Jamie's Random Musings
Various thoughts and adventures, including but not limited to Linux, Windows XP and Widows Vista, and assorted bits of hardware new and old.
Thursday 18 September 2008, 8:35 AM
Open Access is a Two-Way Street
It appears that when it is convenient for Skype's business objectives Skype waves the flag of openness, at the same time conveniently ignoring competitors requests for openness.
In my opinion, however, this behavior from Skype should not come as a surprise to anyone. They do exactly the same thing on plenty of other subjects, whenever it suits their needs. Basically, there is a total disconnect between Skype's public statements and their actions. Here is another good example:
In his recent publicity tour, the current CEO of Skype states repeatedly that one of Skype's "core values" is a passion for the customer. In fact, however, Skype still has the most pitiful customer support imaginable; no support phone number (a phone company without a support phone? That's "passion"?), no live chat, no email, only a web-browser based "support ticket" system which itself says that response will take FOUR DAYS minimum. Four days to respond to a support request? That's passion? Wow!
jw 18/9/2008
PreviousComments on this post
Maybe they are being passionate - with themselves.
Hmmm.
(as a lad, I was told this can make you go blind)
Well, it seems that Gizmo's Michael Robertson has definitely stirred up a tempest with his open letter to Skype! First, the Skype Cheerleading Squad published an article about it, with a ridiculously two-faced list of "questions". I have to say, though, it takes a significant amount of cheek to include questions about encryption and intercepts, with all the rumors and stories flying about Skype's back door; likewise, asking about "strong authentication" when there have been recent reports of accounts being hacked and money stolen. What the Cheerleaders never address, however, is the basic question Mr. Robertson asks - why does Skype think they can demand open access to other networks, while blocking access to their own? The list of questions actually reminds me of the excuses that the original telephone companies used when trying to prevent others from connecting to their networks.
Michael Robertson then responds. Very well indeed.
jw 19/9/2008
I don't refer to them as The Skype Cheerleading Squad for nothing. The Cheerleaders' latest excuse for Skype's two-faced whinging about wireless carriers not giving them open access to their networks, while refusing to allow open access to their own network? Are you ready for this? Skype's technology is "too good", and doing so would inhibit Skype's "innovation".
They should try to explain that to the people who suffer from Skype's dropped calls, distorted audio, frozen video, and erratic presence reporting.
Of course, Skype themselves have had nothing to say about this at all, as usual. Andy Abramson said that he was told by Skype that they were "considering a response", and he would publish it as soon as it was available. I'm afraid that Andy isn't going to get any further with that than the Cheerleaders did when they said that they were going to ask Skype P.R. for a comment about the Skype account hijackings, or any number of people who said they were going to try to get some comment out of Skype about the rumored back door for monitoring Skype calls.
Skype's attitude is always the same. We don't comment. We don't listen. We don't do anything other than what we please, and everyone else can just deal with it, because we don't answer questions.
jw 21/9/2008
Dan York has posted an interesting analysis of both sides of this issue. It's worth reading, if you are interested in the details. His bottom line is basically the same as Michael Robertson said in his original open letter - opening up the wireless carriers would be a good thing, and opening up Skype to interconnection would also be a good thing.
It is refreshing to read a well thought out analysis of both sides of the situation.
jw 23/9/2008
