM texting feature phone. Here's the very small box you get:

And once you open the box, you'll find these treats inside waiting for you:

There's a phone, warranty information, a battery, a charger, a USB cable (it's NOT a detachable cable and a USB charger, but two seperate items, which is quite a departure from modern custom). Setup is simple, just pop in your SIM card and go. Being a quad-band GSM phone it will work on any GSM carrier (notably, that does NOT include AT&T and Sprint which use proprietary networks and only work with their own phones). It is worth noting that, at least in the United States, networks now have areas that are UMTS (3G) only. AT&T clearly notes those areas with blue lines on their voice map, and this phone will not work in those areas since it only supports GSM (2G). It is a dual-SIM phone, so you can actually be connected to two networks at once, great for travelers and anyone needing two phone lines for any reason. If you only use one line though, it will always have a confusing "Insert SIM" message on the screen - referring to the second radio.

The keyboard on this phone really feels great, it feels almost identical to the BlackBerry Curve, to be honest. Very few cheap phones have keyboards for texting that feel very good, but this one's great. Texting isn't threaded though. In fact, the software in general is terrible, as is the camera (hey, it's 1.3 megapixels - too bad megapixels mean absolutely nothing). The camera isn't that useful since I couldn't get MMS to work properly, even after setup help from BLU. It has some odd niceties for such a cheap phone, like Facebook Chat - though that means, obviously, subscribing to a data plan, which hardly seems worth it on such a device. As for voice, it's quiet - but livable on the highest volume. Anyways, here's a sample picture from the phone's camera.

My advice? Yes, it's a piece of junk. But that's oddly okay since it's a great basic texting phone for the kids. Pick one up on Amazon.com, combine it with a cheap texting line, or texting prepaid, or use it as a replacement phone that doesn't require a new contract - you could certainly do a lot worse for under $50, and there aren't many others at that price point.

Update on Mountain Lion iLife Problem

Guess what? The Apple rep was completely wrong on the problem being that the iLife Bundled Applications installer doesn't work on Mountain Lion. I restored back to Snow Leopard, clean Snow Leopard install from the stock DVD, and got nowhere. Same exact error message trying to reinstall iLife. Called AppleCare back, and it was hard and took her awhile to find a part number, but I should have a new bundled applications DVD coming in the mail next week. I do have to say, for all my ranting, Apple has excellent customer service.

Major Mountain Lion Problem

So, like any of the Apple faithful, when Mountain Lion was released today, I forked over my $20 bill for an upgrade. Except, my Mac OS install was already pretty darn messed up, so I did it as a clean install. This has never been an issue before, and I couldn't have imagined it would be impossible now.

Using the same method as with Lion, I was able to attain a clean Mountain Lion install. The problem is, I can't get the iLife apps back (iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, etc). The DVD included with the computer errors out and fails to install them, saying "The installer could not install the software because there was no software found to install." Seriously - are they joking?

Google revealed almost nothing yet, but oh well, never fear, AppleCare to the rescue, right? AppleCare has been fantastic on some issues for me before, so I called 1-800-MY-APPLE. The first lady hung up on me while having me repeat my serial number. I'm sure she noted it as "could not understand the customer" or some such thing. Or maybe the line really did just go dead, I could barely understand her to be fair. The second guy, who was much louder and clearer - and could also understand me, and was super friendly, was great. But the wrong guy. So he sent me to applications support, where I also got another friendly face.

This friendly face was all ready to send me a new iLife '11 DVD. No problem. The problem was, the computer wouldn't let him. So he bounced it up to his supervisor who informed me that this behavior is expected and that *clean installs will not work* - the bundled applications installer from Early 2011 MacBook Pros does not work on Mountain Lion, and clean installs are not supported, so there will be no iLife '11 DVD for me. Their official advice is to restore from the factory DVD set to 10.6, install iLife, then upgrade my way from there back to Mountain Lion a step at a time.

I'm not joking, this is Apple's actual, official, only proposed Mountain Lion upgrade path. Clean installs are absolutely not supported, and whether deliberately or accidentally they didn't say but they designed Mountain Lion in such a way that it doesn't work with iLife Install DVD's from Macs that are only a year old. This is nothing but plain and simple bad design. As for me, I'll be waiting a few days in hopes Apple decides to make an update to Mountain Lion available that allows it to work with the installers from Early 2011 MacBook Pros.

Sincerely,

Mark Uhde

An Open Letter

An Open Letter

Dear World,

We are at a time in history when school bullying has been called an epidemic. I was on the beginning of it. I was tormented, even beaten up, for supposedly being “gay” before I even truly understood what the word gay meant. This torment was based not on actual sexual orientation, or any other tangible reason, but upon my physically meeting certain stereotypes I did not yet even completely understand.

This type of bully, for many issues, is one of the most serious issues harming children, teenagers, and even adults today. Teenagers are committing suicide because of the bullying, and in many school districts if sexuality is even part of the equation teachers are not allowed to stop the bullying and reassure the bullied students without fear of losing their jobs. One of the most egregious examples of this was in Tennessee where the state legislature actually came close to passing a bill stating “no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.”

This is very concerning, we have came so far on LGBT rights as a nation, but our kids deserve so much better. Some people would argue it’s not an issue in middle school, but it is. It’s an issue even in elementary school, for I was in elementary school the first time I was bullied for being gay - before I knew what it was. There are many young transgender, gay, and lesbian children - are they not to be defended from bullying? Potentially any support is providing “any instruction” - and would be cause to fire a teacher.

Ideally, this should be a non-controversial issue. But I’m afraid that the biggest controversy will actually, sadly, come from my Christian friends. I wouldn’t be at all shocked if I hear about writing this. In fact, I believe the only way this will not prove controversial is if it doesn’t get read at all. While I would rather not, if I must, I will cause controversy to stand my ground on this important issue. This is not about the Bible, and what it does or does not say (that’s it’s own argument), it’s not about any other religious text, it’s about freedom. Freedom to be who you wish, express yourself openly, and get an education in a free country without fear for your personal safety or emotional well-being.

Those opposed to gay rights, to anti-bullying education, to support from teachers, etc claim that it’s all part of a so-called “gay agenda.” I’ve never once seen the slightest hint that such an agenda actually exists. Beyond idiot politicians, I’ve never heard anyone trying to tell a kid they “should try” being LGBT. The furthest I’ve ever heard is encouraging kids who are questioning - and often very depressed - that it’s okay to be whoever they are and they don’t have to hide it in shame.

To those people: why are you straight? Where is the “straight agenda” that taught you to be straight? Who on earth could have convinced you to be gay or lesbian? Because I’m pretty darn sure if you’re straight there isn’t a person on earth who could have convinced you to “try” being lesbian or gay. It’s not who you are, it’s not wired in you.

Also, realize that being gay is only half the battle in these stories. Bullying is a huge issue, of which sexuality is only one small part. The worst I was ever beaten up in high school, it was by a guy who constantly called me gay and claimed I was hitting on him. He has a huge ego, because to be honest, he’s the kinda guy that even if I’d totally loved guys and wanted a boyfriend I wouldn’t have been interested in in a million years. Just as I didn’t ever try to “hit on” the girls who were total jerks, I’m positive gay me wouldn’t have tried to “hit on” guys who are total jerks.

What was done about that situation? Not much, I was hurt bad enough that the SRO (School Resource Officer) talked to be about pressing assault charges. Since I was too afraid he’d kill me if I did, I just ignored it and spent the rest of high school watching over my shoulder to make sure he was no where near me. Living every day in fear.

Is that how any kid should have to live? I could easily defend myself here with “I’m not gay” but that would be sending entirely the wrong message. I know of young kids who are. They deserve the same protection, and they are gay. No agenda turned them gay, and to the extent they are part of a community, it’s so they feel safe. I know one older teenager who is a lesbian with extremely anti-gay parents. She has few to no people supporting her. One school employee even took on her parents anti-gay stance by trying to keep her apart from her girlfriend! This was not a young child, this was an older high school girl of legal age to actually get married in this state (if she was straight...). That’s taking the “don’t say gay” concept way too far. This happened in a community where the conservative agenda is up in arms claiming the schools are promoting homosexuality!

And what about marriage? That girl dreams of getting married to the girl she loves, a dream she’ll have to leave Montana to attain. Who are we to deny her the freedom to marry any other consenting adult she wishes to marry? This isn’t some man-child-animal thing like a certain former presidential hopeful claimed. It’s another, consenting, adult human. Or are people no more capable of making their own choices than animals and young children in your mind? I thought conservatives were supposed to be opposed to the government imposing on citizen’s private rights? Oh, that’s right - that only applies when those citizens are the highly profitable owners of large companies who face risking losing their “right” to charge absurdly high amounts for health care in a de facto monopoly market. When those citizens are normal people, wanting normal rights to live, it’s totally okay for big government to micromanage their lives. Sorry, it’s hard to keep that one straight in my mind.

I hate when people say “for the sake of the children” - it’s a thought-terminating cliche used to pass terrible laws that would otherwise get nowhere; by bypassing normal debate processes. Since no one, especially no politician, wants to be seen as “against the children.” But if our opponents, the ones against children’s right to be safe and mentally healthy in schools, can use it, so can I. For the sake of the children, support LGBT-rights and anti-bullying! So they can get an education safely and comfortably today, to become productive members of society tomorrow free to live with and marry whoever they wish. Free to love, pursue happiness, and be free; in a free country.

Thank you for your time on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Mark Uhde

FTC Complaint

Today, I filed an FTC complaint regarding both AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless urging regulation of their pricing. Here is my complaint below:


My concern is related to the apparent collusion between Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility. Just months after Verizon announcing their new "Share Everything" plans, AT&T copied with almost identical plans.

Pricing, of course, is a free market issue... if the market functions. In this case, the market does not appear to be functioning as a free, competitive market. Both companies new plans have almost identical pricing, and both are coming from almost identical pricing. Some of the aspects of these new plans have no basis in reality, yet are almost identical. For example, both Verizon and AT&T charge $20/month to add data cards and hotspot devices to their new plans, yet only $10/month to add tablets. In both cases, you get no additional data, so the extra data used by a data card is not a justification. Both types of device have the exact same fixed costs for the network to support, yet both companies just happen to believe they are justified in charging an additional $10 for a data card that costs them the exact same to provide?

Of course, in a free market the cost of providing the service isn't what matters - what the market will bear is the only consideration. However, when both companies together offer the only nationwide service choices in rural areas, such as my state (there is no Sprint or T-Mobile coverage anywhere in Montana), it's not a free market - it's a duopoly.

As such, I'm writing to encourage the FTC to consider regulating AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless as utilities subject to price caps based on reasonable cost, and not as free market entities. The markets have failed, just as they often do for so many utilities. The original AT&T was broken up for a reason. Regulation could correct the market deficiencies and ensure fair and reasonable pricing free of the apparent collusion that is occurring. In a tough economy, these new plans represent substantially higher pricing for most people. And, because the two largest, most comprehensive and far-reaching networks in the country are both copying each others' pricing, they don't need to fear losing customers. Customers can't escape the new plans unless they go to a smaller carrier offering dramatically less coverage (in Montana, that choice would be CellularOne and their network is both slow and offers very poor coverage). The new plans also represent pricing that is not in any way tied to actual costs (voice and text for a smartphone do not cost more to provide than voice and text for a basic phone, fixed costs to service a data card do not cost more than fixed costs to service a tablet; data usage differences are meaningless since data is metered and comes from a shared bucket).

In conclusion, I strongly urge the FTC to consider regulation regarding the wireless service pricing of both AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Mark Uhde

AT&T announced new pricing, only slightly less absurd than Verizon

Okay, so, I was really hoping I wouldn't have to make this rant, but I knew there was a possibility I would in the not so distant future. Apparently, AT&T has decided that Verizon didn't lose enough customers with their absolutely atrocious Share Everything plans. So AT&T is playing copycat. How bad is it? Pretty darn bad. They kept some of the worst absurdities of the Verizon plans, for example, deeming that 1 GB of data overage is now worth $15 instead of $10. And the ridiculous distinction between a data card (which costs a whopping $20 to share data you're paying separately for!) and a tablet (for which the exact same data that costs them the exact same to provide is only $10). There is simply no justification for this ridiculous distinction.

There are some benefits over the Verizon plans. For one, at least for now, AT&T is going to continue offering their existing plans. I think this is simply insurance to make sure backlash isn't too strong at first. Two, the basic 1GB plan works out a few dollars cheaper - it's $40 instead of $50. But adding smartphones to that plan is more expensive - $45 instead of $40. Basic phones are $30 on both AT&T and Verizon. On the most expensive plans, 10GB and above, AT&T drops the ridiculous distinction between smartphone and basic phone lines.

AT&T also has some worse things, they don't have the nicely-placed 2GB plan that's perfect for a person like me (I have one smartphone on a 2GB plan, and one basic phone with no data plan). Let's see how my account plays out under these plans:

My current AT&T plan:
2 lines, 700 minutes - $70/month
Unlimited text and mobile to any mobile - $30/month
2GB smartphone data on my line - $25/month
Total - $125/month plus taxes and bogus fees

New Verizon plans:
2GB "Share Everything" - $60/month
Smartphone - $40/month
Basic phone - $30/month
Total - $130/month plus taxes and bogus fees

New AT&T plans:
4GB "Mobile Share" - $70/month

Smartphone - $40/month
Basic phone - $30/month
Total - $140/month plus taxes and bogus fees

Now, let's say I want to add a tablet to all those plans, and have 6GB total:


Current AT&T 3GB plan plus a tablet:
2 lines, 700 minutes - $70/month
Unlimited text and mobile to any mobile - $30/month
3GB smartphone data on my line - $30/month
3GB tablet data - $30/month
Total - $160/month plus taxes and bogus fees

New Verizon plans:
6GB "Share Everything" - $80/month
Smartphone - $40/month
Basic phone - $30/month
Tablet - $10/month
Total - $160/month plus taxes and bogus fees

New AT&T plans:
6GB "Mobile Share" - $90/month

Smartphone - $35/month
Basic phone - $30/month
Tablet - $10/month
Total - $165/month plus taxes and bogus fees

Yes, even at 6GB + a smartphone, a tablet, and a basic phone, the new Verizon plan barely breaks even and the new AT&T plan is more expensive. So much for the multiple device savings. The only real savings would be for a family of all smartphones. Let's re-do that math with four smartphones, two tablets, and 10GB of data:


New Verizon plans:
10GB "Share Everything" - $100/month
Smartphone - $40/month
Smartphone - $40/month
Smartphone - $40/month
Smartphone - $40/month
Tablet - $10/month
Tablet - $10/month 
Total - $280/month plus taxes and bogus fees

New AT&T plans:
10GB "Mobile Share" - $120/month

Smartphone - $30/month
Smartphone - $30/month
Smartphone - $30/month
Smartphone - $30/month
Tablet - $10/month
Tablet - $10/month
Total - $260/month plus taxes and bogus fees

In that type of setup, there are some real savings over current plans - IFF everyone can keep inside 10GB of data. That works out to less than 2GB per device, in an increasingly data-hungry world.

If AT&T keeps their current statement that these plans are another option, not a replacement like they are with Verizon, AT&T remains the better value for most users. Why do I not totally believe them? The reality is the new shared data plans, on both AT&T and Verizon, are about increasing revenue, NOT about offering a better value. And now, there's nowhere to run. There is no Sprint or T-Mobile in my state (Montana) and CellularOne is just terrible.

Who Loses In Retransmission Consent Disputes? Everyone

It's no stranger to the unfortunate folks who happen to have DISH Network, retransmission consent disputes are something well known to DISH customers (along with bad customer service, improperly installed antennas [ungrounded], and a near impossibility of canceling), but for a couple days now DirecTV has been involved in a similar dispute. And it's a nasty one, they've lost Viacom channels. Channels like Nickelodeon and MTV. Normally, when it's DISH, my instinct says to side with the content providers - DISH pulls this nonsense much too often, at the expense of their customers. They say they're fighting for lower rates, but I don't see that in what they charge their customers. Higher profit, maybe. DirecTV, however, has these disputes much less commonly, and Viacom is asking a 30% rate increase - on channels whose ratings have gone down.

What is Viacom thinking? Do they think they really win in the end? Win or lose, they lose. Everyone loses. Customers miss their favorite programming (and still end up paying more most often). DirecTV loses customers - not just immediately, but also long-term customer satisfaction. In a world where "cord-cutting" is becoming more common this isn't good. And, ultimately, Viacom even loses - customers who leave DirecTV aren't necessarily going to switch to another provider!

Not only that, Viacom is losing respect among customers by being downright spiteful. Viacom has pulled episodes of their shows from popular online services like Hulu. This doesn't serve to make them any money. For every customer who will be frustrated enough by this to find another TV provider, I bet there are far more who will realize they can live without their shows, and just be even more discouraged to quit paying for TV altogether.

All common sense goes out the window in these disputes. My suggestion? Learn that you can live with LESS TV, and get a Roku box for services like Crunchyroll and Netflix, and an antenna for local channels, to get more content than you could ever really watch.

Verizon bringing LTE to Montana...

So, Verizon Wireless is bringing LTE to Montana "in a few weeks" (presumably July 19th...). It's the city list that I find a bit odd. The list? Kalispell, Missoula, and Bozeman. Not Great Falls or Helena, which definitely seem more lucrative markets than Kalispell certainly is. When AT&T first launched in Montana, they were very slow and even had some dropped call problems because they launched with only one channel ("carrier"). What cities did they make a priority for additional capacity? Great Falls and Helena.

But the tables have turned, on AT&T's map, they consider Great Falls and Helena to be 3G, and Kalispell, Missoula, and Bozeman are all considered 4G. Now, understand, in AT&T-land the distinction is minimal. I actually find that I get far better speeds in Helena on AT&T than I get in Kalispell. AT&T is using a 3G/4G technology called UMTS that was originally very much 3G, but with enhancements can deliver speeds competitive with LTE. However, exactly what level of enhancement qualifies a UMTS market to be "4G" on AT&T's map isn't officially acknowledged. They claim "HSPA+ with enhanced backhaul." Well, even HSPA+ isn't clearly defined, except as newer HSDPA/HSUPA categories. But all of Montana is definitely HSPA+, so the enhanced backhaul part is the restraint. Since Helena is actually faster than Kalispell, and the first "4G" markets in Montana were remote sites that probably have microwave backhaul, the amount of backhaul capacity doesn't seem to be the constraint. Rather, it appears that sites with IP-based backhaul instead of circuit-switched backhaul get the "4G" label.

Again, I see better performance in Helena than I see in Kalispell. In theory, IP backhaul will give lower latency (better ping times), but in reality, AT&T is just all-around much better in Helena than they are in Kalispell. So far, they've been better than Verizon in both cities, but Verizon's LTE will probably beat AT&T for data speeds in Kalispell. Both, however, are pretty fast, and AT&T will still win on things like coverage, pricing, and customer service. A good friend of mine just had her teenage daughter rack up over $200 in overage charges on AT&T. A call to customer service, without even asking for anything, and the charges disappeared. End of story. Not even a forced plan change or anything, just the charges gone with a friendly "talk to your daughter about phone usage." She's still on an A-List plan, so she just needs to teach her daughter how important it is to tell her numbers to add. AT&T has better coverage and treats their customers very well both in-store and on the phone. But that's not the point of this.

The point is - why on earth is Kalispell getting Verizon's new LTE network before Helena or Great Falls? Well, both providers are very reliant on local landline providers. My guess is the fact that LTE *requires* IP backhaul. And, if my assumption is correct, AT&T can't get IP backhaul in Helena or Great Falls either (thus those cities being "3G" on the map). And who is the ILEC in all of Montana since they bought Qwest? CenturyLink is. This of course, is an educated guess, they might not be the hold up at all. But whatever it is, one has to wonder about these deployments. Why would Kalispell get the latest tech before Helena, the state capital? With AT&T it doesn't matter much, no customer would ever really notice, you'll get consistently fast speeds statewide. But with Verizon, it matters, their old "CDMA" network is ancient and terrible, I'm actually shocked they still have customers in Montana with how bad it is. Until lately, there was no real choice (Alltel used the same technology as Verizon), but now there is... and Verizon better hurry up and push to get whatever the road block in Helena and Great Falls is taken away.

UPDATE - I've heard it's online in Kalispell now...

The Hunger Games

So, last week, I got a Hunger Games shirt for $3 (gotta love Rue21) and today I was at Best Buy to get a computer for someone. They had a good deal on a basic laptop, so I bought it, much though I despise Best Buy. While there, a guy at Best Buy said "do you know much about the author of those books?" (obviously referring to my shirt). And I said no. He told me "when you get home, Google her, you'll be disgusted with yourself." So I did, best I can find - some racists don't like that Rue is black!?!?!?! Seriously, unless you can show me something more I'm in "what on earth???" mode. Even if you can show me more, was it really the salesperson's place to make those comments? I don't think so. Not that I want him fired or anything, I believe in self expression. But in a company, you represent the company. And I wouldn't want my employees telling customers they'd be disgusted with themselves if they knew some vague, unmentioned thing about the author of a book they're clearly a fan of. Oh, and, guess what? I'd be disgusted with myself if I was in the business of peddling absurdly overpriced accessories and "services." Speaking of which, why is every Best Buy employee trained to take ownership of the company (a company that doesn't even pay them commission) as an individual. Employees constantly refer to "I offer," "I have," "my Geek Squad service," etc. It just sounds incredibly uneducated! The correct English is "we" and "our" because Best Buy is a large company, not an individual. It sounds like the employees failed basic English classes! My best guess, having no real idea - I think Best Buy wants to make sure customer anger stays as focused on individual employees and not the company as a whole as much as possible. But that's just a wild, baseless guess on my part. It makes sense in my mind though. /end rant

P.S. I want to make it very clear I appreciate salesperson/employee dynamic and personal exchange - including of controversial topics. I just think the customer should initiate the topic, rather than a comment out of thin air when shopping for a computer that a customer would be disgusted with themselves for the shirt they're wearing if they knew some (still unknown to me) fact about the author of the book their shirt refers to. Additionally, this was not the salesperson I ultimately bought the computer from, but that doesn't really matter since in Best Buy there are no commissions (on second thought, maybe that's the reason for the grammatically incorrect personal ownership language - try to empower employees to forget they don't even get a commission?!?!?).