My fun with the Cable Company StupidCXTrick #10

 This is a true story. Some license has been taken to address keeping the identities private.

Me: Let me dial Cable company

Cable Company: Your call may be monitored or observed for quality assurance, customer service,  ….

Me…(and any other asinine reason you can thing of….)

Cable: (…continuing) for faster service go to our website at www.cablereallysucks.com. Where you will find all the information you need….

Cable… stupid music

Cable (From the Philippines). Welcome to CableSux Co. We are really glad you have chosen us.

Me: I want your $55 dollar deal.

Cable: I am so sorry you are not eligible for that. But I can provide you with a $75 deal and discount that for $55 for 1 year.

Me: ????

Cable: Shall we proceed?

Me: Oh I guess so better than the other cable company www.cablefleecesitscustomersafter12months.com

Cable. OK – we will show up in 5 days and you can count on us being there.

Me: that sounds great.

Cable: Please fill out this form so we can transfer service.

Me: I will do that right away.

4 days pass.

Cable: (From USA) Hello and this is a recorded line to provide you with superior service…

Me: Hello

Cable: Well since you didn't fill out the form we cannot install tomorrow.

Me: I did.

Cable: Well that is not the information in front of me.

Me: Well can I send you a copy as proof?

Cable: No we cant take emails….

Me.. Oh FFS….

Cable: But I can give you a number to call to verify.

Me: If I call that number will that speed the process.

Cable: No

Me: is there anything I can do to escalate the process and get the install done tomorrow (Day 5)

Cable: No

Me: OK… I have no choice then.

Cable: No

 

2 Hours later

 

Cable: (From USA) Hello and this is a recorded line to provide you with superior service…

Me: What now?

Cable: Good news we are scheduling your installation for tomorrow.

Me: Wow!

Cable: Yes as scheduled.

Me: Are you sure (recounts horror story so far).

Cable: No I have you scheduled for tomorrow they will be there from 0800-1200. Can you confirm you will be there?

Me: Yes.

Cable: Then it is confirmed.

Me: Is there anything else I have to do?

Cable: No you are all set.

Me: (Grateful but skeptical) Thanks goodbye.

 

Next morning (1 hour before install is due)

 

Cable: via text. Confirm that you will be there.

Me: Huh? I already confirmed so I should not have to do anything

 

1 hour later

 

Cable: via text. Confirm that you will be there.

Me: via text: Confirm

 

4 hour pass – crickets

 

8 Hours pass – crickets

 

Me; Hello Cable Co? Did you forget me?

Cable: Hello this is Freda (from the Philippines) This is a recorded line for superior customer service.

Me: Why no installer showed up?

Cable: I am terribly sorry but our process says we cannot install without the verification which we only got from you yesterday.

Me: You are fecking kidding me…

Cable: No – but I can now schedule you for 5 days from now.

Me: So your screw up means I have to wait??? Please escalate

Cable: Let me see what I can do… can you hold please for 2 mins. And how is the weather is Western Washington today?

Me: let’s just deal with the problem of Cable co and get this resolved

 

7 mins pass

 

Freda: yes I can get you scheduled 5 days from today. Can I do that?

Me: Do I have a choice?

Freda: I am so happy to help you. I can confirm this is now scheduled. Have I resolved everything for you?

Me: No

Freda: But we have agreed everything

Me: I still don't have service.

Freda: OK is that all?

Me: Let’s run through your notes describing all the things that Cable co has failed to do.

Freda (nervous and sheepish) recites all the problems

Me: Good please escalate this and then we can discuss whether I proceed or not. I can cancel before 30 days without any penalty or charge.

Freda: Yes Mr Timothy. Thank you for letting me resolve this for you… er… I mean help you.

Me: I think we are done here. Please confirm again I have nothing to do before next week 0800-1200?

Freda: yes I confirm. And thank you for calling Cablesux.com

 

2 mins pass

Cable: Automated text. Your rescheduled call is not Tuesday 0800-1200

Me: Now ask me if I believe you!!!!

But fret no more...

Are We Really Free to Call Over Wi-Fi? Or Is the Gate Still Guarded?

This is the expanded version of my post on Linked in. 

Here’s a question worth asking: Why is it still so hard to use a third-party Wi-Fi calling app on your phone? I love Whatsapp and Signal. I use them all the time. In certain places I use Lime and WeChat. Enter a small company VoIP-Pal. 

VoIP-Pal, a company with a long history of litigation but no real product success, has launched fresh antitrust lawsuits against Apple, Google, Samsung, and the usual telecom suspects—AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. The claim? That Big Tech and Big Telco are quietly colluding to kill off independent Wi-Fi calling apps. But wait you say isn’t VoIP like ubiquitous? VoIP was originally from Bell Labs in the 1980s. The first commercial product was released by VocalTec Communications in 1995. 

NOTE: really interesting side story on the inventor of VoIP) - Dr Marian Croak check out her story.

Now before we file this under “patent troll drama,” let’s unpack both sides.

If VoIP-Pal is right:

• Apple and Google may be exercising classic gatekeeper behavior by rejecting legitimate apps.

• Telecoms may be applying behind-the-scenes pressure to preserve their control of voice services.

• Consumers in poor coverage areas — think rural zones, hospitals, or even basements — are left without alternatives that could serve them better.

But if VoIP-Pal is just trolling for a payout:

• They’ve sued everyone under the sun (Apple, Amazon, Twitter) without ever shipping anything.

• Their patents may be too vague to defend — the kind that describe an idea, not an innovation.

• This could be another fishing expedition for settlement money, not real market impact.

Here’s where it gets interesting. If they win, app stores might finally be forced open to serious third-party Wi-Fi calling tools. That’s a win for competition and consumer choice.

If they lose? Maybe nothing changes. Or maybe we just accept that app store policy and carrier collusion are baked into the system now.

So my question… is this a legitimate case of anticompetitive behavior? Or just one more lawsuit trying to extract rent from deep pockets?

#WiFiCalling #Telecom #BigTech #PatentLaw #Antitrust #VoiceTech #AppStores #Innovation

VoIP-Pal Patents

From their portfolio listings  , VoIP‑Pal highlights several core U.S. patents, most notably:

• US 8,542,815 (B2) – “Producing routing messages for Voice over IP communications”

• US 8,774,378 (B2)

• US 9,137,385 (B2)

• US 9,179,005 (B2)

• US 9,537,762 (B2)

• US 9,813,330 (B2)

• US 9,826,002 (B2)

• US 9,948,549 (B2)

• US 9,813,330 and US 9,826,002 were both asserted in its mid‑2024 filings 

• They also hold US 10,218,606, which is central to newer suits 

So, patents commonly mentioned in their cases: ’815, ’005, ’762, ’330, ’002, ’549, and ’606.

Significant Lawsuits

1. Patent-Infringement Actions

• Western District of Texas (Waco) cases (mid‑2024 / early‑2025):

  Asserted ’762, ’330, ’002, ’549 against Apple, Amazon, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Google, Samsung, etc. 

2. Antitrust/Class-Action Lawsuit

• Filed June 2024 against Apple, Google, Samsung, AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile—claiming coordinated block of third‑party Wi‑Fi calling apps 

3. Earlier Apple Suits (2016–2020)

• Asserted ’815 & ’005 in a 2016 Nevada suit, stayed, then later invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in N. California (Judge Koh) 

• In 2018, filed a second suit with ’762, ’330, ’002, ’549; again invalidated in California 

4. Declaratory-Judgment Action by Apple (2021)

• Apple filed in Northern District of California seeking judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of ’234 and ’721 patents after VoIP‑Pal attempted to sue in Waco 

 

 

Response to Christian Watts

On Linkedin Christian posted a question:

OK - we're 2.5 years in to AI.
We're 20 years, in if you want to pretend you've been using AI meaningfully before ChatGPT launched.

I'm looking for help from the community for a Phocuswright session and for an article.
What are the best ACTUAL, live use cases of AI in travel so far. As-in cases that are launched / live / in-use / interesting / useful to share with others in travel.
Please add link / tag (tag yourself if you must) / add a quick snippet of what it is / what it does.
Thanks in advance...

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7337470150876504064/ 

My response?

OH Christian... this is very cruel. You know that we are getting close. A neat way for you to be lazy but is this a call to reality?

So, we’re nearly 3 years into the "popular phase" of AI in just about everything. And Travel is no exception, yet… we’re still mostly in the what I would call the "Sniffware" phase, nowhere near any mass deployment. The term “AI” is now so elastic that it risks losing all value. That said, there are glimmers of true utility—mostly in narrow applications, and often deep in the plumbing rather than front-of-house. I have 3 potential areas and here are the ones I think are worth watching - for now:

A) Customer Interaction — The Chatbot Wasteland

Most GenAI bots in travel are still glorified FAQ wrappers with little context or transaction depth. (I personally delight in breaking them). But Replyr.ai, one of the Global Startup Showcase contenders, is starting to push into more meaningful ground with real-time, transactional intelligence layered on top of existing systems. Still early, but promising. I think this is where we will see some of the easiest variations.

B) Agentic AI — The Dream Gets a Demo

Most “AI agents” in travel are still vaporware, but the Azure AI Travel Agent demo from Microsoft: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/massimobonanni_introducing-azure-ai-travel-agents-a-flagship-activity-7334220453462310912-gRwC] is the closest I’ve seen to an integrated, multi-modal assistant that could (eventually) stitch together flights, hotels, and ground into a coherent flow. Still very early stage, but a live working example worth tracking. Despite the hype around OperatorAI nothing deployed as yet.

C) Live AI in the Wild — Hopper’s Pricing Tools

Unlike most, Hopper has deployed AI in production for quite some time. Their Price Freeze, Price Drop, and Best Price Guarantees are underpinned by machine learning models that evaluate pricing volatility and risk, then wrap them in fintech-like upsell services. It’s not flashy, but it’s working—and generating revenue.

So, no “best-in-class” AI in travel yet, but a few contenders in specific areas. Most real value is still buried in optimization and prediction, not in chatbots or “AI agents.” The next year will determine whether any of this breaks out of the lab.

If you were to ask me a different question as to where I think we can be.. I will say that is a very different question and I am deep into that now. 

 

Cheers

Timothy

Gatekeepers at the Gate: Why GDSs and OTAs Deserve Scrutiny — But So Might Airlines

---

The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/legislation_en just scored a win for hotel suppliers and competition advocates alike. With Booking.com officially designated as a “gatekeeper”, the travel giant was forced to scrap rate parity clauses across the European Economic Area. That means hotels can now — finally — offer lower prices on their own websites without triggering retaliation or delisting. Progress? Absolutely. But let’s not stop there.

It’s time to ask a bigger, more uncomfortable question. Why are we still tolerating full content clauses from Global Distribution Systems (GDSs)? OK they are going away with NDC but that will take some time. But, while we’re at it, why should OTAs get a free pass when they impose similar “most-favoured” conditions across multiple verticals — from flights to tours?

 

Full Content Clauses: The Original Digital Parity Trap

For decades, GDSs like Amadeus, Sabre, and Travelport (through its various brands) have relied on Full Content Agreements (FCAs) that force airlines to provide identical fares and availability across all channels — or risk losing access to massive corporate and agency markets. It’s the same parity logic that Booking.com was using. The difference? The GDSs are still getting away with it, albeit less and less via EDIFACT and the results of the AA vs Sabre Lawsuit. https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Sabre-US-Airways-verdict

IMHO This setup:

• Disincentivizes innovation in airline distribution.
• Stifles competition from direct channels and NDC-based players.
• Keeps pricing power in the hands of intermediaries.

So what gives?

The DMA’s Big Omission

The DMA was supposed to curb the power of digital “gatekeepers” — platforms that control access between businesses and users. That’s exactly what the GDSs do. They sit between airlines and sellers (corporate agencies, OTAs, TMCs) and control access to content, availability, and in many cases, the right to be seen.

Yet so far, no GDS has been designated a gatekeeper.

This is not just an oversight — it’s a regulatory blind spot. If Booking.com’s control of hotel visibility and rate parity triggers gatekeeper status, the GDSs’ lock on airline fare content should do the same. All OTAs, especially those selling flights, packages, and activities, are similarly ripe for review.

Airlines May Be Next — And That’s the Twist

But before airlines start celebrating the possible demise of full content clauses, here’s the caveat:

Airlines themselves may also qualify as gatekeepers — if they wield disproportionate control over how fares are shown or priced across channels.

That’s right. The same control airlines want to reclaim under NDC and Offer-Order models may be legally indistinguishable from platform dominance in the DMA’s eyes. If an airline requires exclusive pricing on its own site, blocks API access, or penalizes third-party sellers for discounting, it may be acting like a gatekeeper itself.

The irony is rich: the supplier, long shackled by parity clauses, could now become the next target of the same rules it cheered.

Where Do We Go From Here?

What’s needed is regulatory consistency:

1. Apply gatekeeper scrutiny to GDSs and OTAs, especially in air distribution, where they control visibility, access, and commission structures.
2. Hold airlines to a reasonable standard — protect their right to differentiate, but avoid allowing anti-competitive exclusivity.
3. Update the DMA and national competition policies to address the vertical integration of content, distribution, and pricing in travel ecosystems.

Final Thought

Gatekeeping isn’t just a tech giant problem. It’s a specific travel industry problem. And if the EU is serious about unlocking competition, it needs to widen its lens — beyond social media and app stores — and focus squarely on the entrenched infrastructure of travel commerce.

Because as long as full content clauses remain untouched, we’re still living in the past.

Please feel free to let me know what you think.