It makes sense that the first stores to jump on the mobile coupon bandwagon would be discount retailers. Last year, Walmart launched an iPhone app (iTunes will open) just in time for the holiday shopping season. It allows user to search for nearby stores, for products, and to browse several product categories. But it’s an outright shopping app, not a mobile coupon app, although Walmart would probably argue their prices are already so low, you don’t need any coupons. They may change that opinion now that Target has released a mobile coupon service.

Target has made store coupons available to consumers through a combination of text messages and a special mobile access Web site. Shoppers opt into the service either by signing up on the mobile site, or by texting the word “COUPONS” to 827438. Target will then send the user text messages with links to that special site, which displays a few featured specials found in stores.

Along with the sale listings, a bar code is displayed, with instructions telling the cashier to scan the bar code right on the phone’s screen. If, for some reason, that doesn’t work, the bar code can be entered manually. New coupons are issued on a monthly basis, and old coupons disappear from the site as they expire.

The great thing about Target’s program is that it can be accessed by any phone with a mobile browser, regardless of brand or wireless carrier. Many other stores besides Walmart have launched apps, a good portion of them for the iPhone and iPod Touch. But by making their sale information accessible in this manner, Target has the potential to bring in many more customers than any store that offers an app that only works on one or two devices.

Now that Target has proved it can be done, it’s surely only a matter of time before other retailers follow suit. In the meantime, you can find mobile coupons at other sites like Cellfire, Coupon Sherpa, and MobileCoupons.com.

a

A Verizon wireless press release said the NFL “has joined forces with Verizon Wireless, the owner and operator of the nation’s most reliable wireless network…” when announcing the newly inked deal. But let’s be honest. Like so many things in business—most things, really—it came down to money. Verizon simply offered the NFL an amount more than double what Sprint had paid: $720 million for four years.

The deal goes into effect next month, just in time for the draft on April 22. Verizon customers won’t get access to every single game, but they will get live video of “Sunday Night Football,” and Thursday games, as well as 24-hour news coverage. They’ll also have access to the RedZone channel, which is Sunday afternoon coverage of multiple games played every week. Also included are radio broadcasts, video highlights, and even stats and rosters for fantasy football enthusiasts.

All of this will be available on some Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Android devices. Verizon hasn’t announced package pricing yet, but plans to do so later this year, just before football season starts.

This is a big loss for Sprint. A spokeswoman said the company decided not to continue with the sponsorship because the cost, “reached a point where we questioned the return on our investment,” which sounds a bit like spin on just not being able to compete with a $720 million bid.

Sprint still maintains its relationships with NFL teams such as the Indianapolis Colts and the Kanas City Chiefs, and sponsors the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series.

Image courtesy NFL

a

That’s exactly what happened to Cynthia Lacy of Treasure Island, Florida. Her father, Bill Young of Calvin, West Virginia, passed away last June, and in trying to put his affairs in order, Lacy sent a copy of his death certificate to Verizon. But they kept sending bills, and it took months and media coverage to set things right.

Normally, when someone passes away, provided they’re the only person named on a service account, the account is closed, and any outstanding amount is written off by the company. It happens every day, and you would think customer service representatives, the employees who have the most direct contact with customers, would be trained on such matters. Maybe Verizon does train its employees on how to deal with customers’ deaths, but if they didn’t before, they most certainly will now.

Despite Lacy having sent Verizon a copy of her father’s death certificate, the company continued to bill Young’s account, and Lacy continued to pay it. But while she was paying the bill each month, she was also calling Verizon to repeatedly explain that her father was dead, and asking them to please update their records.

At one point, during one of these phone calls, a customer service rep asked for the account’s PIN. Lacy explained that she did not have this information as the account had belonged to her father. According to Lacy, the rep said, “Well, there’s nothing else I can do for you,” then laughed and hung up on her.

Without access to a recording of that call, there’s no way to confirm that the rep actually laughed at her, but Verizon isn’t denying it. After the incident, Lacy went to the media, contacting the Consumer’s Edge, a column published by the St. Petersburg Times newspaper. Once the issue became public, Verizon finally took appropriate action, closing the account and refunding all the money Lacy had paid.

A spokesman said the case was improperly handled, and that the rep who laughed at and hung up on her has been reprimanded and given coaching. They may be able to provide their reps with the knowledge of how to deal with a deceased person’s account, but no amount of coaching is going to instill any compassion in a rep who would laugh at a grieving person and treat them with such disrespect. Good luck with that, Verizon.

As for why Lacy continued to pay a bill she wasn’t responsible for, it seems that Bill Young’s account was for in-home service rather than wireless service, so the account was attached to his home, which was part of his estate. The family was trying to sell the home, but could not do so until all debts associated with it were either paid or canceled. So in addition to just being rude to Young’s family, Verizon was also holding up the sale of the home, making it impossible for the family to move on.

So if this was a landline and not wireless service, why write about it here, on a cellular blog? Because this case shows that the ignorance of any company’s customer service reps, or a company’s lack of policy and procedure in dealing with deceased customers’ accounts could happen again at any time, to anyone, with any kind of account. If Cynthia Lacy had had her father’s PIN, it might not have taken so long to get the issue resolved. Maybe, maybe not. But it’s still better to have more information in a situation like this.

Take some time to make a list of important details like account numbers, PINs, or anything you use to access your personal data. Keep a list of passwords you use to access Web sites like Facebook, Twitter, and your e-mail. Include your wireless voicemail access code, and your wireless account’s PIN. Because this information may change from time to time (you know it’s a good idea to change your password every so often, right?), it’s not enough to write it all down, seal it in an envelope, and put it in a safety deposit box. Consider keeping a document with this information in an electronic safety deposit box.

Sites such as Legacy Locker and AssetLock provide services that allow you to keep your online account information safe, but accessible to a trusted family member or friend should something happen to you. It may seem like extra work in addition to the standard procedures of preparing a will and taking out an insurance policy, but we live in the digital age. Collecting this information, and making it easily accessible upon your death will help your loved ones with the already difficult task of managing your estate. It’s one less thing they’ll have to worry about. And then when your spouse or child has to call a company like Verizon to cancel your account, they’ll have your PIN. Most of all, they’ll have a little more peace of mind.

a

An Israeli company called Tawkon developed an app for the iPhone that measures the radiation emitted by the device. All electronic devices emit radiation at varying degrees. Everything from your television to your computer sits in a small electromagnetic field when they’re on. The closer you are to this field, and the more time you spend in it, the more likely you are to be affected by it. The reason for more concern over cell phones is that they’re held up to the head, actually making contact with the body, whenever someone takes part in a phone call. Some people think this can have a direct effect on the brain.

Several studies have been done on the effects of cell phones on the body, but they drew different conclusions and reported conflicting findings. Part of the problem is that each cell phone emits a different level of radiation. There is a standard that mobile handset makers must adhere to, though, based on the method of measurement of this radiation, known as the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). Right now, before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will certify a mobile phone and allow it to be sold in the United States, the device must have an SAR of less than 1.6 watts per kilogram.

Rather than measuring the level of radiation emitted by the iPhone, it’s actually more accurate to say Tawkon’s app indicates how much radiation is being absorbed by the user by taking three factors into account: the SAR, the environmental conditions like distance from a cellular base station, and the way the user hold the phone, specifically, distance from the head. When it reads a potentially dangerous level of radiation absorption, it offers suggestions like “Changing location may help.”

Apparently, Apple sees this app as a potential threat to its business. Tawkon’s app hasn’t been turned down for inclusion in the App Store—yet. But the application has been stuck in the approval process for an inordinate amount of time already. Apple has stated concern over the potential for users to become confused by the app. Sure, if someone were extremely concerned or, let’s be honest, paranoid about the level of radiation coming out of their iPhone, and they didn’t understand the app’s data and what it’s based on, they may be inclined to switch to another device. That’s definitely a possibility. But if an iPhone user takes the time to understand how the app works, and uses its features properly, it’s a tool, not an alarmist, panic-inducing threat. To treat it as such by banning it from the App Store would only increase interest in it, and make people wonder why Apple doesn’t want iPhone users to know about the radiation they’re subjecting themselves to by using the iPhone.

But here’s the kicker. A Washington, D.C.-based organization called Environmental Working Group (EWG) has compiled a list of all available cell phones and their corresponding SAR ratings. Remember that the limit set by the FCC is 1.6 W/Kg. According to EWG’s list, the iPhone’s range is between 0.24 and 1.03 W/Kg, well below the FCC limit. To contrast, the Motorola Droid is rated at 1.49 to 1.5 W/Kg.

While Apple mulls over its decision to approve the app, Tawkon is currently readying BlackBerry and Android versions. If Apple ends up denying it, do you think Google will approve it?

Image courtesy TechCrunch

a

Soon after its launch, Nexus One users began experiencing network issues. The phone wasn’t able to connect, even when being used right smack in the middle of Wi-Fi hotspots. Google was quick to lay the blame for this squarely on T-Mobile’s shoulders, saying the carrier’s 3G network is inferior. But a few T-Mobile customers took it upon themselves to conduct a little unofficial and unscientific experiment. They held a Nexus One and a G1 side by side, and trying to connect to the Internet. The Nexus One couldn’t connect, while the G1—which is also an Android phone, by the way—had no problems whatsoever. So was it really a 3G network issue?

Financial analysis company Trefis seems to think so. They say T-Mobile’s network issues, and its smaller nationwide coverage area are part of the reason the Nexus One doesn’t work, but only part of the reason. The other party to blame is Google.

According to Trefis, Google hasn’t done a very good job of marketing the Nexus One. They seem to have employed an “if you build it, they will come” model that hasn’t served either the phone, Google, or T-Mobile very well. In addition, the only way to buy a Nexus One is through Google’s web-based storefront. This was a key error in entering the wireless phone market.

Unlike Google’s other products—search, e-mail, Web analytics, the list goes on—a cell phone is a physical product. Many people in the market for a cell phone prefer to go to a store and actually hold it in their hands. They try it out, see how it feels, and judge whether they like it or not. Thousands of cell phones are sold online, sure, but this is a brand new product from a company that’s never made a cell phone before. And it’s expensive. Before people can trust the new brand, and spend hundreds of dollars on a new product, they need a little more than just a photo and a description on the Internet.

Google made a few other mistakes. Initially, they didn’t provide any kind of support, relying instead on its standard model of online help files and an on-board self-diagnostic system within the Nexus One. Again—brand new product from, in this arena, a new company. Sometimes people need a little more hand-holding than a FAQ page to address problems or questions. Google has since added tech support provided by actual humans, but it’s a stumble from which they’re still recovering.

And about those network issues. Ok, T-Mobile’s network might not have the coverage the other carriers’ do, and it might not be as reliable. They are the number four carrier in the United States. So is it really their fault if the network isn’t able to accommodate the Nexus One very well? It’s not like Google didn’t know T-Mobile’s position when they entered into this agreement with them. AT&T might not have been a good choice because they’re already having their own network issues stemming from Apple’s iPhone, although it looks like they will be offering the Nexus One at some point. But what about Verizon? Heck, even Sprintwho, despite being the number three carrier, is still the first of the big four to launch a 4G network?

It’s not fair or even logical for Google to choose the company that may be least able to properly support the Nexus One, and then place all the blame on the carrier when, not surprisingly, things go wrong. Google has very deep pockets. Would it have been unreasonable for them to delay launching the Nexus One by a year, and invest in T-Mobile to help expand its network first?

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact, but it won’t get anyone anywhere. What Google has to do now is expand the Nexus One to other carriers. For its first cell phone to completely flop would make it even more difficult for the company to stay competitive in the market. But time is running out. If they’re going to do something, they need to do it soon.

Photo courtesy Engadget

a

There may be a couple of problems this time around, although not with the carriers themselves. They learned a few lessons last time around. At first, only Verizon and T-Mobile were waiving fees for donation texts, leaving a bitter taste in many customers’ and charity organizations’ mouths. After a bit of an uproar over it, AT&T and Sprint soon followed suit, and people were able to donate via text message for free, whether they had a texting plan or not.

In addition, the way text donations work is they’re basically a pledge rather than a direct donation. By sending a predetermined charity text, a wireless customer basically says, “I agree to have this amount added to my wireless bill, which I will pay at a later date.” Initially, mobile providers were going to wait until bills had been paid to send donations to the various organizations helping Haiti. But when it became apparent just how horrible conditions in the country were, and how badly help was needed, carriers put up portions of the pledged donations to provide help more quickly.

This time around with Chile, text donations can again be made for free, meaning if you don’t have a texting option on your wireless plan, you won’t be charged, and if you do have texting, any charity texts won’t count against any texting limit that may exist on your plan. Although they haven’t officially announced the intention, it stands to reason that carriers will once again send money where it needs to go with the promise of receiving it later when customers are billed.

But there’s a bigger problem. For another natural disaster to hit another country so soon, people may be tapped out. Although the economy is recovering, times are still tough, and sometimes even a $10 can be too much to ask. But humans also have short attention spans, and may not be as inclined to be as generous this time. Many people can begin to feel put upon when so much is asked of them. It’s sad, but just a part of our nature.

The good news is, Chile is not as poor a nation as Haiti. They have a better infrastructure, and are better equipped to handle a disaster like this. Also, although the initial quake in Chile was roughly 500 times stronger than the initial one in Haiti, Chile was better prepared. Having suffered several powerful earthquakes, the country has built many of its structures using technology and techniques meant to withstand tremors. For this reason, fewer of the newer building in Chile were damaged or destroyed, and it was mostly older buildings that suffered.

Still, no matter how well prepared, or how rich a country is, help is still needed when a disaster of this size occurs. The devastation that resulted from Hurricane Katrina, which continues to affect New Orleans today, is an example of this. If you’re willing and able to help the people of Chile who lost homes and loved ones, here are some text messaging options to use. All codes are supported by all four major carriers.

Text “CHILE” to 90999 to donate $10 on behalf of the Red Cross
Text “CHILE” to 25383 to donate $10 on behalf of Habitat for Humanity
Text “CHILE” to 20222 to donate $10 on behalf of World Vision
Text “CHILE” to 52000 to donate $10 on behalf of the Salvation Army
Text “CHILE” to 50555 to donate $10 on behalf of the World Program
Text “REBUILD” to 50555 to donate $10 on behalf of Operation USA
Text “4CHILE” to 50555 to donate $10 on behalf of Convoy of Hope

a

SXSW is a conglomeration of festivals and conferences about music, film, and interactive technology. Taking place in Austin, Texas, it began in 1987, and has grown from a few hundred in attendance to several thousand. It’s one of the largest music festivals in the United States, hosting more than a thousand performers. It’s also become a hotspot for interactive technology. Twitter launched its service there in 2007. It’s only fitting that those in attendance would rely on interactive technology to enhance their SXSW experience. They use their smartphones to take photos and upload them to various sites, send text messages, and update their Twitter streams on a regular basis, not to mention just make regular phone calls. So much activity concentrated in one are can put a strain on any wireless network.

This was the case last year. AT&T customers, many of them iPhone users, who attended SXSW 2009 encountered network gridlock. Afterward, AT&T acknowledged the inability of its local network to accommodate so many users in one location. The company says this year will be different.

The carrier has improved its network in downtown Austin, where the majority of SXSW events are held. They’ve upgraded several cellular towers in the area, and added portable transmission sites, also known as cellular on wheels, or COWs. It’s also increased the numer of Wi-Fi hotspots around the city, mostly downtown, and even gone so far as to install a special cellular antenna inside the Austin Convention Center.

A representative of an Austin-based technology consultancy said that while AT&T is criticized for its network issues, if any of the other wireless carriers had the iPhone, they’d have the same problems. This may be true. In fact, it most certainly is true. But it’s difficult to feel sorry for AT&T for two reasons. First, it means they didn’t do a very good job of projecting the burden the iPhone would put on their network, and therefore didn’t prepare for it.

Second, and this is more on Apple’s shoulders than AT&T’s, maybe the iPhone shouldn’t have been launched exclusively on one carrier, and instead should have been available through at least two, if not more. Spreading the high network usage among two, three, or even four carriers would have decreased the burden on any one network, and AT&T wouldn’t have to ask their iPhone customers to reduce their network usage. Of course, sharing the device would have meant less profit for AT&T, but it would have better served iPhone users and wireless customers. You know what they say about hindsight.

In any case, AT&T is learning from its mistakes and trying to avoid making the same ones. The thousands of tweets that will come out of SXSW will be a telltale indicator of just how well they remedied the problem—or how much apologizing they’ll have to do afterward.

a

It hasn’t been uncommon for ETFs to go up over the years as phones have become more expensive. The general idea is that ETFs exist to allow carriers to recoup some of the money they lay out in device subsidies should the customer cancel the contract early. It makes sense. Someone could sign up, get an expensive smartphone for half price or less, cancel the contract, then go sell the phone on eBay for a big profit. In fact, a lot of people were doing that, which is what precipitated the implementation of ETFs in the first place. It’s reasonable for carriers to try to protect themselves from this kind of loss. It also allows them to continue to sell devices at lower prices, which benefits everyone.

Late last year, Verizon didn’t just raise its ETF, it doubled them on just about every smartphone in their lineup, bringing the fee to $350. A lot of customers thought that was a little steep, and so did the FCC. They asked Verizon to explain its rationale for the increase. And here’s where Verizon messed up. Instead of sticking with the original reason for ETFs, and saying smartphones were more expensive and more desirable now, thereby necessitating increased ETFs, they added that the extra funds would also be put toward things like retail store management and sales commissions. Really? I thought sales commissions came from, um, sales, not cancellations. Bad move, Verizon.

Earlier this year, Google’s first phone, the Nexus One was launched to much hype on T-Mobile. The initial elation wore off quickly when potential customers found out that, in addition to T-Mobile’s own $200 ETF, Google would also charge an additional $350 equipment recovery fee (ERF). This was the first time a handset maker had ever charged any such fee, and it raised several red flags, not just with consumers, bloggers, and the press, but once again, with the FCC.

The FCC wasn’t satisfied with Verizon’s answers about its doubled ETF, and it was alarmed by Google’s huge new fee. In response, the agency asked all four major carriers and Google to explain themselves and provide rationale for the exorbitant fees. The five companies had until February 23 to respond.

During all of this, Verizon took about ten of its smartphones off the doubled ETF list, and Google reduced its fee by $200, presumably in attempts to appease the FCC and at least make it look like they were willing to be reasonable. Or, more accurately, to get themselves out of hot water. Whether that will have any effect on the FCC’s impending action remains to be seen.

Earlier this week, all five companies met their deadline and sent letters to the FCC explaining their ETFs and other fees. Not surprisingly, they defended their actions. The wireless carriers fell back on their standard argument that charging ETFs allows them to offer devices at lower, subsidized prices.

In their letter, Google explained that part of their contract with T-Mobile requires the carrier to pay Google a commission for each new or upgraded subscriber who buys a Nexus One. This allows Google to reduce the phone’s $579 cost by $400. If a customer cancels within the first 120 days of a contract, Google must repay the commission to T-Mobile. The ERF is in place to offset that. So basically, rather than just paying back money T-Mobile already gave them, Google is making the customer pay the penalty. What’s not clear is exactly how much that commission is, and whether the customer is repaying the same amount, or if Google is profiting a second time from the fee.

The FCC’s main concern is that not all customers are aware that the reason they are able to get phones at lower prices is due to subsidies. They’re also concerned that customers don’t know they don’t have to accept the subsidies, and can purchase phones outright at full price, thereby avoiding any ETFs. The carriers maintain they supply this information to their customers. But are they doing it well enough? Or is it buried in the mountain of fine print that’s included in the standard wireless contract?

The FCC is currently reviewing the companies’ responses, and will no doubt announce its findings in the near future. Several things could happen. The agency could say ok, the fees are justified, go on about your business. They could say the answers aren’t good enough and investigate further. Or they could begin the process of altering the way wireless carriers do business in order to better serve consumers. Now is when it will really get interesting.

a

The company, ecoATM, has created an ATM-like kiosk which can evaluate a cell phone on the spot. A camera inspects the surface for any screen cracks or missing buttons, while a data port cord examines the inside to make sure the phone is in proper working order. Given this information — plus, of course, the make and model — the kiosk can make a snap judgement as to the phone’s value. If the customer decides that’s a fair price, he or she can drop the phone and collect the cash.

The linked Reuters article compares ecoATm to Coinstar, a kiosk frequently found in supermarkets which lets people turn their loose change into paper money. While the idea is the same in spirit — allow people to take things they wouldn’t otherwise use and pay them for it — in practice I doubt they’re comparable. Everyone has loose change lying around, and even after they change it in at a Coinstar kiosk they continue to accumulate it. While there might be an initial wave of people trading in their cell phones for a few bucks, the supply could run out quickly, since people tend to upgrade cell phones along with their contracts, every two years.

Still, we’ll get a chance to see if this will work soon enough. The company plans to install 11 in the Midwest, San Diego, Boston, Dallas, and Seattle soon, with a goal of 150 deployments by year’s end. Their 2011 goal is even more ambitious, at 700 units. That number, I’m guessing, could change depending on the kiosk’s initial success or failure.

You can check out more information about ecoATM at http://www.ecoatm.com/.

a

Rumors of a T-Mobile netbook have been circulating for a while, and the latest is that the carrier will offer the Dell Mini 10, which was revealed at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January. Dell showed off its most interesting feature, the multi-touch trackpad, which works similarly to the trackpads found on Macbooks.

Provided all the information available now is correct, the Dell Mini will be available from T-Mobile at the end of March. Since neither company has made an official announcement yet, no pricing or service agreement details are known. It’s pretty safe to assume that T-Mobile’s deal will be similar to those of Verizon and AT&T, which require two-year contracts to get subsidized prices. We’ll keep you posted.

a