Copying KRZR Pictures & Poor Quality Techies

I just want to post regarding my frustration about the poor quality of
tech support on the part of my provider U.S. Cellular which sells the
Motorola KRZR.

I had a simple question. How do I copy pictures from my KRZR phone to
my PC. I've seen some others asking this question online in the past,
and wanted to make it known that the answer is simple. The phone lets
you move pictures onto my flash memory card or assign the card
(assuming you have one) as the default storage device in the Pictures
menu. The "excellent" tech support for my provider could not tell me
that though. I talk to two of them and neither of them could answer
my question, and one said it was not possible, that I had to pay to
email them or buy Motorola's software.

I just thought I would post this in case anyone else has been under
the impression that it is necessary to buy software to get pictures
from the phone (some online have had that impression). It's not
necessary to buy anything except a mini USB cable (which costs $2.27
from Mouser.com, or $20 if you go to a cell phone store). The drivers
install automatically in Windows so it's really no trouble at all. I
suspect future models will work similarly.

Too bad so called tech support for my provider could not tell me
that. I know they want to make money with picture messaging, but
honestly I don't know if these support people are withholding
knowledge so their companies can make more profit, or if these
companies intentionally hire mentally challenged people because they
don't want their customers to know anything.

You can also move pictures to your PC via Bluetooth. A BT dongle for
your PC costs $10 on ebay.

"Tech support" from a carrier is apt to be pretty spotty. There is no
way they can train every agent on every aspect of every phone. Even with
prompted scripts there is still a huge knowledge gap. Keep in mind that
telephone agent jobs are usually low paying and don't exactly attract
Mensa candidates. The folks they hire will say whatever they have to to
get you off the phone. If they don't know or can't find an answer
they'll sometimes just make one up or tell you it can't be done. If they
were paid more rates would go up - and nobody wants higher rates.
To their credit, Motorola.com maintains a very good website that has
interactive "How-To" guides for your and most of their other models that
show you exactly how to transfer pictures via the USB cable or BT. In
less time than you spent sitting on hold you could have found the How-To
guide at www.motorola.com and been done.
And for the things you can do that even Motorola won't tell you, see
www.motox.info, www.motomodders.net, or www.howardforums.com.

Dave wrote:
> I just want to post regarding my frustration about the poor quality of
> tech support on the part of my provider U.S. Cellular which sells the
> Motorola KRZR.
>
> I had a simple question. How do I copy pictures from my KRZR phone to
> my PC. I've seen some others asking this question online in the past,
> and wanted to make it known that the answer is simple. The phone lets
> you move pictures onto my flash memory card or assign the card
> (assuming you have one) as the default storage device in the Pictures
> menu. The "excellent" tech support for my provider could not tell me
> that though. I talk to two of them and neither of them could answer
> my question, and one said it was not possible, that I had to pay to
> email them or buy Motorola's software.
>
> I just thought I would post this in case anyone else has been under
> the impression that it is necessary to buy software to get pictures
> from the phone (some online have had that impression). It's not
> necessary to buy anything except a mini USB cable (which costs $2.27
> from Mouser.com, or $20 if you go to a cell phone store). The drivers
> install automatically in Windows so it's really no trouble at all. I
> suspect future models will work similarly.
>
> Too bad so called tech support for my provider could not tell me
> that. I know they want to make money with picture messaging, but
> honestly I don't know if these support people are withholding
> knowledge so their companies can make more profit, or if these
> companies intentionally hire mentally challenged people because they
> don't want their customers to know anything.

> "Tech support" from a carrier is apt to be pretty spotty. There is no
> way they can train every agent on every aspect of every phone. Even with
> prompted scripts there is still a huge knowledge gap. Keep in mind that
> telephone agent jobs are usually low paying and don't exactly attract
> Mensa candidates. The folks they hire will say whatever they have to to
> get you off the phone. If they don't know or can't find an answer
> they'll sometimes just make one up or tell you it can't be done. If they
> were paid more rates would go up - and nobody wants higher rates......

Thanks for the added info. The thing about this is, there was a time
not long ago when I applied for many jobs like this, and would have
been thrilled with whatever they paid, but I was completely ignored --
none of these places even called me for an interview. I'm sure I had
much better qualifications than these guys have (CS degree, MS in
Telecom, lots of work experience), but nevertheless they totally
ignored my resume, these people got the jobs instead, and I ended up
having to work on a loading dock for $6.50 an hour with family to
support. During this time, BTW, I became behind on my cell phone bill
which I think is what they want on the whole -- somehow giving people
a bad credit serves the overall corporate interest. Fortunately, now
I work for a non-corporate mom and pop business that that does not
have cruel social motives -- people who actually have decent human
skills and treat others well.

I can only conclude that these companies intentionally hire people
with low qualifications, even though there are better candidates
willing to work for the same rate. If they result in shorter call
times, it's a very un-admiral way of doing it; and besides, I'm not
sure that's true since there have been many instances when I've had to
call multiple times before finally getting an answer I needed. A good
worker can be trained to give an accurate answer, even if that means
tactfully saying they don't know, delegating to another information
source, and moving quickly onto the next call.

With a $150+ monthly bill I think I earned a few minutes every few
months for decent tech support. Even though I've had USC for over 5
years I think I will take my chances with another provider. I doubt
they will be much better though.

Dave <onlinefuel@gmail.com> writes:

> I just want to post regarding my frustration about the poor quality of
> tech support on the part of my provider U.S. Cellular which sells the
> Motorola KRZR.
>
> I had a simple question. How do I copy pictures from my KRZR phone to
> my PC. I've seen some others asking this question online in the past,
> and wanted to make it known that the answer is simple. The phone lets
> you move pictures onto my flash memory card or assign the card
> (assuming you have one) as the default storage device in the Pictures
> menu. The "excellent" tech support for my provider could not tell me
> that though. I talk to two of them and neither of them could answer
> my question, and one said it was not possible, that I had to pay to
> email them or buy Motorola's software.


The latter tech had 2 correct possible solutions that you rejected.
Motorola Phone tools includes the USB cable you seek, and costs a
whopping $30, and can grab photos off your phone memory as well as the
flash, and do a bunch of other cool stuff. That's a fraction probably
of one monthly bill you pay your cell provider.


It's worth noting that your solution involves purchasing a flash
memory card, changing the phone configuration to save pictures there,
and purchasing the cable.


> I just thought I would post this in case anyone else has been under
> the impression that it is necessary to buy software to get pictures
> from the phone (some online have had that impression). It's not
> necessary to buy anything except a mini USB cable (which costs $2.27
> from Mouser.com, or $20 if you go to a cell phone store). The drivers
> install automatically in Windows so it's really no trouble at all. I
> suspect future models will work similarly.

Don't forget the flash memory card in your accounting.

At least on my Cingular Krazr K1 w/o a card in the external card slot,
all that shows up in Windows when I plug it in with USB is a drive
that has no memory card in it.

I use Motorola Phone Tools to get my photos off the phone memory.

Others have pointed out that Bluetooth can also be used if your
computer has it, or $10 for a bluetooth usb adapter if it doesn't.

> Too bad so called tech support for my provider could not tell me
> that. I know they want to make money with picture messaging, but
> honestly I don't know if these support people are withholding
> knowledge so their companies can make more profit, or if these
> companies intentionally hire mentally challenged people because they
> don't want their customers to know anything.


They hire the cheapest folks customers can possibly stand. They do
not spend time training them in every phone they offer because there
are simply too many and turnover too quick on the phones.

I'd say that like it or not, expecting your cell provider to be
experts on the operation of a phone you buy from them is like
expecting best buy tech support to be experts on any random dongle
they sell at their stores. The manufacturer, or manufacturer specific
forums/groups is generally best the place for cell phone device
support.

Thank you for posting your experience, though, but I don't think your
expectations of the carrier's tech support are terribly realistic
these days. You can thank all the "must have lowest price" consumers
for the erosion of the quality of the human element in service
companies. We've collectively voted with our money and are sorta
sleepin' in the bed we've made on that.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Dave wrote:
>> "Tech support" from a carrier is apt to be pretty spotty. There is no
>> way they can train every agent on every aspect of every phone. Even
>> with prompted scripts there is still a huge knowledge gap. Keep in
>> mind that telephone agent jobs are usually low paying and don't
>> exactly attract Mensa candidates. The folks they hire will say
>> whatever they have to to get you off the phone. If they don't know
>> or can't find an answer they'll sometimes just make one up or tell
>> you it can't be done. If they were paid more rates would go up - and
>> nobody wants higher rates......
>
> Thanks for the added info. The thing about this is, there was a time
> not long ago when I applied for many jobs like this, and would have
> been thrilled with whatever they paid, but I was completely ignored --
> none of these places even called me for an interview. I'm sure I had
> much better qualifications than these guys have (CS degree, MS in
> Telecom, lots of work experience), but nevertheless they totally
> ignored my resume, these people got the jobs instead, and I ended up
> having to work on a loading dock for $6.50 an hour with family to
> support. During this time, BTW, I became behind on my cell phone bill
> which I think is what they want on the whole -- somehow giving people
> a bad credit serves the overall corporate interest. Fortunately, now
> I work for a non-corporate mom and pop business that that does not
> have cruel social motives -- people who actually have decent human
> skills and treat others well.
>
> I can only conclude that these companies intentionally hire people
> with low qualifications, even though there are better candidates
> willing to work for the same rate. If they result in shorter call
> times, it's a very un-admiral way of doing it; and besides, I'm not
> sure that's true since there have been many instances when I've had to
> call multiple times before finally getting an answer I needed. A good
> worker can be trained to give an accurate answer, even if that means
> tactfully saying they don't know, delegating to another information
> source, and moving quickly onto the next call.
>
> With a $150+ monthly bill I think I earned a few minutes every few
> months for decent tech support. Even though I've had USC for over 5
> years I think I will take my chances with another provider. I doubt
> they will be much better though.

1. You weren't hired because you're overqualified and wouldn't have
lasted more than 30 days in that job (maybe YOU would, but odds are
against it). Why would you take a $6.50 job with your qualifications
anyway?

2. The corporate conspiracy thing about "cruel social motives" sounds a
bit paranoid. No telecom business is served by slow paying customers. I
have little sympathy for people who roll up big bills and then complain
they can't afford it. Either switch to prepaid or stop using the phone
so much. It wasn't that many years ago that we didn't have cell phones
and the world ran just fine. If you're working for $6.50 an hour the
phone usage isn't related to business (or if it is it should be
reimbursed) so it must be personal. Nobody has anything so important to
say that's worth $150/mo. Too many people grab the phone to chit-chat
and say nothing that can't wait till they see each other later.

3. As far as getting good service goes, I can tell you from experience
that T-Mobile does a very good job. They have 3 levels of support with
some pretty sharp people in the 2nd and third levels.

Dave <onlinefuel@gmail.com> writes:
> The thing about this is, there was a time not long ago when I
> applied for many jobs like this, and would have been thrilled with
> whatever they paid, but I was completely ignored -- none of these
> places even called me for an interview. I'm sure I had much better
> qualifications than these guys have (CS degree, MS in Telecom, lots
> of work experience), but nevertheless they totally ignored my
> resume,

God I hope this is a troll. If not, somewhere in all that education
you unfortunately failed to learn how hiring happens.

Of course they ignored your resume. Because you were grossly
overqualified for a tech support position! Seriously, an MS in
telecome in L1 tech support? Woof. You were passed over likely on
the assumption that your salary requirements were way beyond what they
have budgeted for tech support workers, and/or that you would likely
be a short-timer if you were willing to work for so little.

> these people got the jobs instead, and I ended up having to work on
> a loading dock for $6.50 an hour with family to support.

I'm sorry for your situation, and that sucks. But don't blame the
cell company for having a sane and common hiring practice. If you
wanted a tech support job, some career couseling or benchmarking to
those with those positions might's have suggested hiding the degrees
in your resume to avoid the "overqualified" flag.

It takes time and money to train tech support folks and companies
don't generally want to waste time on people they see as using them
for a short term gap, or who will invariablyl become unhappy working
with people less qualified, etc.

> During this time, BTW, I became behind on my cell phone bill which I
> think is what they want on the whole -- somehow giving people a bad
> credit serves the overall corporate interest.

So let me get this straight, the cell phone company is conspiring
against you personally on several levels? Intentionally not hiring
you so you'd get behind on your cell bill so they couldn't get paid,
and wanting to give you bad credit?

Please tell me you're trolling? I fear you're not though.

> Fortunately, now I work for a non-corporate mom and pop business
> that that does not have cruel social motives -- people who actually
> have decent human skills and treat others well.

Which is great--enjoy it, and hope like hell mom and pop have a
sustainable business plan so you can continue to enjoy that position.

Corporations (and I've worked for several) do not have cruel social
motives--well, directly anyway. They're about making money, and
creating shareholder value. And if you want to be profitable, you
don't hire a guy with a master's in telecom to man the phones at your
cell company because if he's willing to work for tech support wages,
he's either a short timer looking to fill an urgent employment gap and
will leave as soon as a more appropriate job gets landed, or has 7
habits of highly defective people and no one else will hire him.
Neither is appealing to a company.

Furthermore, what value do you get out of one guy out of 100 tech
support lackies on the phone? A few customers each day unbelievably
impressed with the sharpness of a tech. Will that translate to better
customer retention? If so how much?

If you crunch the survey numbers, it'll become pretty clear that folks
don't care as much about technical customer service as they do
coverage, price and accurate billing.

So, there's really no reason in the world to roll the dice on an
overqualified candidate for a tech support position.

> I can only conclude that these companies intentionally hire people
> with low qualifications, even though there are better candidates
> willing to work for the same rate.

If that's your only conclusion based on the facts at hand, I'm afraid
your degrees have conspired against your reasoning skills.

The more likely case is the hiring maxim "don't hired overqualified
people into a position." Or, possibly, but less likely, "weren't
hiring at that time, or filled all positions they were advertising
for."

> If they result in shorter call times, it's a very un-admiral way of
> doing it; and besides, I'm not sure that's true since there have
> been many instances when I've had to call multiple times before
> finally getting an answer I needed. A good worker can be trained to
> give an accurate answer, even if that means tactfully saying they
> don't know, delegating to another information source, and moving
> quickly onto the next call.
>
> With a $150+ monthly bill I think I earned a few minutes every few
> months for decent tech support. Even though I've had USC for over 5
> years I think I will take my chances with another provider. I doubt
> they will be much better though.

They all pretty much suck, and best I can tell, 50% of the techs you
talked to on this one actually managed a correct answer to solve teh
task you threw at them, which is 50% higher honestly than I'd expect a
carrier to give you on a data transfer question for a specific cell
phone.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/