On Fri Jun 10 17:15:55 2011, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
> At the risk of piling on, I can't resist the opportunity to try to
> one-up Ned's story.
>
> While in the UK this year, I had the misfortune to need to call BT
> for support on my broken home Internet connection. In the middle
> of the usual mind-numbing "we will force you to walk through every
> idiotic step that you already know is irrelevant after thirty years
> in the business," the phone support guy told me to "Click on the
> pulldown for 'Configure one-pee-vee-six' and set it to Off." Not
> only was this totally irrelevant, and not only did he routinely
> make me turn off the very protocol we want to enable, but he called
> that protocol "one pee v6" instead of "eye pee v6." And when I
> was stupid enough to correct him, he wouldn't go any further until
> I admitted that he knew best, and that I should call it "one pee
> v6" rather than "eye pee v6." Needless to say, I didn't bother
> asking about BT's plans to support IPv6 -- oops, I mean 1Pv6.
>
> No need to ask. If BT can't even spell IP, we are a11 d00med. --
> Nathaniel
>
>
Particularly poor as BT are actually quite clued up on IPv6:
http://www.ipv6.bt.com/
(And I don't work for BT, have never worked for BT, have been in
competition with BT, and I don't use their service)
I would *never* judge an ISP by the clueless nature of their scripted
first-line suppor, at least not beyond their existence. (The ISP I
use does not have clueless script monkeys, but smart and helpful
people who craft their response to fit your ability, not theirs).
That rather depends on whether or not it's possible to get past the
cluelessness, doesn't it? If it isn't pssible it seems not only reasonable to
judge on this basis, but pretty silly not to.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf