Anyone Notice that Toyotas May Not be Accelerating Randomly

I was distracted from completing my diatribes about the mysteries of unintended acceleration. When we last looked there was a wild search for Toyota executives to be strung from the yardarm. Then as is often the case the “nevermind” story was barely mentioned.

If my previous posts seemed that I was already leaning in that direction it is only because I have seen this movie before. If we had any credible journalists to handle such stories they would know this movie had been seen before, but you would not turn your head to watch the news or buy a paper if that was the norm. A century has passed but yellow journalism seems bigger than ever.

The frothiness of this story attracted lawyers by the score. So many that the court had to decide who could even be heard. It should be no surprise that the lawyers on the case did not hear any reports that these “unintended acceleration” cases seem to be driver error–just as with every other case like this. If you have anything to hang a class action suit on the lawyers will not surrender, so we will still hear from them. The short-term damage is done and who knows what “extortion” will still be in play, but this story is over.

Of course the Toyota story is not totally over. I meant that the rational analysis of the facts would make this much to do about not much, except some tragic events– car accidents. Still missing in my discussion of this episode are comments about the role of social media or lack thereof. These events should serve as a message to anyone who thinks the business of last year is good enough for this year. Because Toyota has some Facebook page does not give them anything to hang their hat on in consumer views. This story should have demonstrated that. So I really need to post my thoughts about social media and Toyota. Everyone in business should be thinking about how to mange challenges like Toyota’s. If you thought you had control over your “brand” and still think so, you are not paying attention.

Look out for that other driver– in a Toyota!

March 2nd, 2010

Now we have all Toyota drivers nervous and the rest of us worried about every Toyota going by. Driver training always tells you to look out for the other guy, but this is not exactly what they were talking about. Driving is one of those skills where almost everyone is above average–right! That cannot be true, but take the test. Anyone you know admit to below average driving skills? I didn’t think so.

Now of all those “above average drivers” how many are really above average — on an auto skid pad, on a race track, under stressful accident conditions? How many can even answer in 15 seconds how many ways to stop a car that seems accelerating out of control? Anyone think 15 seconds will be enough time to react in a stressed situation? Any of these “above average drivers” drive in high heel shoes? Like to talk on the phone while driving? Might be eating while driving? Think that the audio/stereo experience is the highlight of their car? How many of these great drivers have read recommendations in the car owner’s manual? How familiar are drivers with the current maintenance condition? Have the tires been checked with a walk around before driving? Are drivers sensitive to feedback in the form of noises and vibrations? So we all think we are pretty good drivers, but most of us really have no clue. Now are you worried about the Toyota coming down the road or wondering who is driving?

We have been reducing the driver’s role in vehicle control for years, then when the driver is critically important we hope to find drivers rising up to the role of Sully (Captain Sullenberger). For over 50 years we have demanded that driving be made easier, for example: power brakes so we don’t have to exert too much force; power steering so one finger could direct the car; isolated suspensions so we don’t feel road bumps; sound deadening to keep our cabin quiet, except so we can enjoy distracting stereo; ABS brakes so we don’t need to think about how to brake; cruise control so we don’t need to tire from our foot on the pedal; and the list goes on. We have to admit we are very lazy and have made driving a task that we can be easily distracted from. We have reduced the skills required to driving, because we expect anyone and everyone to drive.

So we are a bunch of under-tested, under-skilled, and under-prepared drivers isolated from interacting with the real job of driving– except when we are tested under duress. This is where our culture has taken us. Of course when exposed, we squeal because we have lost any reference point–at least any reference that includes responsibility.

Our legislature has insured our position, not just for emissions and fuel economy, but especially safety. We are not only a nation of laws, but the resulting nation of lawyers, and of course, we are ruled largely by lawyers. We want to be protected, the legislature wants to protect us, and as a result we get rolling isolation chambers to protect us from ourselves and others. Our laws force cars to be designed to protect us, not to make us more in control but in many ways LESS in control. Has any law been passed to enhance vehicle control? I have not heard of such. We should be glad we aren’t all driving giant marsh mellows. At least auto manufacturers have not headed in that direction.

So now anyone who can pass a written test and familiarity with a steering wheel, gas pedal and brake can get a driver’s license. As I commented in a previous blog, the less capable a driver may be the more likely they are to buy a Toyota. We make plenty of jokes about various stereotypes of drivers and vehicle owned, and for good reason. It fits. I am not going to elaborate but I can pick out classes of drivers by vehicle and adjust my driving simply by spotting certain cars. (Clue: if your car is a very nice appliance, you may be on my list.)

I would hope that some video games might be helpful to driver skills, but I am not aware of any application of that technology actually applied to driver training. We would not consider such a situation for pilots. How much more dangerous are the millions of lethal weapons being driven on our streets every day. This is a situation where we have failed ourselves. The only end result that makes any sense is that driving become almost totally automatic with computer overrides for every action taken. Then we can blame automakers for every scratch and mishap. No one will have any responsibility for any driving skill. We will have nirvana. We better get used to computers controlling our cars.

Next what can/should Toyota and any manufacturer do? It is a brave new world. I’m just not feeling so brave myself.

The Road to Toyota’s Troubles

February 28th, 2010

Many are pointing recent history to evidence of various failings by Toyota. This may offer useful fodder, but Toyota’s challenges are part of a much larger arc. I want to focus on the auto industry, but this extends into every aspect of contemporary life. I have had a front row seat for various aspects of this from my time in the auto industry and years in Silicon Valley.

My personal experience dates to automotive emissions controls entering the auto industry. And where did this start? In the same congress where Toyota found themselves this month. I find this a most curious path. In some ways we have been hoisted on our own petard, but such is the role of technology today. We are addicted, but want perfection while we press on for more better-cheaper-faster.

Television was not the only vast wasteland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_speech ). In the 1960’s and 70’s the auto industry was largely lost, dazed and confused. I often referred to the condition as driving forward by looking in the rear view mirror. You could find a host of faults in that time, and more in retrospect. At the same time it was a vibrant US industry. A huge wake-up was the call for emission controls, and the industry could hardly have been less prepared.

The first steps the industry made in reducing auto emissions were awkward and kludge-ridden to be kind. I know too well. (I would suggest that 1972-3 car engines built to meet CA laws were among the worst ever made.) The first innovation to the rescue was the catalytic converter. For the converters to work best required demanding fuel control. This was a milestone that has swept through the industry–not emissions control, but the accuracy in control that demanded electronics.

Old-timers lament that a modern car cannot be serviced and now no one knows what they are looking at under the hood. You could blame congress  if you like, but the net result has given us far better cars. Another example of law influencing auto technology is the introduction of airbags, yet another potentially controversial subject.

The role of electronics/semiconductors started growing by necessity and at a relatively slow rate. That rate changed as the capability of electronics could not be avoided in delivering new features. The die was cast. Legal demands helped accelerate (no pun intended) the rate of adoption, but this wave of electronics in the auto was inevitable. ABS brakes and airbags took years in development, but these very complex critical safety systems are widely sought by consumers. Now we are adding all variety of vehicle stability systems that are also vital to safety. We are immersed in technology for safety as well as no end of convenience features.

Drive by wire (the electrical connection of pedal to throttle) electronic control systems are coming under scrutiny. Why? I would argue that first because we can. The less we know about something the more we can use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) to scare others and ourselves. Our scientific ignorance as a culture makes this an ideal environment to for any issue to fester. Rather than compare to an electronic heart pacer (or other reliable embedded system), we connect software to our computer/Internet experience. While this may be understandable it is not only inappropriate, it is wrong.

Each electronic system is designed and, moreover, tested independently. A throttle or brake system will need to meet different requirements than a PC application. There is little reason to associate the two simply because both depend on software code. There is no simple way I can prove this, if you don’t want to think about it. I have been on the inside of both beasts, so to speak. One of the biggest shocks of my life was the difference, since my career started in the auto industry and I presumed anyone would have similar standards. That is not the case! All manufacturers are concerned about quality, but that does not translate to the same practices or results (nor should it). I am not the best one to comment on current auto industry practices, but I do know the culture. When you design and test for a product made in the millions AND you cannot go back to fix without great cost you think VERY differently. You cannot do a system upgrade on a fleet of cars every week, month or whatever. So all those personal lessons learned in the consumer (or enterprise for that matter) computer simply do not apply. When you realize that consumer products are ahead of what you get in a car– for example GPS, there is one main reason. It is not that car companies don’t want to have the “latest,” but that the testing demand far exceeds a consumer product.

Today we find ourselves buying and demanding computer-enabled autos. From braking systems to auto stereos we are addicted to the latest. This has had a huge influence on this entire situation. Design diligence and manufacturing quality using the best technologies are not going away– and neither are our human habits.

I think we need to seriously consider that this entire Toyota issue is more about people and psychology than it is about technology or manufacturing quality. That means I have yet another blog to write.

Oh, Oh, Toyota– What Are You Thinking?

February 28th, 2010

If I bring any bias to this Toyota problem it is that drivers need to take responsibility. We have created a world where we expect magic and/or blame for any problem we encounter. Driving has become a right more than privilege and with the expected consequences. With that in mind I started clicking around the web to see what had been posted. Anyone, and I sure hope that includes Toyota, can search for vehicle problems and discover if others may have posted incidents or complaints about vehicle troubles. I started through a too long list of reported problems with Toyota fitting so-called unintended acceleration. The more I clicked the more I was shocked. In each report I tried to imagine what COULD have happened that was not apparent to the driver or reporter. What became more difficult was the number of events.

I do believe that a huge factor is the number of vehicles Toyota sells, and as I mentioned previously, the number of drivers. I suspect, that further, Toyota’s reputation likely results in increased event problems and reporting. By that my personal observation is that Toyota’s a more likely to be bought with expectations that then lower driver preparedness. That is a bit of a strong claim and many would say irrelevant I realize. It is not an excuse, but I am seeing a potential because less skilled drivers would be attracted to a vehicle that they think is safe. I wish it were like Dumbo’s feather, improving driving ability, attention, etc., but I think the opposite is the result. The net from my view is that Toyota may have essentially invited a skewing of customers that only can exaggerate any resulting safety problem.

Even with all those biases, there are simply too many reports to simply discount. I cannot imagine that this would not be a top priority at Toyota. By that I mean for some time prior to this news explosion I can’t imagine how this would not be a very active investigation internally. I assume Toyota has a team assigned to monitoring, investigating, strategizing and responding externally and communicating internally about the various reports, both public and private to Toyota. I would say this has been the biggest failing of Toyota. The number of incidents is a flag to tend to, whether there is or is not a vehicle-related problem.

The historic events of unintended acceleration can be discounted as driver error, even where the drivers have understandably been convinced they had no role in the event. There may be critical contributing factors such as the floor mat. The magnitude of risk to Toyota is nearly the same regardless of cause so in retrospect it seems clear greater attention was in order.

As I searched through various event reports relating to unintended acceleration, I felt a bit like I was reading about UFO sightings. My engineering mind was having too much stretching to imagine how reported events occurred. User reports are understandably missing some information, but the volume of reports was striking to me with very little searching. Of course drivers can only report their own version of events which we fail to realize is not the whole story. Maybe because of how these events strike your personal psyche there is no way to easily look dispassionately. We try to live that individuals charged are innocent until proven guilty, but I think we are much faster to judgement where we sense potential personal risk.

In all my clicking around I have failed any “truth” in this whole area of vehicle controls. It may be because of litigation issues that Toyota and others may need to not take such stands publicly. In any case I can only come to the conclusion that this whole situation is not acceptable. I hope we don’t have lawyers to blame for this all being such a mystery. I don’t think that is an acceptable result to Toyota, any manufacturer or consumers.

One mystery that I can imagine and may be a huge hidden factor here is the rate of change in vehicle evolution. More in my next post. (Should be right now–some cockpit error kept this post from going up a few days ago.)

Unintended Toyota Problem

February 9th, 2010

Like a moth to a flame I am drawn to this Toyota “sudden acceleration” or “sticky accelerator” problem and recall. Partly this is a case of taking the boy out of the auto industry, but you can’t take the auto industry out of the boy, so here I am. I have spoken out a few times on Facebook with news postings because I do think it is important to be aware and to be able to control any such event as a driver. I now realize that a single longer post that I imagined cannot address this subject, so I am only admitting to this being the first longer post but see more coming.

My reaction generally is about driver behavior. So-called unintended acceleration has made headlines for years. My sense is that typically these are cases of driver confusion and stepping on the accelerator instead of the brake. Often drivers have been elderly but in any case drivers did not intentionally step on the accelerator and cannot possibly believe they were on the accelerator by mistake. In more complex cases I am similarly suspicious of things like the floor mats that Toyota has found in some cases. The anecdotal evidence in current cases does imply something more complex. Yet I still want to see human factors eliminated–or understood.

I am more interested in this general problem more than any “Toyota problem.” I cringe at the term “unintended acceleration” because often this is not totally unintended, but really a stuck accelerator. Of course when you take you foot off the pedal the result then is certainly unintended. I think we should call these stuck or sticky accelerators, which is what Toyota is responding to with the current recall. Of course if I am writing a headline or representing the plaintiff I want to use provocative language.

The problem of a sticking accelerator is as old as the engine, maybe even horses before. Classically this should be manageable by a driver paying attention and might only occasionally result in some parking or close traffic incidents. Because of the surprise element we can understand how such problems could cause panic leading occasionally to more serious problems. I imagine that drivers might get warnings if the car was one they drove regularly, but reasonably one could overlook even forewarnings. Problems in this category while potentially very scary should be able to be corrected by driver action, such as braking, shifting or turning off the ignition. At least that is my first “easy” answer.

Modern vehicle control systems introduce many complexities between the driver and resulting vehicle actions. A modern joke goes “why does a BMW have wheels?” To keep the computers from dragging on the ground. Now this applies to all cars. We know way too much about computer errors to wonder how these systems may act. Such control systems are still in relative infancy and manufacturers have different designs in production. Our fears can be exaggerated contemplating a computer taking over our input signals.

In the 80’s when lawyers went after Audi, truth went out the window. Lawyers had “expert witnesses” rig up very bizarre test sequences to show how such acceleration might occur. Only a US jury could decide that rich Audi must pay the victims of such incidents under the most questionable evidence. We have evolved, for better and worse, with product liability lawyers helping us search for someone to blame for any accidental event. I am concerned that our elected lawyers will start this process by targeting headline events, especially the recent tragic accident. At the same time is not bad to bring pressure on the auto industry by questioning what systems are in place from design through production to ensure that our vehicles meet expected safety requirements.

So where am I going with this story? Everyday brings something new and I already have a few commentaries I want to write. One fundamental reason is that writing is a tool for me. Sloppy thinking is much easier in verbal jousts. I use writing to force logical discipline and that is what I am hoping we can get in this very public episode about vehicle brakes. I feel I should share with whatever audience cares about this specific issue, driving in general and the ever evolving man-machine interface. The one thing I am already convinced of is that this is not about Toyota and it is not about brakes. That said I think my next post will be very much about the current news headlines.

AT&T Phone Home (or Find Your CRM System)

March 26th, 2009

My home, that is. I believe you may be in the telephone business and probably could actually call customers! –More on that later. I have enjoyed AT&T U-Verse service and would not discourage anyone from subscribing, but be VERY careful about the billing relationship. Let’s start with some good news. I have no photo or video of anyone sleeping on my couch. I will end with a high note about the lack of any need for that.

Suddenly about noon my AT&T service stopped. I thought there must be some new install in the neighborhood or some minor network issue. I had dial tone on my phone so I figured there was not some catastrophic problem. Since I rarely use it to make calls, I did not even try—that might have been a clue! All of a sudden it hit me. The threatening letters to disconnect service were to be effective about this time of the month. I had not been concerned since we had paid online within the last two weeks after some considerable confusion previously about arranging for U-Verse to be paid. I would say we have been getting threatening letters since the service was installed 7 months ago, so what was another.

But with the realization that those threatening letters could have been fulfilled, I looked up the last threatening letter and yes, it threatened that service could be discontinued, so just maybe I better call to see if this may be what happened. Well of course that was it!

AT&T has every reason to believe I am a deadbeat customer so I can certainly see the problem—NOT. Let me check, I have been an AT&T (and predecessors) customer all my life and never had a problem about paying bills. I have had the same phone number for over 30 years, not to mention a second line. I have had DSL service for years. Of course they may not recognize I also have two mobile phones from them. I am definitely a customer who could leave them and not pay at a moment’s notice. And on top of all that, they knew we had previously been having troubles getting the e-payment correct, and I later discover that this is a repeated story of others.

So there I am talking to some poor representative who has to deal with me in a state I don’t wish to be in, and now she doesn’t either. She verifies that my bill is overdue and indeed my service has been shut-off. How could this be we just paid? I was then amazed that in a few seconds she could verify that the e-payment was still incorrectly applied to my old landline account, where she found a surplus of some $230 credit. If she could discover this in less than a minute, do you think that there might be some policy to discover what accounts are being disconnected? Could anyone have discovered that AT&T did have payment but there was a billing confusion? Could it be possible to make a phone call to see if there was a problem we were aware of? Have they heard of email? Instant messaging? Text messaging? Twitter? Oh no, that is Comcast that has learned about Twitter. How about when your competition is using new service tools, that you better discover what that is about?

The final recovery: I did expect that there should be no penalty for restarting service and that was resolved without even a request. My tone of voice made that request unsaid. I was astonished that the incorrect payment could be found immediately. For clarity the origin of this whole mess is that my phone bill is paid in California (where I live) and U-Verse is paid in Illinois, I assume for everyone. I was told that some e-payments could not be arranged to them, which seems hard to believe. This must be a widespread point of confusion for customers.

I am trying to deal with the shock that restoring service could take up to 24 hours. Since this is my life line to the world, I could not imagine that something so simple could be that complicated especially when it took only a minute to discover the payment error. Towards the end of my call I did get a call center incoming call. It was then I realized that AT&T would not want to disrupt the billing of call centers to reach me. ( I blogged previously that I do not answer my legacy phone unless I see a known Caller ID.) While I was ranting to the beleaguered agent about receiving irritating calls while my service was disconnected she hung-up on me. Then MIRACULOUSLY within two minutes my service was restored.

I am supposed to be grateful that this was easily restored—and I am. Maybe I should be impressed that no one fell asleep on my couch, but AT&T this is NO way to run a business. You were supposed to get over being a monopoly long ago. Delivering somewhat state of the art services should be some sort of influence to use technology in the customer relationship part of business. Look at this one angry stupid phone that still has me cranked up. This is not the kind of animated customers a business needs. Thank-you for restoring my service in two minutes—after irritating me for a few hours and making me wonder, is anyone thinking there?

True Confessions on Ada Lovelace Day

March 24th, 2009

Turning individuals into icons is an interesting game. This week I revisited a biographical look at Amelia Earhart on PBS. It was informative on many levels, but one of the more striking illuminations was the role of promotion. Amelia was not the “best” woman pilot of her day, but she was the most promoted. In the same sense I wish to recognize all women in technology – but particularly, my personal bias, engineers.

When I think of women in technology I think of the sea change that I have seen in my life. It was not that long ago that a woman engineer was truly a rare sight. The sciences overall were not quite as foreign to women, and as an engineer I do feel a bond with women in engineering and appreciate the path they have chosen. Today women are still too small a minority, but we have more visible role models and a support system for bringing girls into engineering. This progress is due to the community of women in technology, not just some iconic figure. I think this is maybe the most important role for women in technology today, to help make the trail wide and welcoming for others to follow.

If I dare take the reader back to my undergrad days, I can share my personal experience, not to mention any associated guilt! I was one of the founders of a student section for the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers). We were determined to bring the reality of an engineering career to the university. We held stimulating meetings, starting with good speakers and then promoted creatively (before social networking). Our added leverage was to show racing movies at the end of the meetings (younger readers will have to imagine a world where this was not-trivial; a world before calculators and computers). And the last incentive was to offer cookies. Refreshments were served by the few women in engineering—for which we were very grateful.

Before the lynch mob forms let me clarify that this was not a relationship of coercion or expectation. We were grateful and certainly some of our success was due to this shameful exploitation of the opportunity. Today we might be clamoring about the objectification of women, but I am sure there are still plenty of traces of this long ago experience still in evidence. Women are still making what I would think are inappropriate sacrifices within engineering ranks and as students. I want to especially recognize all women in technology who have made and continue to make accommodation in ways that should not be necessary or accepted. We need each and every one of you. Press on.

Who was Ada Lovelace?

175 Million Lawyers to Work for Facebook

February 27th, 2009

They needed to do something. And they needed to do it fast. Only Facebook could seek 175 million opinions, and they are all free. Change that headline. 175 million lawyers working for free to help Facebook arrive at a Terms of Service (TOS) document. I don’t see a problem. This should lead to some great legal advice.

OK, so it could be a bit scary. Hey Facebook, could you like maybe make any references to my old girlfriend go away– and her too, if possible. She was so totally lame, she shouldn’t be allowed on Facebook. 175 million request pouring in. I really hope most don’t arrive after closing time. Maybe they should require all views to be faxed in… –to a single ancient fax machine. Hey dude, where can I find a fax machine? I got an idea for Facebook.

Maybe this is just what you deserve after a sequence of bonehead moves. I dread having a committee come up with a mission statement. What can this do? A well thought out TOS should consider the user community needs and seek a respectful, supportable and conscientious position. That would be great. I am hopeful that this public sausage-making process can address issues of concern. What would be ideal is for Facebook to set a new standard, not for process, but a TOS that can be used for all community services.

As users we routinely check the box, yes I can accept your draconian TOS if you will just let me use your services or whatever is offered. Users don’t really agree with the TOS. The system is broken. Facebook just got caught trying to break it in a most grievous manner. In some sense companies have been at the mercy of legal advice (not the 175 million kind) that may have a basis in protecting the corporation. There just have never been 175 million who are so well connected and dependent on the TOS. Well, every dog has its day, and just maybe 175 million finally with have their day.

175 Million amateur lawyers is indeed a scary thought, but let’s see if Facebook can find a sensible relationship with the user community. Maybe we can get a resulting landmark TOS from this awkward situation. This dog would be pleased and impressed with proof that social networking has the great future I think it does.

Ignorance, Innocence and Greed at Facebook

February 24th, 2009

Facebook is powered by a huge group of bright young faces, so we might expect some missteps, but they are adding up. We are already aware of malfeasance involved in the founding of Facebook. At some point in Silicon Valley we let bygones be bygones. Continued questionable actions do raise second thoughts.

Facebook could use a supply of towels to keep the youthful group a bit dryer behind the ears A gray hair or two in-house seems highly unlikely to be heeded at this point. One lesson that appears to not be learned at Facebook is the concept of business stakeholders. Customers are often given short shrift in the stakeholder pecking order. Nothing could be a bigger mistake at Facebook.

Every business owes much to customers, but none more than a social networking site. The reason I am a huge fan and bullish on Facebook, and social networking in general, is because of the role of users, the most critical of “customers” in this game. Without us, Facebook is dead. Hello Mark. –Not reduced in value or importance, but dead. I believe it is a self-correcting system. Facebook has shown this with each significant mistake. How many “mistakes” will it take?

Of course you can expect a strong reaction from some when these blunders are caught. Fortunately while most are aghast that Facebook could be out of touch, the proxy outbreak serves to put Facebook back on track. I confess to being a bit tired of the routine. This is NOT rocket science. I offer my free gray-hair advice. Facebook should have an internal mantra and it should be about the most important stakeholder. That is not the stockholder, but your stockholders will not be happy if users are allowed to migrate away from what has been a tsunami of endorsement. I can’t imagine more than ten words and it should be in front of everyone inside.

On this subject I was inspired by a thoughtful commentary on Network World, that bastion of social networking. When critical comments are appearing from far, the reach and importance of the mission should be clear. Don’t screw it up.

Let Me Take a Bite from My Hat

February 5th, 2009

Magicjack is a remarkable story in some sense, and that may cause some to lose a grasp on common sense. A new story connects Magicjack to the loss of landlines in the U.S. If you are responsible for landline retention I would think you have too many other concerns to think that Magicjack is responsible for a decline in landlines. If that were the case I would think Magicjack should be more concerned.

The Magicjack bundles hardware with a network terminating solution in hopes that users will buy upgraded services. Without upgrades Magicjack can only hope most users make few calls which is a pretty good bet. If users are making all household calls in a traditional landline sense, they are probably losing money.

Long before Magicjack appeared TeleVoce offered PC-to-telephone adapters. There has not really been much change in this market opportunity, except for the TV pitch infomercials that today have a greater of finding viewers with a PC connected to broadband at home. It is easy to get excited about such an offer, but the light of day has shown that most users do not replace regular phone use with such devices. By light of day, I mean years of user behavior records of real use of PC-connected phone use.

PC-originated phone calling is not new and incoming calls are not revolutionary either. Magicjack, as much as TeleVoce, serves users who make international calls (long the stronghold of VoIP) and users who have use for an alternative to mobile for any number of reasons. Magicjack probably has recruited a new segment of users who imagine a substitute phone service. Let me just state the obvious simply. A PC with a MagicJack is not going to connect to the multiple phone jacks in a typical home. It is a personal tool, not a household solution. Let landline providers worry about real issues.