San Jose preparing to roll out new, free Wi-Fi network throughout downtown

[Roy]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20155097

[Bhairitu]

On 03/12/2012 07:56 AM, Roy wrote:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20155097

A couple years behind Martinez. :D

[David Kaye]

"Bhairitu" <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

>
> A couple years behind Martinez. :D

Important to attract young professionals, they say. How 'bout old
professionals? One would think the Murky writer was living in 1970 or
something...

[John Higdon]

In article <jjloiq$ejn$1...@dont-email.me>,

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Important to attract young professionals, they say. How 'bout old
> professionals? One would think the Murky writer was living in 1970 or
> something...

Let's see...San Jose is in a budget crunch but it can find the money to
provide Internet service for a bunch of people lounging in coffee shops
downtown. In the meantime, I have to pay through the nose to get real
work done in a place that now enjoys no police protection.

Glad San Jose has its priorities set properly.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

[Jeff Sutter]

On Mar 13, 2:14 pm, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
> In article <jjloiq$ej...@dont-email.me>,

>  "David Kaye" <sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Important to attract young professionals, they say.  How 'bout old
> > professionals?  One would think the Murky writer was living in 1970 or
> > something...
>
> Let's see...San Jose is in a budget crunch but it can find the money to
> provide Internet service for a bunch of people lounging in coffee shops
> downtown. In the meantime, I have to pay through the nose to get real
> work done in a place that now enjoys no police protection.
>
> Glad San Jose has its priorities set properly.
>

Indeed they do. After all (try to process this sentence):

"Free Wi-Fi is no longer a luxury. Its a must!"

As for police services, they've never had a duty to protect you.
It is only the citizen who is obligated.

San Jose is not alone in dispensing bread and circuses, in order to
keep the masses from looking behind the Blue State curtain.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:14:07 -0700, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

>In article <jjloiq$ejn$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Important to attract young professionals, they say. How 'bout old
>> professionals? One would think the Murky writer was living in 1970 or
>> something...
>
>Let's see...San Jose is in a budget crunch but it can find the money to
>provide Internet service for a bunch of people lounging in coffee shops
>downtown.

Most coffee shops already have free wi-fi. However, they also insist
that loungers actually buy something from the coffee shop. With the
addition of municipal wi-fi, coffee shop denizens will no longer need
to pay $3 for a cup of coffee, and will be able to comfortably
monopolize the tables all day using city sponsored wi-fi. This is not
science fiction as it has become an issue in areas offering municipal
wi-fi.

<http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=free+wi-fi&find_loc=San+Jose%2C+CA>
827 listing for free wi-fi in San Jose.

>In the meantime, I have to pay through the nose to get real
>work done in a place that now enjoys no police protection.
>
>Glad San Jose has its priorities set properly.

Hint: Elections are coming and this is the season of endless
promises.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Bhairitu]

Free wifi is often sponsored so you see ads when you log in. There's
more than one way to pay for these things.

[John Higdon]

In article
<8b5d0a41-88b7-4ac7...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Jeff Sutter <lurk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Indeed they do. After all (try to process this sentence):
>
> "Free Wi-Fi is no longer a luxury. Its a must!"

I assume it was tongue in cheek.

> As for police services, they've never had a duty to protect you.
> It is only the citizen who is obligated.

At least the cops will have free Wi-Fi in the donut shops while they
enjoy not having to respond to calls anymore.

> San Jose is not alone in dispensing bread and circuses, in order to
> keep the masses from looking behind the Blue State curtain.

San Jose could screw up a two-car funeral. It is the last entity I would
choose to supply my Internet.

[John Higdon]

In article <dOL7r.36360$L12....@newsfe23.iad>,

Bhairitu <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Free wifi is often sponsored so you see ads when you log in. There's
> more than one way to pay for these things.

The city has explicitly stated that the money comes from the general
revenue, specifically that which it collects from traffic enforcement.

[David Kaye]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote

> Most coffee shops already have free wi-fi. However, they also insist
> that loungers actually buy something from the coffee shop.

Eileen, the owner of SF's legendary Ritual Coffee Roasters, has had the
policy of turning off the router when she sees too many people using
laptops. She'll leave it off for an hour or so until the place clears out.
On some weekends she doesn't turn on the router at all.

Meanwhile, her former business partner Jeremy, who owns Four Barrel Coffee,
also on Valencia Street, built his place with NO outlets and NO router.
It's amazing to go into the cafe and actually hear people talking with each
other!

From the Four Barrel website:

"without wi-fi and plugs for laptops, we noticed our customers getting their
drinks in porcelain cups and talking to each other. sharing tables. hanging
out. singing along with jeremy to the black sabbath soundtrack on a sunday
morning. even though we've all seen the ways that coffeeshops can create
community and anchor a neighborhood, what happens on a daily basis at the
fourbarrel cafe is different, somehow."

[David Kaye]

"Bhairitu" <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Free wifi is often sponsored so you see ads when you log in. There's more
> than one way to pay for these things.

That's likely the scenario, or there might be some kind of grant involved.
Tim? Tim? Where are you when we need you?

[John Higdon]

In article <jjod5o$cr8$1...@dont-email.me>,

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Bhairitu" <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
> > Free wifi is often sponsored so you see ads when you log in. There's more
> > than one way to pay for these things.
>
> That's likely the scenario, or there might be some kind of grant involved.

That isn't what San Jose said in the press release.

[Travis James]

On 3/13/12 2:09 PM, David Kaye wrote:
>
> From the Four Barrel website:
>
> "without wi-fi and plugs for laptops, we noticed our customers getting their
> drinks in porcelain cups and talking to each other. sharing tables. hanging
> out. singing along with jeremy to the black sabbath soundtrack on a sunday
> morning. even though we've all seen the ways that coffeeshops can create
> community and anchor a neighborhood, what happens on a daily basis at the
> fourbarrel cafe is different, somehow."
>

Tangent: What is it with people who refuse to use the shift key?

[David Kaye]

"Travis James" <travis...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> Tangent: What is it with people who refuse to use the shift key?

It's a direct cut'n'paste from the web page, where the designer is trying to
be cool and not use caps. At least the text isn't in pale gray, as is the
(unreadable) fashion today...

[sms88]

I doubt it. Most of the free Wi-Fi in the south bay that I've used has
no advertising. It's offered either by the municipality as a service or
by a business trying to get more people to come in. The cost for a
business to provide Wi-Fi is pretty trivial in the scheme of things.
When you're paying thousands of dollars a month in rent, spending a
couple of hundred dollars to get more customers to come in is money well
spent.

The place where my Toastmasters club meets (and many other clubs as
well) sells a lot of high margin beverages to people that hang out there
using their Wi-Fi. Those people would otherwise be across the street at
Starbucks or Peets.

[jcdill]

On 13/03/12 9:47 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> <http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=free+wi-fi&find_loc=San+Jose%2C+CA>
> 827 listing for free wi-fi in San Jose.

That search isn't as useful as you might think, for several reasons,
including:

1) Many of the results are for reviews for the same business, so the
actual number of business that offer free wifi is a much smaller number.
2) Many of the results are for places that "don't have free wifi"
(which matches searches for "free wifi").

I've completely given up trying to locate places with free wifi using
Yelp, for those problems above. I just go with the old standbys:

Starbucks and Peets
McDonalds
Le Boulanger (Shhhh, very few people know about this, and so their
networks are not overloaded like at Starbucks.)

If I am near an LB location, I go there first. If I'm not near an LB
location then I look for Starbucks, or Peets. I go to MickyDs when
there isn't a *$s nearby (if there isn't a *$ nearby, there likely isn't
a Peets nearby either).

Of course I also occasionally patronize other coffee shops, but this is
primarily for ambiance rather than for convenient free wifi. Other
coffee shops often have a plethora of badly implemented gateway issues,
which makes utilizing their free wifi more complicated than it needs to
be. When I need free wifi ASAP, to get what I need done and get on the
road, hassling with bad gateways is not something I have time to deal with.

jc

[jcdill]

On 14/03/12 8:41 AM, sms88 wrote:

> The place where my Toastmasters club meets (and many other clubs as
> well) sells a lot of high margin beverages to people that hang out there
> using their Wi-Fi. Those people would otherwise be across the street at
> Starbucks or Peets.

Can you share the name/address of this location?

jc

[sms88]

<http://www.sunnyvaleartgallery.com/>

Very nice people that run it.

[David Kaye]

"sms88" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

> I doubt it. Most of the free Wi-Fi in the south bay that I've used has no
> advertising. It's offered either by the municipality as a service or by a
> business trying to get more people to come in.

I mentioned Tim Pozar here because he's been involved in a consortium to put
up free wi-fi spots in various parts of SF, but I can't remember if the
costs are paid by the city or if there is a grant involved somewhere. I do
know that one part of it is to serve low-income areas.

It's funny that the city rejected the original company sponsored service
(Google? I forget) and people cried that SF was going to somehow "fall
behind" in wireless access. But today with the aforementioned wi-fi, along
with lots of free hotspots offered by individuals and companies, SF is
served quite nicely, thank you.

Now, Tim's thing is very impressive in that the feeds involve mountain-top
relays and all kinds of stuff, which probably makes it possible to offer
wi-fi anywhere in the innner Bay Area.

[Bhairitu]

I should also mention that the "free" wifi has limited access, I think
50 mb a day of bandwidth but you can get more by signing up and paying a
monthly fee. That's another way of paying for "free" wifi.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:01:29 -0700, jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 13/03/12 9:47 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> <http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=free+wi-fi&find_loc=San+Jose%2C+CA>
>> 827 listing for free wi-fi in San Jose.
>
>That search isn't as useful as you might think, for several reasons,
>including:
>
>1) Many of the results are for reviews for the same business, so the
>actual number of business that offer free wifi is a much smaller number.
>2) Many of the results are for places that "don't have free wifi"
>(which matches searches for "free wifi").
>
>I've completely given up trying to locate places with free wifi using
>Yelp, for those problems above.

Y're right, but there are other lists available:
<http://www.yellowpages.com/san-jose-ca/free-wi-fi-hotspots>
shows 254 free hot spots.
<http://hotspotr.com/wifi/list/147-san-jose-ca>
<http://savvycities.com/free/free-wi-fi/>
My point is that there are plenty of free hot spots in the downtown
area.

Incidentally, PC Magazine picked up the story:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/251726/san_jose_tries_again_with_free_downtown_wifi.html>
What worries me is that they're only allocating $22,000 per year for
operation and maintenance. That's much less than an admin salary and
has to include replacement hardware. I don't think it can be done for
that low a price.

>I just go with the old standbys:
>Starbucks and Peets
>McDonalds
>Le Boulanger (Shhhh, very few people know about this, and so their
>networks are not overloaded like at Starbucks.)

In Santa Cruz, I go to Java Junction. Free wi-fi compliments of
Cruzio.
<http://www.cruzio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2982&Itemid=406>

>If I am near an LB location, I go there first. If I'm not near an LB
>location then I look for Starbucks, or Peets. I go to MickyDs when
>there isn't a *$s nearby (if there isn't a *$ nearby, there likely isn't
>a Peets nearby either).

Starbucks can't seem to make a decent hot chocolate. I rarely
complain, but when it was obvious that a "medium" hot chocolate was
nothing more than a small with more water added, I decided to make
some noise. I won't be going back.

Also, I'm tempted to switch back to regular coffee and give up on
decaf:
<http://www.worldwidemart.com/choice/decaf01.html>
Methyl chloride is furniture stripper.

Hint: Some laundromat places have free wi-fi. There might be a sign
in the window, but little else. I know of 4 of these in the SCZ area.

>Of course I also occasionally patronize other coffee shops, but this is
>primarily for ambiance rather than for convenient free wifi. Other
>coffee shops often have a plethora of badly implemented gateway issues,
>which makes utilizing their free wifi more complicated than it needs to
>be.

No kidding. I've been bugging Cruzio to get a larger button for the
splash page. It's ok on a PC, but on my iPhone, it's far too small.

>When I need free wifi ASAP, to get what I need done and get on the
>road, hassling with bad gateways is not something I have time to deal with.

Slow down please. The time you wasted making mistakes when you're in
a hurry, will be about the same as if you think through it, and do it
at a slower pace.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[John Higdon]

In article <jjqudr$jq5$1...@dont-email.me>,

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Now, Tim's thing is very impressive in that the feeds involve mountain-top
> relays and all kinds of stuff, which probably makes it possible to offer
> wi-fi anywhere in the innner Bay Area.

These things can sometimes grow almost out of control. I'm involved with
a similar group in the south bay that supplies connectivity all over
Silicon Valley. This could be quite a resource in times of emergency.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:08:59 -0700, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
wrote:

>These things can sometimes grow almost out of control. I'm involved with
>a similar group in the south bay that supplies connectivity all over
>Silicon Valley. This could be quite a resource in times of emergency.

Perhaps:
<http://www.svwux.org> and <www.sbay.org>

I don't see much activity:
<http://www.svwux.org/pipermail/svwux/>

[Marcus Allen]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:27:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Incidentally, PC Magazine picked up the story:
><http://www.pcworld.com/article/251726/san_jose_tries_again_with_free_downtown_wifi.html>
>What worries me is that they're only allocating $22,000 per year for
>operation and maintenance. That's much less than an admin salary and
>has to include replacement hardware. I don't think it can be done for
>that low a price.

Maybe they're striking a deal with a local High School or Community
College to get students to take care of it. The city gets cheap labor
and the students get experience.

Ok, probably not.

[jcdill]

Thanks. I am rarely in that part of Sunnyvale, I must remember to stop
in the next time.

jc

[Travis James]

Sorry David, the criticism wasn't meant at you - more through you. I
went to the website. All text in lower case. It's a peeve whether on a
web page, a forum, a tweet.

[David Kaye]

"Travis James" <travis...@gmail.com> wrote

> Sorry David, the criticism wasn't meant at you - more through you.

Oh, no, I understand. No malice assumed.

Thanks for clarifying, though.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 3/14/12 9:01 AM, jcdill wrote:
>
> I've completely given up trying to locate places with free wifi using Yelp,
> for those problems above. I just go with the old standbys:
>
> Starbucks and Peets
> McDonalds
> Le Boulanger (Shhhh, very few people know about this, and so their networks
> are not overloaded like at Starbucks.)
>
> If I am near an LB location, I go there first. If I'm not near an LB
> location then I look for Starbucks, or Peets. I go to MickyDs when there
> isn't a *$s nearby (if there isn't a *$ nearby, there likely isn't a Peets
> nearby either).

For free WiFi, Peet's is far more of a hassle than either Starbucks,
McDonald's, or Philz since Peet's require you to enter a code.

The hassle of the code is two-fold. Sometimes I think of hooking up to the
WiFi (usually on my smartphone) after I've gotten my coffee. So that means
at least one additional trip to the counter.

But by far the bigger hassle of using WiFi at Peet's. Too many times the
code the clerk has given me hasn't work, which requires multiple trips to
the counter for a code that finally does. (Plus, there's an one-hour limit
for access to Peet's WiFi.)

If you have an AT&T smartphone, Starbucks is convenient since your
smartphone will connect to the AT&T branded WiFi at Starbucks without having
to sign-in on via a splash screen. The biggest downside of WiFi at
Starbucks, their coffee.

(But right now Starbucks coffee isn't too bad since most Starbucks are
brewing their "Tribute" coffee (which is quite good, IMHO) for a limited
time in addition to their yucky "Pike Place" coffee, their usual default
choice.)


- Peter

[jcdill]

On 14/03/12 4:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Starbucks can't seem to make a decent hot chocolate. I rarely
> complain, but when it was obvious that a "medium" hot chocolate was
> nothing more than a small with more water added, I decided to make
> some noise. I won't be going back.

Have you asked the barista to make it with more (chocolate, milk,
whatever) that you feel is lacking. Starbucks lets you really customize
your drinks. Want extra syrup (chocolate or otherwise)? No problem.
Extra shots? No problem. Special milk? No problem? Half-caf? No
problem. Etc. So ask for extra chocolate.

One thing that can make a barista-made hot chocolate "watery" is that
when they steam the milk to heat it, it does add some water to the milk
(the steam condensing into water before it reaches the top of the milk
and exits as steam). You can tell this is happening because the milk
volume (not just the foam on top) increases when you steam the milk.
You can work around this a bit by asking that they make it not too hot,
less steaming means less water gets added.

> Also, I'm tempted to switch back to regular coffee and give up on
> decaf:
> <http://www.worldwidemart.com/choice/decaf01.html>
> Methyl chloride is furniture stripper.

Yeah, and dihydrogen monoxide is a killer.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Also, remember that several elements including iodine and selenium are
both toxic (in large amounts), and essential for good health (in small
amounts).

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/iodine/
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/selenium/

So I don't get overly worked up about scares about food additives.
People are not designed to eat all the sugar and fats we eat. We are
FAR more likely to do significant damage to our bodies by eating too
much sugar and fat than by the "chemicals" added to our food products.

If we didn't have any sweetening food products (no honey, no sugar, no
stevia) and someone discovered this amazing grass-like plant, and then
discovered that one could crush the stems to get the sap/liquid, dry it
into crystals, and then add it to food to make the food taste better,
the FDA testing necessary to get permission to add this substance to
food would determine that this product should be classified as extremely
dangers and never be added to food or consumed. It can be addictive,
lead to tooth decay, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Adding it
to food would lead to serious health risks.

>> When I need free wifi ASAP, to get what I need done and get on the
>> road, hassling with bad gateways is not something I have time to deal with.
>
> Slow down please.

Slowing down doesn't fix bad gateway problems. I'm talking about
problems like stupid passwords (where they assume you know about
unstated CapitalizationInThePassword), or hung routers.

jc

[jcdill]

On 16/03/12 10:29 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote:

> For free WiFi, Peet's is far more of a hassle than either Starbucks,
> McDonald's, or Philz since Peet's require you to enter a code.
>
> The hassle of the code is two-fold. Sometimes I think of hooking up to
> the WiFi (usually on my smartphone) after I've gotten my coffee. So that
> means at least one additional trip to the counter.

Yeah, that's a hassle.

> But by far the bigger hassle of using WiFi at Peet's. Too many times the
> code the clerk has given me hasn't work, which requires multiple trips
> to the counter for a code that finally does. (Plus, there's an one-hour
> limit for access to Peet's WiFi.)

All the Peets I've visited say the limit is 2-hours, but I've only had
my connection end once, and it was well after the 2-hour limit.

> If you have an AT&T smartphone, Starbucks is convenient since your
> smartphone will connect to the AT&T branded WiFi at Starbucks without
> having to sign-in on via a splash screen. The biggest downside of WiFi
> at Starbucks, their coffee.

Because of how caffeine affects me these days (decaf affects me more
than regular coffee affects most people) I rarely get any type of coffee
(decaf) at Starbucks. I often don't even get a drink, just something to
eat.

jc

[David Kaye]

"jcdill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> Yeah, and dihydrogen monoxide is a killer.

We have Nathan Zohner, a mere 14 year old from Idaho, to thank for calling
worldwide attention to dihydrogen monoxide contamination in our nation's
lakes, streams, and even water supplies.

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

[Jeff Liebermann]

The original perpetrators are local at UCSC. See 2nd paragraph.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax>

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.humor.funny/msg/d7e387d543bddcc7>


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Bhairitu]

On 03/17/2012 11:25 PM, jcdill wrote:
> On 14/03/12 4:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Starbucks can't seem to make a decent hot chocolate. I rarely
>> complain, but when it was obvious that a "medium" hot chocolate was
>> nothing more than a small with more water added, I decided to make
>> some noise. I won't be going back.
>
> Have you asked the barista to make it with more (chocolate, milk,
> whatever) that you feel is lacking. Starbucks lets you really customize
> your drinks. Want extra syrup (chocolate or otherwise)? No problem.
> Extra shots? No problem. Special milk? No problem? Half-caf? No problem.
> Etc. So ask for extra chocolate.
>

Starbuck's roasts and their customer attention is what makes me keep
coming back to them. I like an extra bold roast and their espresso has
it. Too many indies don't bother to get anything more than the
restaurant supplier roast which isn't that great.

Then indies never figure out that a little service will also keep people
coming back. Yesterday I decided that I didn't want to stand in line at
Starbucks (which doesn't usually have long lines downtown) and instead
went down to the "indie" at the end of the block. I ordered my
Americano which was fine and a good roast and a bagel toasted with cream
cheese. The owner wandered off and almost forgot my bagel until after
it had already been popped out of the toaster for several minutes. And
this was not the first time I've had poor service there.

However some Starbucks have flaws. The nearest one is the most
profitable in the East Bay and hence they don't care much about get
drinks out fast. Many of the clientele get frustrated because you can
wait up to 10 to 15 minutes for a drink. Other Starbucks will often
have another barista jump in and get drinks moving but not this one.
They don't have because they know "they are the most profitable."

[David Kaye]

"Bhairitu" <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Starbuck's roasts and their customer attention is what makes me keep
> coming back to them. I like an extra bold roast and their espresso has
> it.

I'm a fan of American roast. You need a really good arabica bean to get a
good American roast because you can't disguise a bad bean as you can with a
French or Italian roast. Thus, I'm a fan of whatever they sell at Mama Buzz
in Oakland, Four Barrel on Valencia in SF, and the Zephyr Cafe across from
the Balboa Theater in SF. Four Barrel is the only one of the 3 that roasts
their own.

I don't feel one way or the other about Starbucks. If they're handy I'll
visit them, especially because they have a couple sandwiches I like. If
they're not handy I won't walk down the block to visit them.

[jcdill]

On 18/03/12 11:37 AM, Bhairitu wrote:
> However some Starbucks have flaws. The nearest one is the most
> profitable in the East Bay and hence they don't care much about get
> drinks out fast. Many of the clientele get frustrated because you can
> wait up to 10 to 15 minutes for a drink. Other Starbucks will often
> have another barista jump in and get drinks moving but not this one.
> They don't have because they know "they are the most profitable."

I bet a few complaints to corporate will change that attitude, and fast.
No corporation wants a store to be slacking on service just because
they are highly profitable - the loss of good-will this generates For
The Chain far outweighs any local profits the one store might generate.

jc

[David Kaye]

"jcdill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote

> I bet a few complaints to corporate will change that attitude, and fast.
> No corporation wants a store to be slacking on service just because they
> are highly profitable - the loss of good-will this generates For The Chain
> far outweighs any local profits the one store might generate.

Maybe, maybe not. Corporations are more finely tuned than many people
believe. They actually track the "annoyance factor" and figure out how long
it takes a customer to leave to go elsewhere. If Starbucks has run the
competition out of the neighborhood, they *know* that customers will wait 5
or 10 minutes for a cup of coffee, and they're willing to short-staff. They
know that coffee is addictive, and they know that even if a customer gets
pissed off, if they have no nearby competition, they're going to get that
customer back anyway.

This is especially true of one-stop retailers like office supply stores and
home builder supply stores. They know that customers are not going to drive
away and shop elsewhere. They know that the customer will think, "Well,
they're a little short-staffed today; they'll do better tomorrow", even if
tomorrow they don't do any better. How many of us remember how long it took
to get waited on in a store? We probably have a vague idea, but it's
unlikely to stop us from shopping there in the future.

[jcdill]

On 18/03/12 10:48 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> "jcdill"<jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> I bet a few complaints to corporate will change that attitude, and fast.
>> No corporation wants a store to be slacking on service just because they
>> are highly profitable - the loss of good-will this generates For The Chain
>> far outweighs any local profits the one store might generate.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Corporations are more finely tuned than many people
> believe. They actually track the "annoyance factor" and figure out how long
> it takes a customer to leave to go elsewhere.

A few years back I worked as a secret shopper testing wait times at
various Starbucks locations around the SF Bay Area.

They expect the wait to order to never exceed 2 minutes, and the wait to
get your drink to never exceed 2 minutes. If either of these is more
than 1 minute, that's not good. If either is more than 2 minutes, it's
BAD.

jc

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:07:17 -0700, jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>They expect the wait to order to never exceed 2 minutes, and the wait to
>get your drink to never exceed 2 minutes. If either of these is more
>than 1 minute, that's not good. If either is more than 2 minutes, it's
>BAD.

I wish you could have checked the Capitola Starbucks near the 41st Ave
mall. I usually wait at least 3 minutes to place the order for a hot
chocolate, and 3-5 minutes for the hot chocolate to be finished. The
line usually has no less than 3 people waiting to place their orders.

The problem is that the place is tiny. There's room for only one
person taking orders. They could have 2 people preparing drinks, but
there's usually only one. Sometimes, they have someone walking up and
down the line taking orders, but that just increases the delivery
delay. Unfortunately, I have no standard of comparison because that's
the only Starbucks I ever visit. Of course, table hogs with laptops,
are epidemic.

[Bhairitu]

Starbucks solution is to build another store 1 mile away. One of the
downtown managers came in and ran things for a week and people were
exclaiming "it's already made" when the drinks zipped right out. She
tried to get them to use both machines (they only use one most of the
time). As soon as she left they reverted back to old habits. Oh and
while she was there sales went up 10%. That should have been enough of
a clue.

[David Kaye]

"jcdill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote

> They expect the wait to order to never exceed 2 minutes, and the wait to
> get your drink to never exceed 2 minutes. If either of these is more than
> 1 minute, that's not good. If either is more than 2 minutes, it's BAD.

Okay, you're proving both our points. The gauge the annoyance factor at 2
minutes instead of 5.