Fixing the PSN Error: 8071053D

Playstation Network error codes are a pain in the rear, mainly because Sony doesn’t really give us a good way to manage these error codes.  While usually proprietary for internal fixes, these do become a hassle when you get a code but know nothing about it.   Much like the Mac error codes of the System codes (remember the Error Code 11?).

So with error 8071053D itself, the error itself will basically sign you out of the PSN network regardless of if the PSN network is up or down.   While most fixes tell you to hard boot the PS3, then hard boot your router, there’s no need for the latter.

FIX:

  1. First you turn off the power to your PS3
  2. Then flip the switch on your PS3
  3. Then pull the power cord out of the PS3 for a couple seconds.
  4. Then you can put everything back into place and turn it on.

This should fix everything.  I assume that there’s something in memory that low-power trickle will hold in memory.  When you remove all of the power, that corruption which probably likes in some memory is reset.   Thus, it fixes it.  It’s probably a MAC-address storage but that’s just a guess. But anyhow…

SOPA/PIPA Makes OPPA

I’ve realized something.  SOPA and PIPA together  do a Wonder Twins formation to create OPPA:  Oppress People via Piracy Act.   I mean where else would you use a law that was designated for white collar embezzlement and make it so scary on the Internet that we’re no better than some of the countries that we speak openly against on the international stage?   I mean, let’s think about this.   North Korea has no Internet, but if they did, they would definitely make a show here.  Iran?  Same.  Can anyone say Syria?  Crazy stuff really.   What gets me is that the people that actually want this passed almost always have no technical or legal background, and don’t seem to realize that the vague wording of it makes it just…. un-American.

Yes, that’s right.  I question your patriotism if you pass SOPA/PIPA or that type of legislation.   We’re supposed to be a superpower.  We’re supposed to be about democracy.   We dislike dictators and corruption.  We’re supposed to take the higher road.

Unfortunately, I guess some of us didn’t get the memo.

Klout’s Re-Scoring Had Other Things In Mind

Image representing Klout as depicted in CrunchBase So if you haven’t heard about the re-scoring, Klout re-did their algorithm. And everyone for the most part got pushed down a few notches. And that created a huge backlash from social media people that used it for a method of distinguishing how they were doing at their jobs. However, I believe there are other things that no one is talking about that went on with the re-scoring.

For the most part, it was documented that this created a truer scoring scenario and it was no different than PageRank. But, this is actually not the case, and I believe there were business practices involved with how Klout sells their marketing. Case and point, before the re-scoring, the Windows Phone giveaway required a location and a score of 55 in technology (I barely broke 54 at the time, but wasn’t located in New York). However, after the re-scoring, I was only a 49. But the scores for that Klout Perk didn’t change which makes me believe that they were trying to filter and handpick more “top” influencers.

Due to that case alone, that shows me that there was a business/marketing scenario that came to be from the normalizing of the general populace score since the marketing limits were not normalized to the same scale. More than meets the eye, I’m afraid. What’s even more fascinating is that no one from Klout has actually mentioned or even replied to that comment which makes me believe that I’ve hit on something. Regardless, if everyone’s score was normalized downward, then it really shouldn’t matter whether or not you were a 74 and now a 54. Sounds to me like they scaled it on a bell curve though.

And one more thing. Klout did in the comments compare Pagerank with their re-normalizing. Pagerank however doesn’t discuss how they do it, or what not. People make a lot of guesswork to piece it together. On the other hand, Klout openly displays their ranking system which makes it somewhat different. I agree that all ranking and scoring systems depend on multiple variables, but don’t compare yourself with something like Pagerank when you’re really not quite the same.

What They Teach Kids In School These Days…

Logo of the PlayStation Network First the front story. I was playing a multiplayer game on Playstation. The basic thought was that someone got mad at my play style and decided to call attention to my connection (which I’ll point out, is Time Warner and even though it usually fails me, it was surprisingly good during this story). So this person with the PSN of “KIoey” decided to rag on how I lag, and that’s why I was good and I basically told them that if they stunk at shooting, then quit complaining. Then I decided to tell them that their “ping” probably sucked too.

The response brought on utter shock, and profound laughter.

This person actually wrote back to me that said: “Ping is not a measurement of latency, but your connection to your DNS.”

WOW. We’re talking jaw-dropping wow. If this is what they teach in school for IT/IS, then it’s no wonder college grads can’t get jobs. And in this economy, you better know the basics of networking 101. The first is the definition of “ping”.

Ping is a computer network administration utility used to test the reachability of a host on an Internet Protocol (IP) network and to measure the round-trip time for messages sent from the originating host to a destination computer. The name comes from active sonar terminology.

Another way I taught it when I was a teaching assistant is to think about it as the tracking of delivery of a package. Ping is equivalent to the time it takes from the shipper to send it to the recipient and get a delivery response mailer saying that the package has indeed made it to the destination. To explain it in a little more technical but still in layman’s terms, the idea is to get a single packet from one computer to another, and then get a response where the summation of time of travel is defined by ping. Basics of networking.

Now what Kloey was speaking of on DNS has no validation. DNS means domain name system. This was created long after ping even existed and basically is the renaming of a alphanumeric word choice that is translated to an IP address. So if you type in “google.com”, it actually is translated into an IP address that hosts that data and you’re directed to that place. Ping, has nothing to do with anything here.

So, “KIoey”, I hate to break it to you but if that’s the knowledge you have, it’s going to be tough to get a job during these times. Seriously. And it probably might suffice to actually learn the basics about computer networks next time before throwing out bad knowledge.

What Netflix Needs To Do To Progress Further

Image representing Netflix as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

I have both supported, and spoke highly of Netflix.  I’ve also ripped them to shreds when I found their business decisions to be absolutely horrible, and pulled my money as an investor when it started to do things that was not along this side of visionary.  So with the latest announcement of canning the split business scenario, I thought… maybe they’re finally understanding again.  Regardless, Reed Hastings is on the right track although his means to the end was not exactly the best of methods.   So this is what I propose that he starts doing if he’s indeed still pushing for settling on Netflix being a streaming business.

  1. Re-position internal organizations
    Internally, you’ll start splitting your company into two divisions.  One is DVD, one is streaming.  Both would have online teams that work together, but ultimately your sales, metrics, and growth will be separated out.   Timeline? 1-2 years.  I have yet to participate in a major company-wide re-organization that has never taken at least 12-18 months.
  2. Customer service needs to get back on par
    Netflix as a company took their reputation and basically threw it out the window.  That’s a lot of reputation when you consider that it was chucked in three months and the company has been around since 1997.   Get back to doing what you were doing best, which was handling customer service well and providing for those that bring you revenue.   Don’t forget that while people are just means to end, your company is also in the service business.  So service.
  3. Transparency
    I am still amazed that there are people out there that don’t understand that the best online businesses are the ones that have such deep linked inner-workings that have absolutely no ties to what the customer interacts with and how it’s done.  Amazon is a great example of this.  From a consumer standpoint, their website is a shopping area and 2-days later, a product arrives.  But the amount of logistics that went into making all of that happen behind the scenes?  Vast.  AND really none of the consumer’s business.  The fact is that all of this and expansions is made possible because of transparency.  With the Qwikster model, there was absolutely no transparency, and you took a brand and threw it out the window.  Once a business operates in a transparent function, it makes changing the consumer end very simple.  You could sell the online division, or dvd rental without batting an eye since the buyers can see that it can both operate seamlessly or by itself.  That makes your company all the more attractive.
  4. Improve Online UX
    So far, Netflix keeps changing up their UX, but their applications lag behind sometimes and they don’t really improve.  For example, they took away the DVD queues on the iPad app, but that’s something that I want to have access to when I use your “services”.  Which is what I pay for.   I don’t just pay for half of it so don’t just show me half.   That sort of interfacing is an important aspect of both how the consumer feels about your services and how easy it is to work.
  5. Improve streaming
    With more and more content, the price increase obviously is going back into the system. But, I have still yet to see a way to choose different language tracks in foreign films.  I also have yet to see DVD previews and all sorts of other things that could be on a streaming service.  This needs to improve if you wish people to take your streaming business model seriously.
  6. Quit thinking your customers are complete idiots
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the last three months should be a complete eye-opener.  You treated your customers as complete dolts, and then expected them to understand the business and why it was needed.  Then you followed up the bad scenario with another completely terrible scenario.  What may be a good business decision still has to be sold to the shareholders just like any other political message.  Note that the best politicians are great salesmen.   That’s because they can sell you a dream that in reality is a piece of rock.  In the same manner, you need to sell your business models instead of just throwing it out and letting the pieces land where they may.
Customers of services and products do their talking with their feet.  And at the end of the day, especially in bad economics, realize that your product or service is an entertainment expense, not a necessity.   This in itself is a consideration of how you set up and execute the business.   When you’re finished with understanding that (of which I’m not sure what happened in the last three months that you forgot when you remembered the last decade), you’ll be able to continue down the same road that you’ve been trying to go down.  Only then, will you have all the pieces in place to pull off what you were trying to accomplish here in 2011.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Difference Between Right and Legal

The corner of Wall Street and Broadway, showin... I hate to say it, but I’m somewhat amused by the whole “Occupy Wall Street” movement. A lot of people are angry because government bailed out big businesses to prevent economic disaster on a national and even global scale. Yet, some taxpayers are miffed (and rightfully so) that there was even a need to do this. I agree with that sentiment.

Here’s the difference though. The whole movement doesn’t make any bit of sense to me. Wall Street has nothing to do with it. Investors, traders, and shareholders all take advantage of the system as best as possible. You always push the envelope of the law, right up to the edge. If you go over, then you end up like Martha Stewart or someone else that tried to make gains by overstepping regulations. But the problem doesn’t lie in Wall Street or the businesses that were bailed out. The problem actually lies in government who both bailed them out and didn’t actually fix the problems when doing so. In my opinion, the solution should have been the easiest reward and punishment type of scenario. You bait companies into those that wanted or needed help to replace their management (whom inadvertently created the problem) and change the entire structure with the money. Instead of just paying for it.

Let’s also not forget that much of the problem actually comes from the deregulation of the markets, again a problem caused by politicians, and not business. It’s the same story with the whole jobs issue. No one is bothering to dangle the whole string with carrot and instead they’re just throwing out the carrot and hoping that it does something. If I were a business, I’d take the contracts, use the same employees, and say, “Hey! Thanks for filling up my coffers!” And who wouldn’t. Same with the tax cuts. To actually move job growth, you have to force a percentage of workers back in by tying the money incentives to actual hiring.

Thus, I chuckled when some people wanted to argue with me on how Wall Street was the reason behind it all. Sorry, but I just don’t buy it. Capitalism and political play has been in play before I was born, and will be way after I die. There will always be people always pushing the envelope to the edge of legality. But the people that hurt us are those that change the laws to support more general bad behavior. The more generic and vague a regulation is, and the worst the enforcement, the more it allows for bad apples to exploit it. It’s the same as any situation. Most people will always choose the easier way to achieve the end if it’s open to them. And who wouldn’t? It’s legal.

Open Letter to Netflix: Why I Sold Netflix and Support Them No Longer As a Shareholder

Image representing Netflix as depicted in Crun... So as of opening bell, I’ll probably no longer be a shareholder of Netflix.   It’s been a good run, but in my opinion, Reed Hastings has finally gone off the deep end when it comes to leading his company.  It’s one thing to make one mistake.  But to follow it up with an entirely different one is complete corporate suicide.

Let’s first preface this with the fact that I’ve been supporting the business since June of 2003. Yes, I have had my hands in this awesome business due to the fact that they just knew what the hell the customer wanted and provided it. And it rocked. Asian films, anime, you name it, they had it. And their customer service was completely and utterly awesome. The first time they had credited me for something that I didn’t even expect to happen. And this continued on for years whenever THEY made a mistake. This is how you run a company.

Then the price hike came. There have been others, but older customers always got grandfathered in under their old plan. Not with this hike though. No, this one had no explanation, no reasoning, just… hey, we’re going to up the price because we feel that streaming is just as good as DVD distribution. I’ll say that using their streaming, it’s as good as 2003 Netflix but not as good as current, especially the new releases. Regardless, the price was the same for streaming as it was for DVDs. Big mistake number one.

So Sunday night, Reed Hastings committed big mistake number two. He wrote all of this apologetic stuff that no one really cares about since their stock price tumbled due to subscriber loss and he stopped short of making amends for the price hike. Everything he said was true, as far as the reasoning for the price hikes, but he didn’t do what every other customer service driven company does. He didn’t appease the customers. Instead, he split the company in two so that Qwikster will be the DVD distribution (owned by Netflix still) and Netflix will concentrate on streaming only.

The key screw up here? CUSTOMER usability. If you’re getting into a streaming only business, that’s fine. But one key thing about user experience in the Internet world is interoperability behind the scenes. Believe me, I deal with it every day with my own accounting software company. The key to everything is always the fact that the customer should NEVER… EVER… have to sign into multiple items, or have to do a two stop shop, just because you think it’s a brilliant move. Everything should be integrated on the forefront and the operations behind the scenes are split into two entities. I don’t care how you do it, via API, or not, but two different billings and sites will kill you if people looked to your integrated area for use before. Operationally, I can understand the split. But what has been reported is that it’s going to be two different sites.

I’m sorry, buddy, but that was the last straw. Currently I’m looking to see if that invested money can be put to good use in Coinstar owned Redbox. Maybe some other internet IPO will come along and we’ll take a look at that. But as a long time customer, and supporter, the moves being made are going to placate your company for months to come. You said that you “slid into arrogance based upon past success” but finally saw the light. I hate to break it to you but the rest of your email reminded me of my mother when I was a child whom told me what I wanted to hear and said that I had a choice in the matter, but at the very end, threw in an argument that completely contradicted the entire hour of time she had spent. So, you’re not really thinking about us, are you? You’re thinking about how you can get us, and Wall Street off your back about all of this. And I’m telling you that customer service and Wall Street go hand in hand. Oh well, maybe you’ll see the light. Maybe you’ll understand finally that there were a number of things at play that propelled Netflix into stardom and kept it there. It wasn’t the streaming idea, nor DVD releases. It was the fact that you guys did it seamlessly and had awesome service. Put those two things in any business, and they’ll still be rock solid. Anyhow, if you ever want to change things up, just look me up.

Why Mergers Rarely Create Jobs

WASHINGTON - MAY 11:  AT&T President and CEO R... It’s interesting that sometimes you read about politicians trying to sell a sales pitch that is completely false. In this case, five Democrats are pushing the President to push the AT&T merger through without any regards to the DOJ’s decision, and the FCC’s decision. What’s more is that in their letter, something blatantly jumps out.

Job creation.

I have never seen full-time jobs created for a merger. Granted, there are many jobs that are contracted out. These are usually the same jobs that are let go and then contracted back out for the transition period. There is never an actual merger that doesn’t require some heads being chopped. Just look at Sprint and Nextel. Sprint themselves did a study on this, and having been with one of the vendors that was severely hurt by the backlash of the merger, I can say from personal experience that Sprint knows what they’re talking about. What’s worse is that one of the Representatives find themselves at the top of the list…. from my state. Rep. Heath Shuler (D, NC) is one of the leads on the letter above, trying to point out how many jobs it would create.

Has he not seen that the the Wells Fargo buy out of Wachovia meant that Wachovia laid off people along with temp jobs being created for the transition? Does he not know about the 2,000 jobs that are about to be lost due to the Duke Power and Progress Energy merger?

Sometimes, you have to wonder whether people actually do their homework when serving SIGs. If you’re going to push for someone that isn’t hiding their money trail very well, it’s probably a good idea to not be affiliated with them. In this regards, every party that has been rooting for AT&T has actually had cash donations to their causes.

Outside of antitrust, and monopoly ruling, I believe that AT&T chose the worst possible time to try to pull off this merger. When times were better, it would have probably been a no-brainer for the government to push it through unless they had some severe antitrust issues. But in the state of bad economics when unemployment numbers are even skewed lower than the reality (contractors, and P/T people are not counted in those figures), and people are hurting, they try to roll themselves back into Ma Bell of which was the original antitrust suit that broke them up. The irony.

BART overstepped boundaries in San Francisco Cell Service Incident

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) logo Apparently SF BART had shut down cell service for about three hours in the San Francisco area at a few stations where some activists were going to protest.   While I do believe this has some serious free speech implications since they’re trying to pull a whole minority report type of scenario which is against current law, I have to say that from a telecommunications standpoint, they pulled a major flaw by calling it a safety issue.   As a telecommunications professional, I have spent years of time facing countless hours trying to maintain the cellular infrastructure.  One of the biggest risks we face in telecom is the one where someone can’t make a 911 call.   That means that people’s lives could indirectly be effected by our work which is why we must be careful.

In shutting down cell service to “prevent” something from happening, the problem then becomes an issue when someone does indeed get hurt and there’s no communications inward or outward.   You can’t rely on BART officers there with their CBs since they can’t be there while maintaining lines or what not against a protest.   So from an emergency situation where someone’s life is dictated by the minutes of time that could effect life and death, cellular service is critical for response.   In this case, I believe that BART made an egregious error and whomever made that decision didn’t think about the consequences that it might follow.  On top of all of this?  BART themselves pulled the plug on the base stations and notifying the carriers after the fact (another mistake and a hard one).  Meaning, the carriers had no idea and probably saw the sites go down in the NOCs and were scrambling to get them back up.

BART said that they were well within their legal rights to turn off cell stations, but I beg to differ.  If this were the case, then all base stations are endangered by the tower leasing areas.  Of which I know for a fact, the leasing contracts do state that they can’t just willy nilly turn off power or otherwise to the leased areas since the carriers are the ones that maintain those agreements with the utilities and not BART.

Nice job, BART.   You not only wasted a lot of telecom professionals time with your crazy logic, but you didn’t go down the right legal roads to at least create a foundation that your logic could stand on.   And thus, BART’s going to get their “you know what” handed to them by all sorts of legal experts.  Do I foresee a resignation?   Maybe, but at the very least, someone is going to take the fall for this one.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why SMS is Here to Stay

It’s amusing when I read about apps that try to out-do SMS.   Take for example, Facebook with their latest app.  Or iMessage.

Guess what, as a person that’s been watching technology trends for the better half of two decades, I can say for certain that SMS is sticking around.  Why?   SMS is a complete cellular protocol whereas any app by a social media company is driven by their only their users.  Even iMessage is completely driven by iPhones alone and not cellular in general.  This is one of the reasons why it’ll fail.  It doesn’t help when your friends use different technologies across different systems.   And SMS is built into a cell phone already whereas you can’t say the same for apps.   Take a look at how widespread Twitter is and why it’s constrained to the character limitations.   SMS designed and driven. Sounds too simple?  That’s because it is just that simple.  Standards and protocols rule industries.

So until iMessage/Facebook design a protocol that drives cellular in general?  I’ll wait until I see some new-fangled technology drive SMS out of its place.   Until then?  Everyone is limited to their 140 characters.