To the editor: Shipping costs, email, and upgrades

February 8, 2001 —

Shipping and handling

BARB GOMOLSKI'S Jan. 22 column, E-Business Matters, which focused on shipping and handling charges was right on the money, but I think you ought to mention another major problem: the deceptive, deceptive practices of some companies with regard to when and how they fill orders.

My example is from Ross-Simons.com. I bought a pair of black pearl earrings and was willing to bite the bullet and pay $23 for shipping and handling for next day delivery because I needed to have them on Friday, Jan. 26. I placed my order at approximately 6:00 p.m. on Jan. 24, and I received an e-mail receipt telling me that they would ship my purchase on Jan. 25.

At checkout the Ross-Simons Web site clearly states that overnight orders received before 8:00 p.m. EST will be shipped that day, so I should have received the order on Jan. 25.

When the UPS man came and went on the morning of Jan. 26, I went to Ross-Simons.com to track my order, and, per the Web site, my order was scheduled to ship the day before (Jan. 25). I called the company to find out what happened, and they said it was ticketed to go out that day (Jan. 26) and that, yes, I would still have to pay for overnight shipping even though an order placed at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday would not be delivered to me until Monday, Jan. 29. Overnight shipping that takes four days, for which I get to pay extra -- gee thanks.

P.S. When told my order wouldn't leave their building until Jan. 26, I cancelled the order, so I am heading to the mall on my lunch hour. Never again Ross-Simons.com and never again Ross-Simons.

Tim Greene, Norwood, Mass.

IN RESPONSE TO Barb Gomolski's column on shipping and handling charges, I'd like to offer another view. Gun Parts Corporation is the world's largest supplier of firearm parts and accessories. Our mail-order business was established 50 years ago. We recently evolved into a "click-n-mortar" company by launching www.e-gunparts.com. As with many mail-order businesses, we use the traditional "scale" to calculate shipping and handling costs (i.e., order value up to $30 = $4.95 shipping and handling; order value $30-$60 = $5.95 shipping and handling, etc.). We use the same scale for sales on our Web site as for our catalog phone orders.

I can assure Ms. Gomolski and all other visitors to our e-gunparts.com site, as well as those that order via the telephone, we are not in the business to make a profit off the shipping costs of 900-1,200 packages shipped per day. We evaluate the actual vs. billed shipping and handling charges regularly.

Although Ms. Gomolski might have noticed that she was charged an extra $1.20 in true postage, there might have been someone on the opposite coast who was billed the same $3.20 for postage that was actually $5.00. And what about the manifesting fees? The computer fees? The printer and special labels? The frame relay circuit to upload the manifest? The consultant to weed through regulations and red tape in the hope of using the United States Postal Service and UPS as mail-order delivery companies?

I'm not making excuses, I'm simply pointing out that there is indeed a "handling fee." Again, I can assure you, we are not in the business of making a profit from shipping and handling. And I would bet we are not alone.

Dennis J. Brown, W. Hurley, N.Y.

U. S. Postal "service"

I READ WITH some interest Stephanie Sanborn's piece about how the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is moving online (see Postal services carve out their online role," Jan. 22).

I recently sent my wife's revised book manuscript to her publisher via USPS Priority Mail, and to be a little bit on the safe side, I paid an extra 35 cents for online tracking. They put a sticker on the box that they scanned when I sent it, and the deliverer was to scan it again at the other end.

After several days, an e-mail inquiry to her editor revealed that the box had not arrived, and when I checked the online USPS site, the information said only that it had been logged in and was in transit. I checked daily after that, with no change. Eventually, my wife received an e-mail from her editor saying that the box had indeed arrived -- presumably several days later than priority mail advertises. Furthermore, the online tracking site persists in its claim that the item is still en route to its destination. When my wife phoned the local Post Office to advise them of this slipup, a worker there said, "They probably forgot to scan it. It happens."

I guess one response would be, "What do you expect for 35 cents?" But the USPS has failed over and over to deliver on its promises (pun intended). Every once in a while the letter gets there when they say it will; but if I really have to be sure, I'll use UPS or FedEx.

George Allen, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Opting out of spam

I'M WRITING YOU using an e-mail account that gets over 100 Spams each day.

Why?

Because people like Tom Yaeger contribute to the problem by advocating that "opt-out" e-mail is a good way to get customers (see "Unsolicited e-mail marketing: Are you in or out?" Jan. 22).

For every sucker customer one gets with spam, 10 more will be lost forever. They will never buy from a company whose marketing policy is to get in bed with porn and get-rich-quick companies.

If you're not against opt-out spam, then don't be surprised when netizens welcome more government regulation of the Internet.

J. Leonard, Seattle

NICE ARTICLE, but your guys missed another important reason folks don't like spam: the potential for viruses, trojans, etc. We are all cautioned to "never open e-mail from someone you don't know," which is good advice security-wise. Unless the message comes from someone I already deal with, it's headed for the trash.

Douglas W. Morris, P.E., Charlotte, N.C.

ISO a good dot-com story

THANKS FOR THE positive dot-com story in the Jan. 22 issue of InfoWorld (see Net Prophet).

It must have taken some work to dig up a story like this, but the effort is definitely worth it. Another story on the death of a dot-com salesman and I was ready to throw in the towel. Thanks for showing us some companies that are making it.

You consistently take an approach that other journalists are not taking; I sincerely appreciate it. Keep it up!

Ann Revell-Pechar, Baltimore

Can you leverage 2.4 kernel?

BEING A LONG TIME OS/2 devotee, I can sympathise with Nicholas Petreley, who says that you can leverage the 2.4 Linux kernel to make Linux your desktop OS (see The Open Source, Jan. 22).

These problems regarding device drivers were the bane (and end, in my opinion) of OS/2. It will be interesting to see if the open-source people have better luck than we did. The problem, as always, is that someone has to get paid for doing this, and device-driver programming isn't exactly entry-level work.

I imagine that all the OS/2 volunteers who wrote scads of device drivers for the many new and legacy devices are now frothing at the mouth to get on with Linux DD development -- maybe for a 100 percent pay increase!

Heck, why nnot make it 10,000 percent? Same difference.

Paul Wing, Des Plaines, Ill.

Mind readers

BRIAN LIVINGSTON and reader Gerry Ching must have been reading my mind. (see Window Manager, Jan. 22).

I recently upgraded an older PC from Windows 95 to Windows Me for my sons, and they instantly complained about not being able to hear out of the audio jacks in the CD-ROM and CD-RW. After I fiddled with it for nearly 15 minutes, I finally removed the digital-playback feature and was able to receive sound from the CD-ROM, but I was still unable to get sound from the CD-RW.

I wasn't making the change through the device manager but through the much-hated version 7 Media Player that comes standard with Windows Me. It seems the Media Player will only control the primary channel on a master/slave setup. I went to the device manager and selected the CD-RW and made the changes there. Now we have sound on both.

This tip by Ching is definitely a must-read for Windows Me installations, as this was a very frustrating issue.

Love your tips. Keep up the great work.

Brian McIntosh, Jacksonville, Fla.

InfoWorld