जनता का आदमी

(frankieleon)

Gone are the days of different grades of maple syrup, at least in Vermont, where the sticky shadow of Canada’s industry makes people take maple syrup very seriously. The state has switched up the grading system for syrup, removing “Grade B” altogether and confusing some customers in the process.

The naming convention used to be split between Grade A and Grade B, but now it’s all Grade A, and uses names that conjure up images of coffee, notes NPR’s The Salt blog.

Instead of names “Fancy” and “Grade A Dark Amber,” there are colors like “Golden,” “Amber” and “Dark,” with flavor descriptions of “Delicate,” “Rich,” “Robust” or “Strong.” And what used to be below Grade B, formerly known as “Commercial Grade,” is now Very Dark with a Strong taste, and can be sold to retailers if its quality is good enough.

It’s confusing to some, or maybe it’s just that syrup names are so entrenched in the collective Vermont mind that it’ll take some getting used to.

“I like the old grading system much better,” said one customer tasting syrups at a recent event at one sugarhouse. “More of a Fancy,” she said of the lightest syrup, which is now called Golden Delicate. “That’s the name I’m used to for it.”

Sugarmakers in Vermont are hoping that names like “Robust” will make people think of coffee, and help those that aren’t used to buying syrup get a better idea of what the products will taste like.

“Not very many people have a chance to come to a sugarhouse and to sample different grades, and have somebody explain to them about the differences,” says one sugarmaker. “They’re standing in front of a supermarket shelf, and they’re wondering if they’re really going to like what’s in that jug.”

She explains that customers would sometimes think Fancy was the highest quality syrup, and then be disappointed that it wasn’t, leading to future syrup confusion.

“If you got that and you thought, “Wow, if this is their best syrup, it doesn’t have much flavor. I guess I don’t like maple syrup,’ ” she explains.

Vermont sugarmakers would like to see the grading convention adopted by other states to provide a uniform experience for customers, but the state is on its own so far. Your move, Canada.

By Any Other Name, Does Vermont’s Maple Syrup Taste As Sweet? [The Salt]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(Van Swearington)

Smartphones are a popular target for thieves, in fact nearly 1.6 million phones were stolen in the United States in 2012. The anger knowing that you’ll have to shell out big bucks to replace it is almost comparable to the feeling of helplessness and rage one feels after having their trusty phone snatched away in the first place. But one simple change to all smartphones could lessen those feeling and keep $2.6 billion in consumers’ collective pockets.

The report [PFD], from researchers at Creighton University, details how a kill switch feature could reduce smartphone thefts and save consumers billions of dollars a year in the cost of replacement phones and phone insurance plans.

The kill switch would render phones uses for criminals by allowing consumers to disable their stolen devices. Law enforcement officials tell the Huffington Post that the feature could eliminate phone thefts, even those cases where the theft is a bit murky, because criminals would no longer have an incentive to steal the devices.

If thefts were no longer a concern, more than half of the 1,200 smartphone owners surveyed for the report say they would buy less expensive phone insurance coverage, which would result in an estimated savings of $2 billion, the report notes.

Additionally, consumers could save $581 million in replacement costs with the implementation of the anti-theft feature.

While insurance plans can help lower the cost of a replacement smartphone, insured consumers are still shelling out an estimated $150 per replacement. Uninsured owners spend approximately $474 for each replacement phone. Of the 1.6 million phones stolen in 2012 only 34% were insured. The report finds the estimated annual loss for replacing insured phones totaled $81.5 million, while the cost to replace uninsured phones was nearly $500 million.

The report author William Duckworth says that consumers seem to largely favor adding the feature.

According to the survey of 1,200 smartphone users:

• 99% of smartphone owners feel wireless carriers should give all consumers the option to disable a cell phone if it is stolen


• 83% of smartphone owners believe that a Kill Switch would reduce cell phone theft


• 93% of smartphone owners believe that Americans should not be expected to pay extra fees for the ability to disable a stolen phone

“Overall, it seems clear that Americans want the Kill Switch and that an industry-wide implementation of the technology could significantly improve public safety and save consumers billions of dollars a year,” William Duckworth, the report’s author says.

With cell phone thefts on the rise in many major cities legislators have begun to take steps to create industry-wide anti-theft mandates.

Bills that would require smartphones to have an anti-theft feature have been introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate this year. No votes have taken place on either bill.

On Saturday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that two city officials joined the Secure Our Smartphones (S.O.S) Initiative. The international coalition of prosecutors, police chiefs, attorneys general, public officials and consumer activists are working to encourage the smartphone industry to implement meaningful solutions to stop the theft of popular mobile communications devices such as smartphones and tablets.

While a kill switch feature may be gaining ground with legislators, industry groups are divided on the idea.

Wireless industry trade group CTIA has previously opposed anti-theft features, the Huffington Post reports. The group has argued that a hacker could exploit the feature to shut down the phones of consumers or law enforcement officials.

Officials with Asurion, a third-party insurance provider for some major wireless companies, say the new report underestimates the number of phones stolen and doesn’t take into account the number of claims filed for phones that are simply lost.

“Asurion has no objection to properly implemented kill switch technology,” company officials tell the Huffington Post, “there is no solution that will totally eliminate the theft of smartphones as there are other values in the black-market for the phones, such as parts.”

Still some companies have already begun implementing anti-theft features. In September, Apple introduced Activation Lock, a program that allows consumers to render their devices useless once stolen.

Consumers Save $2.5 Billion A Year If A ‘Kill Switch’ Stops Phone Thefts, Study Finds [The Huffington Post]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Starting in the second half of 2013, Netflix speeds on several major Internet service providers began to sink drastically as the ISPs allowed Netflix downstream traffic to bottleneck, resulting in slow, fitful delivery to consumers who had paid Netflix for the service and the ISPs for broadband access. Earlier this year, Comcast speeds turned up out of their nosedive when the company made a profitable deal with Netflix, but what about everyone else?

A recent story from ArsTechnica looks at the possible cause for a delay in a paid-peering deal between Netflix and two major ISPs whose customers are currently lucky if they are able to access Netflix at all — Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse.

As you can see from the Netflix-supplied chart above, U-Verse speeds have been sinking last September, rebounding slightly in February, but still barely watchable at below 1.7 Mbps.

Verizon FiOS speeds were actually improving until the fall of 2013, when they began to drop. Then between December and January — a time period that just happens to coincide with a federal court’s gutting of the FCC’s net neutrality rules — they sank like a wily coyote with an Acme safe around his ankle, and have continued to slide.

It’s been reported that Netflix is in talks to make a Comcast-like deal with these two companies, one that would either put Netflix servers in the ISPs’ data centers or give it more direct access to the ISPs network. But why haven’t there been any deals made?

The better question might be why did the Comcast deal come together when it did?

Ars reports that Comcast had initially wanted a significant amount of money ($.01 per GB) from Netflix, but that it ultimately settled for less than that in order to get the deal done in time to help make the company’s “We’re pro-consumer” case to regulators.

Additionally, as part of its previous acquisition of NBC Universal, Comcast has agreed to abide by the net neutrality rules through 2018, regardless of the court’s trashing of the guidelines. While allowing the Netflix bottlenecks is not explicitly in violation of those rules, the last thing Comcast wants when it’s trying to buy Time Warner Cable is additional scrutiny from regulators.

But Verizon and AT&T aren’t in the process of trying to acquire a major competitor, so they lack that motivation to capitulate on pricing or other Netflix demands.

Likewise, neither Verizon nor AT&T have a customer base the size of Comcast, so Netflix may think it can play chicken as it can better handle losing angry FiOS and U-Verse subscribers than those companies can.

One final thing to consider is that FiOS and U-Verse often exist in the few markets where there is some sort of competition for cable and Internet service, so Netflix may be banking that disgruntled subscribers may flee Verizon or AT&T for another company.

Rest assured that, barring more strenuous net neutrality rules that ban bottlenecks, these deals will be made at some point. But Netflix will go as long as it can before having to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for the access it once enjoyed without that toll, and the ISPs are going to try to get as much for access to their pipelines as possible.

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Last night, the season finale of “The Walking Dead” aired on AMC. Viewers were glued to their televisions as they always are during a major television event, but something terrible happened last night. In the Syracuse, NY area, the AMC signal cut out about 38 minutes into the broadcast.

Viewers were not pleased.

This is where I would make clever allusions to something in the show’s plotlines and compare it to the rage that people felt when their signal cut out, but the truth is that I was the person assigned to this story because I’ve never watched the show and thus wouldn’t be contaminated by spoilers.

The injustice of having an important program that you were looking forward to interrupted is something that we can all understand.

We haven’t heard yet whether Time Warner Cable has made an offer of gift cards as it did when the feeds of some customers in Los Angeles were interrupted during the halftime show of this year’s Super Bowl.

Incidentally, there is only one cable provider in most of the region where this happened: Time Warner Cable’s only competition are satellite providers and Verizon FiOS in the areas where it’s available.

Our apologies for issues with AMC. We are investigating issues and working to resolve it as quickly as possible.—

TWC Help (@TWC_Help) March 31, 2014

‘The Walking Dead’ season finale’s glitches outrage Time Warner Cable customers [Syracuse.com]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

For the past few years, a growing number of Walmart customers have complained about threadbare shelves, while Walmart workers say it’s a result of being understaffed and mismanaged. Now the nation’s largest retailer is admitting that it’s losing billions of dollars by trying to be cheap.

According to a recent BusinessWeek story, Walmart execs announced at a company meeting earlier this month that improving the level of merchandise that is in-stock and available for customers to buy is a top priority.

As Walmart workers told us last year, a number of Walmart stores have plenty of inventory in the back of the building, but some of it never reaches the floor because there are too few employees — or too many employees being directed to do non-shelving work — to keep shelves stocked.

Last fall, Walmart finally began to add some hours for employees to do more stocking work, but complaints from customers have not stopped.

At the company meeting, executives said they will add more hours in an effort to improve “in-store execution.” If it fails to make a change for the positive, the company figures to lose $3 billion a year.

Whether or not that works will likely depend on who they hire and how they treat the new hires. One Walmart worker told Consumerist that her store has a way of overwhelming new part-time hires with too much work, leading to a high level of turnover, meaning time is wasted training people over and over again.

Over the last five years, Walmart’s workforce has decreased in size, while the company has continued to open up stores in new locations around the country. We’ve been told that workers get a higher hourly wage to stock, but that many cashiers and other employees have been drafted into shelving duty during their regularly scheduled hours and without any bump in pay for that time.

Right now it’s a wait and see if Walmart’s latest plan will work. The condition of its shelves is one of those few things that a retailer can’t hide from consumers’ eyes.

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(Flying Photog)

Who do you think of when you imagine the chatty kind of person who might want to make phone calls in the middle of a crowded airplane, mid-flight? While your mental picture might land on a businessperson in a suit yelling something about mergers and Hong Kong markets and getting that deal done before they close, a trade group representing business travelers has come out against the idea.

The Global Business Travel Assn. submitted its official opposition to the Federal Communication Commission’s plan to possibly lift the ban on voice calls on planes, reports the Los Angeles Times.

That group represents about 6,000 travel managers and pegs the idea of calls on planes as “detrimental to business travelers.” And because everyone loves the late folk singer Pete Seeger, the group quoted him by saying “there is a time to keep silence and a time to speak.”

And while the average traveler certainly has a right to peace and quiet, business travelers carry a lot of financial heft and could have the power to sway any change in regulation: Business travel accounted for $491 billion in spending in 2012, the LAT reports, or about 3% of U.S. gross domestic product.

Both the FCC and the Department of Transportation closed commenting on the cellphone ban in mid-March, and looking at a survey of the DOT’s comments, it appears that most travelers loathe the idea of anyone gabbing in mid-air. Because whether it’s a conversation about the mergers and acquisitions or the guy next to you repeatedly cooing to his lady love that she’s his only iddle biddle pumpkin facey-wacey, no one wants to hear it.

Opponents of allowing cellphone calls on planes gain powerful ally [Los Angeles Times]

You can follow MBQ on Twitter and read any tweets quietly on a plane if that’s what you’re into: @marybethquirk

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

It probably isn’t necessary for us consumers to test the structural integrity of our condoms, but this video published last week features a bold Italian experimenter doing just that.

Yes, the man’s running commentary is in Italian, but you don’t need to understand every word in order to get what’s going on here.

What we’re not clear on is what Nutella adds to the fizzy reaction. We won’t argue that everything is better with Nutella, but we don’t really see what that adds, other than adding something Italian to the mix. Which it does, sorta.

Thanks to the magic of Google, you can watch the video with real-time subtitles here.

Coke + Nutella + Mentos + Durex ITALIA world record [YouTube]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(frankieleon)

In advance of Tuesday’s hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations regarding the ongoing recall of more than 2 million GM vehicles for ignition-related problems tied to at least 13 deaths, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has released a detailed timeline of events, including all the times at which the carmaker or regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could have alerted the public to the defect.

According to the report [PDF], there were multiple times that employees at either GM or NHTSA could have fixed the defect, but chose not to for one reason or another:

•2001 – 2002: As previously reported, internal GM documents show that it knew of a problem with the ignition in the 2003 Saturn Ion (one of the subsequently recalled vehicles) while the car was still in pre-production. Rather than halt production or stop using the defective ignition switches, GM continued to install them in the Ion and numerous other vehicles for several years.

•Nov. 2004 – Feb. 2005: As GM rolled out its 2005 Chevy Cobalt, it learned that “vehicle can be keyed off with knee while driving.” In early 2005, it opened an engineering inquiry into the issue. After deciding that the current switch was “very fragile,” and that it was “close to impossible to modify the present ignition switch,” the inquiry was closed with a decision of “no action.” The reasons given for the lack of action included a long lead time, high cost for repair, and that “[n]one of the solutions seems to fully countermeasure the possibility of the key being turned during driving.”

•May 2005: Because GM was being forced into buying back so many defective Cobalts, it opened another engineering inquiry only months after closing the first one. Engineers suggested a change to the key ring slot, but GM eventually decided against that tweak.

•July 2005: The driver of a 2005 Chevy Cobalt is killed in a crash in Maryland. A later Special Crash Investigation by NHTSA finds that the air bag did not deploy because the key had been turned to the “Accessory” setting.

•Dec. 2005: Rather than issue a recall for the known defect, which had resulted in numerous buy-backs, multiple complaints and at least one preventable death at this point, GM issues a Service Bulletin to dealers on the topic, advising them to tell drivers to remove heavy objects from keychains. The reason for the bulletin and not the recall? GM recently stated this was “the appropriate response to the reported incidents, given that the car’s steering and braking systems remained operational even after a loss of engine power, and the car’s engine could be restarted by shifting the car into either neutral or park.”

•April 2006: The GM engineer responsible for the ignition switch authorized Delphi, the manufacturer of the switch, to make changes in response to the complaints and accidents. The new parts would eventually show up starting with model year 2008 GM vehicles, but there was still no action taken to remedy the many cars on the road with the defective part. Additionally, the part number of the switch was never changed, which is why some newer GM vehicles may have inadvertently received faulty switches when having their cars repaired.

•Oct. 2006: Another driver of a 2005 Cobalt is killed in a crash. Once again, a NHTSA investigation determines that the air bags did not deploy, most likely because the key had been turned to “Accessory.”

• Sept. 2007 – Nov. 2007: The Chief of the Defects Assessment Division (DAD) within NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) emails other ODI officials to propose an investigation of “frontal airbag non-deployment in the 2003-2006 Chevrolet Cobalt/Saturn Ion.” At the time, GM maintained that it saw no problems with these cars.

The DAD chief made his presentation to an ODI panel — citing 29 Complaints, four fatal crashes,and 14 field reports — but the panel held there was no discernible trend and opted to not pursue a formal investigation.

• April 2009: The driver and passenger in a 2005 Cobalt were killed in a crash in Pennsylvania when their air bags fail to deploy. While a subsequent NHTSA investigation stated that the “cause of the air bag non-deployment in this severe crash could not be determined,” the report notes that once again the ignition was in the “Accessory” position.

•2010: NHTSA’s ODI panel again considers an investigation into the GM vehicles, but again concludes the data does not show any trend.

•2012 – 2013: GM conducts multiple tests on a wide range of vehicles and determines that the early Cobalts and Ions have ignition switches that do not meet the company’s minimal standards.

It is not until January of 2014, more than a dozen years after the problem was first detected and could have been stopped, that GM decides to recall approximately 1.6 million vehicles for a part that costs a few bucks and doesn’t take that long too replace.

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Bananas thrive in a subtropical climate: a place where the temperature is warm, the humidity is high, and there’s about twelve hours of sunlight per day. You know, like Ohio.

Like many people, Rob prefers to buy locally-grown produce when possible. “I was very excited to see that my local Wal-mart is now offering Ohio grown bananas,” he wrote to Consumerist. “At least I assume they mean that, given the ‘Ohio’s own’ sign.” Somehow, he thinks that these bananas weren’t grown right down the street.

Isn’t it because Chiquita is based on Cincinnati? Well, no: they took off for the warmer climate of Charlotte, North Carolina a few years ago. Not that you can grow bananas in Charlotte, either.

Banana Cultivation Guide [Helpful Advice]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(dno1967b)

While we applaud creativity in many endeavors, ripping off a store with a bit of trickery just to get some cash out of the deal is a no-no, clever though it might be. Or in the case of a man accused of scamming a Kohl’s store in St. Louis out of some cash, it’s only a matter of time before your ruse is spoiled.

See, the thing about retail stores is there’s usually some kind of record of its inventory, you know, the products it sells. Which is why employees eventually realized that a man who’d returned six pairs of sunglasses with Kohl’s price tags on them for $109 in cash wasn’t on the up and up — those glasses weren’t even sold at Kohl’s, reports KMOV.

Turns out the suspect allegedly bought six pairs of sunglasses at the Kohl’s store, then police say he went back to his car, took the price tags from those glasses and stuck them on five pairs he already owned.

He’s then accused of going back inside and returning the glasses that he hadn’t purchased there and getting the money. It was only a matter of time before employees realized “Hey, these aren’t our glasses,” and called the police.

It seems the suspect is still out there, perhaps returning more sunglasses he doesn’t own for more cash that’s not his. Be on the lookout.

Clever thief sought after scamming Arnold Kohl’s store [KMOV.com]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

This NY Times column from March 28 reads like it was written by Comcast’s PR department.

Yesterday, the NY Times’ “Common Sense” column demonstrated anything but common sense in a thinly veiled love letter to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, who is apparently the savior of cable TV and will somehow bestow wonderful, magically awesome levels of customer service on Time Warner Cable, if only those big-bad regulators in D.C. would just see what is so obviously a perfect deal for consumers. If only that were true.

Let’s look at author James B. Stewart’s article and try to figure out exactly how much Kabletown Kool-Aid he’s consumed…

1. Ignoring Comcast’s Role In Current State Of Cable TV

Early in the article, Comcast inheritor Roberts laments the current state of cable competition, in which a company’s presence is often determined by deals made with municipalities many moons ago.

“Cable is a relic of an antiquated model,” admits Roberts. “The result is we’re not in New York or Los Angeles. How great can that be?”

In a sense, he’s right. Comcast should have been in New York City and/or Los Angeles, but not as the sole provider like TWC is for much of those two cities. No, Comcast should have been able to compete with everyone else, giving consumers choice and compelling providers to compete on rates and customer service.

But Roberts can not wash his hands of the situation that he and his company-founding father before him played no small part in creating, and from which Comcast has benefited greatly.

Take the Philadelphia area, which has long been dominated by Comcast, but which used to have multiple other regional providers serving different parts of the region. In the last two decades, Comcast has gobbled up much of those companies, creating an effective monopoly in the area thanks to all those exclusivity deals each of the acquired providers had made in the ’70s and ’80s.

Furthermore, while Philly leadership pretends it’s about prettying up the city, a recent move to regulate and remove satellite dishes from buildings all around the city has Comcast written all over it.

And look at Boston, where the city is so ridiculously overrun by solely Comcast coverage that former Mayor Thomas Menino had to petition the FCC to allow the city to regulate the company’s soaring prices.

It is the cable industry, including Comcast, that sought these sorts of deals and guarantees, and which has allowed them to continue because they allow providers to get away with charging high rates and provide minimal customer service.

Roberts even admits as much later in the Times piece, when he says the only feasible way for Comcast to be a player in NYC is for it to buy Time Warner Cable, as it would be too expensive to run its own lines.

2. No One Asked Us…

Stewart then goes on to make a completely asinine statement implying about those who are against the Comcast merger:

The sheer size of the deal, and the intense public interest in unfettered Internet access, have galvanized an array of opponents, from Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, to the Consumers Union to the Writers Guild of America…I suspect few of them, if any, are Time Warner Cable customers.

Let’s just look at how utterly, absolutely stupid of a statement that is.

First, I’m not going to speak for my colleagues at Consumers Union, but I happen to know for a fact that they — and many other employees of Consumer Reports, including myself, and several other Consumerist writers — have had, or currently have, cable and Internet service from Time Warner Cable. It’s a company based in Yonkers, NY, which is only a few miles north of NYC and many of CR’s employees live in areas where TWC is the only option. A simple phone call or e-mail to anyone at the company would have told Mr. Stewart so.

And then there’s the Writers Guild, which has a large number of members in New York City (that’s why there is a WGA East office in Manhattan, Mr. Stewart. All those writers for Comcast’s own Saturday Night Live and Tonight Show are probably TWC customers. That’s not to mention all the people who write for the soap operas, talk shows, and the various series that film in NYC. Again, I’m sure someone at the Guild, or the use of the author’s much-touted common sense, would have figured this one out.

I don’t know Sen. Franken’s current living situation, but I do believe he’s lived in NYC at some point in the past 25 years, since he used to broadcast his Air America radio show from Manhattan, and worked on Saturday Night Live in the early ’90s, which means he’s likely to have been a TWC customer at some point.

3. Personal Bias Is A Bad Measuring Stick

Let’s just assume that Mr. Stewart’s ill-informed attempt to discredit merger critics were based in actual fact and that none of these people concerned about a merger between the nation’s two largest cable and Internet providers have ever had to deal with TWC’s horrendous service.

What does that matter?

Did one need to be either an AT&T or T-Mobile customer to oppose that failed merger? Does he think that members of the FCC and the DOJ are going to say, “Well, I can’t be part of this decision because I’m a DirecTV gal”?

In fact, it may be best if the people making the decision have minimal experience with either provider, as their personal biases can’t get in the way. The last thing I want is some regulator deciding they will approve this merger because they once got double-billed by Time Warner Cable and somehow think this merger will stop such nonsense from happening in the future (Spoiler Alert: It won’t).

Speaking of which…

4. The Grass Is Always Slightly Less Brown

Stewart seems to be living under the delusion that Comcast’s customer service couldn’t possibly be worse than TWC’s. He even cites J.D. Power regional ratings to back up his point, saying that TWC was the lowest-rated in almost every region for its pay TV service. And this is indeed true.

A summary of the JD Power ratings for Comcast and TWC’s pay-TV services. We’ve circled all the instances in which the two companies scored the same or in which TWC outscored Comcast. Note that neither company managed to do better than a 3 on the JD Power scale, indicating a score of “About Average.” Click chart for full-size.

What the author at the venerated newspaper omits is a link to the JD Power study, as that would show that Comcast performed just as poorly half of the time, and the instances in which Comcast outscored Time Warner Cable, it did so only marginally (a fact Stewart waits until the very end of the story to even mention before allowing Roberts to shrug it off with all the awesome super-rad tech that will help curmudgeonly Stewart finally find Mad Men on his cable listings… Kids today!). Nowhere in the seven rated categories for each of the four regions does either company score better than “About Average.”

And you’ll notice that of all the companies that rank or rate TV and Internet providers, Stewart cherry-picks one that sort of helps to make the case that Time Warner Cable is a bad company.

In fact, there are multiple sources that would have indicated the same thing, but which would have also shown that Comcast is just as bad, if not worse.

Circling back once again to our colleagues at Consumer Reports, whose recent survey of telecom providers turned up equally bad results for the two merger partners, and where Comcast received especially low marks for customer support.

Recent data from Netflix showing how Verizon and Comcast have allowed its downstream speeds to slow to a crawl during the last half of 2013, while TWC continued to provide adequate support for the service. Click for full-size chart.

Stewart conveniently left out this information from Netflix, showing that Time Warner Cable downstream speeds have remained sufficient, and even improved, during the months that the all-great Comcast passive-aggressively throttled Netflix content by allowing it to bottleneck until the Internet’s biggest traffic consumer decided to pay the toll.

And the folks at the American Customer Satisfaction Index, whose latest ratings of pay-TV companies and ISPs showed both Comcast and Time Warner Cable bringing up the rear in the two categories. Comcast was the bottom-scraper when it came to Internet service, while it allowed TWC the honor of being the caboose on the pay-TV train.

Neither company has provided any shred of evidence that customer service, billing, or reliability will improve post-merger. There has been lip-service paid to the notion that by combining their assets, they will be better able to invest in much-needed resources.

But given the potholed track record of these two companies, why would we have any reason to believe that savings on manpower, networks, maintenance, and content will be reinvested in improving customer service when all a merger would do would be to create an even larger company with minimal competition and even fewer reasons to provide competitive rates or customer service?

5. The Myth Of Geographic Overlap

Here’s the argument you hear repeatedly from Stewart and other cheerleaders for this merger: Comcast and Time Warner Cable don’t currently overlap, so it’s not really creating a monopoly.

It’s a valid point, and one that those opposed to the merger will have to repeatedly rebut in the coming months, but it’s a deflection of the bigger issues involved here.

Because the cable industry has virtually no competition — even the large satellite companies can’t compete in providing broadband services — they can get away with things like unexplained rate increases; new fees for old products and services; using customers as hostages in blackout battles with broadcasters.

Far from giving Comcast a reason to pass savings on to customers, a nearly doubled subscriber base could actually provide the company with an incentive to continue nickel-and-diming customers. An extra dollar a month from 30 million customers is a nice chunk of change at the end of the year. Data caps and usage-based pricing for Internet users would be a gold mine for the merged company, especially with consumers having few-to-no options for broadband service.

Stewart mocks the notion put forth by law professor and author Susan Crawford, among others, that a merged Comcast/TWC would create a “monopsony,” a company that would effectively be negotiating with vendors on behalf of an entire industry. The mega-provider would be able to demand the absolute lowest rates from networks and other providers, which Stewart sees as only resulting in good, claiming the future Comcast-zilla “has an incentive to pass at least some of those savings on to customers to increase demand for its services with lower prices.”

Again, we ask where he’s imagining this incentive coming from? If Comcast has no competition and customers can’t get their Internet and TV service elsewhere, why on Earth would the company not continue to chisel away at subscribers’ wallets?

6. Who Cares About The Broadcasters?

Continuing on with the discussion of creating a monopsony, the Comcast ad in the Time — because that’s what it is: a huge, effectively sponsored, story that only cost Comcast a few bucks to get Stewart to Philly and show him around its shimmering USB drive on JFK Blvd. — rightfully points out that antitrust law is intended to protect consumers, so why should anyone care about broadcasters and other content creators not getting their full due?

“It’s hard to imagine that the wildly popular ESPN or Netflix needs protection from regulators in Washington,” writes Stewart, ignoring the ripple effects and other problems associated with monopsony.

Say Comcast goes to Sony to discuss online streaming rates for it’s TV and movie studios’ content. The mega-company, which not only has cable customers, but Internet users, and a built-in TV audience on a major broadcast network, multiple news channels, and a slew of cable offerings, could use that leverage to guarantee it pays a lower rate than anyone else in the industry. This drives up rates for competitors, who either pass that cost on to customers or who have to be more selective about what they license for their customers’ use.

It provides a barrier for entry to startup companies or new ventures from existing companies; makes it harder for smaller, regional providers to grow and compete; and could drive some companies — on both the content and provider side — out of business. Less choice, higher prices. That’s a consumer issue, Mr. Stewart.

Additionally, cable companies are the gatekeepers for much of the information entering Americans’ homes. With no current net neutrality rules, a cable company can literally decide what its customers can and can’t see. Even though Comcast is still obligated to oblige by the recently gutted rules through 2018, the above-referenced Netflix standoff shows that it has the means and the leverage to get around such weak-kneed regulations.

7. Someday My Cable Prince Will Come…

Stewart makes the fallacious claim of an “array of consumer television and broadband options” available to consumers, disregarding all studies showing that very few people have access to more than one cable provider; that satellite TV customers generally need a cable company to get broadband; that Verizon has stated publicly that it has no immediate plans to build out its FiOS fiber network into new areas of the country.

He even made me laugh a bit by speculating that Google may bring its Google Fiber network to New York City at some point in the next millennium. Verizon, which has the poles and the existing landline network all in place, has been trying to wire that city for years with FiOS and has barely made a dent in Manhattan and many of the more populated areas of the city.

I actually did a spit-take when Stewart tossed out the suggestion that Sprint’s pie-in-the-sky plan to provide wireless broadband service would someday be a viable non-cable option for consumers. At this point, that idea exists only in the speeches that SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son gives to make the case for his own desired merger of Sprint and T-Mobile USA. Yes, widespread broadband Internet seems like an inevitable future for data to the home, but it’s unlikely to come from any of the major wireless providers who are currently too busy enjoying their tiered data plans and their associated overage fees. And the notion that Sprint, which has not been able to keep up with its competitors in terms of speed and reliability, would be the superhero to swoop in and provide competition to New Yorkers is just ludicrous.

You simply can’t wipe away all the problems with this merger with a few glib, biased complaints about how much you currently hate Time Warner Cable. You can’t say that the deal won’t create a monopoly because there already is one. You can’t pin your hopes for future competition on what-ifs and maybes.

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(spidra)

Back in 2011, Comcast launched a program to help low-income families. The program, Comcast Internet Essentials, lets certain families enroll in 5 MBps broadband for $10 a month. In timing that was completely coincidental we’re sure, shortly after announcing their plan to buy Time Warner Cable, Comcast announced an indefinite extension to the program.

It’s not the first time that Comcast has waved the flag of its commitment to underserved populations right as regulators were poised to take a fine-toothed comb to its business dealings. Internet Essentials is now here to stay — but who does it really serve?

The Internet Essentials program is aimed at helping a niche that badly needs help.

Let’s say this up front, and clearly: expanding broadband access to lower-income households is a laudable and deeply necessary goal. In 2014, internet access is basically how everyone does everything. Need to apply for a job? Do it online. Need to access state and federal services? Do it online. Need to contact a school, do your homework, research something? Do it online.

Internet access isn’t just about the newest in entertainment (though it is that, too). It’s access to jobs, to education, to commerce, to news and information, to friends and family, and basically to the entire world at large. Being locked out of it due to high prices can be crippling in a hundred little ways, especially to a family with children who may be falling academically and socially behind their more moneyed peers.

The gap of the digital divide is real, and it’s persistent. The Pew Internet Project has tracked internet access for years. On average, 85% of Americans access the internet. But an average is just that: averaged. Breaking down the data by household income, on the other hand, highlights the disparity.

Broadband internet access by income, via The Pew Internet Project.

Pew’s research, from last fall, shows just how big that divide is, and the correlation is undeniable: the more money you make, the more likely you are to have broadband internet access.

Given how expensive a utility broadband can be, it’s not surprising that workers hanging onto the lowest rung of the economic latter have trouble buying into it. But as digital tools become more and more prevalent in the classroom, kids who aren’t well-versed in them are at a distinct disadvantage for catching up to their classmates.

So with Internet Essentials, Comcast really is trying to fill in service for a segment of the population that generally goes underserved. 300,000 families are using the service, according to Comcast’s most recent progress report, and that’s 300,000 families who weren’t connected before.

That’s the good news. Now here’s the rest.

There aren’t as many families benefiting from Internet Essentials as there could be.

While it’s great that over a quarter million families have enrolled, it could be a lot more. But somehow, Comcast just keeps managing to stand in its own way.

There are two major obstacles to getting low-income families enrolled in the program, according to outreach workers. The first is is the set of eligibility requirements Comcast lays out. To enroll in Internet essentials, families must:

• Be located where Comcast offers Internet service


• Have at least one child eligible to participate in the National School Lunch Program


• Have not subscribed to Comcast Internet service within the last 90 days


• Not have an overdue Comcast bill or unreturned equipment

Of those four requirements, that 90-day requirement is apparently the biggest stumbling block. Families who were overextending themselves to pay for a full-price Comcast package have to go completely without all service for three full months in order to reduce their costs. 90 days is a full semester of the school year — a long time for a family to cut itself off.

The other barrier is the enrollment process itself: Internet Essentials is separate from Comcast’s standard service. It uses a different website and phone number for enrollment and information. Consumers who call Comcast’s regular line and try to ask for the cheap internet generally get shunted into some kind of promotional triple-play package. Comcast representatives don’t redirect callers to the other phone number.

So the consumers most likely to be able correctly to sign up for Internet Essentials are high-information consumers who have the time and resources to use the internet to research how to get the best choice in internet access. And the target user of Internet Essentials is a lower-information consumer, potentially with education and/or language barriers, who doesn’t necessarily have the time and resources, or internet access, to do all the research over best choices.

It’s not just the enrollment that has a mismatch between “service on offer” and “needs that need filling.” Comcast has been touting their partnership with Khan Academy as a way to provide more free online education to low-income families… and while that sounds nice, the truth is, low-income kids aren’t the ones really using streaming online courses. College-educated men are.

Comcast benefits far more than low-income families do.

The other main problem with Internet Essentials is that it’s crap. A download speed of “up to 5 Mbps” is, by the standards of 2014, painfully slow. Those fancy online educational tools that are supposedly the main benefit of the program? Many of them don’t work so well on that connection.

In other words, Comcast is giving their low-income customers access to what they pay for — not access on par with what most other Comcast customers can buy. It’s both a fifth of the cost and a fifth of the service.

The focus on families with children eligible for free or reduced lunch is also a big problem with the program. Pew found that “internet non-users are heavily dominated by older adults.” No kids at home? No connection.

And what about when those kids grow up? Eligibility is directly tied to having children in the home. When Junior, thanks to his reduced-rate Comcast connection, graduates from high school and gets a full scholarship to State U, will Mom and Pop back home still be able to get e-mails from him? Slate wondered about that in a piece questioning Comcast’s motives back in January. Comcast exec David L. Cohen immediately fired back with a complete non-answer:

“As to the issue of families losing access when kids graduate, the piece ignores our commitment to continue to offer Internet Essentials to any family so long as there is a single eligible child in the household.”

And as to the issue of families losing access when kids graduate, the executive ignores families’ commitment to not producing infinite children, and eventually having a youngest who turns 18 and graduates, thus ending the parents’ eligibility.

Comcast, meanwhile, is not acting out of a sense of charity or philanthropy. They’re satisfting federal requirements to help bring broadband access to the poor. And Internet Essentials is only available where Comcast already operates — so Comcast isn’t spending a dime to run infrastructure to any place where it doesn’t already exist.

They sure get to benefit from looking philanthropic, though. Community outreach is a huge part of Comcast’s extensive lobbying efforts. And in looking to gain the blessing of federal regulators on their impending buyout of Time Warner Cable, “benefit to the community” is one of their best cards to play.

If Comcast succeeds in buying out TWC, they can argue, then that means they can expand the Internet Essentials program to 19 of the 20 biggest cities in the country. Since broadband access is a huge factor in the merger, Comcast wins from being able to claim that expanding their reach equals reducing the digital divide. If the poor and underserved get to benefit just as much as executives do well the merger must be a good idea, right? Right?!

And of course, every added customer for Comcast is, well, another customer for Comcast. Although actual provider choice and competition are terrible for everyone, options can be even more limited for lower-income families. It’s not just for reasons of cost; it’s because they’re generally renters, not property owners. Renters in multi-unit buildings generally have exactly one choice for TV and internet access: the company their landlord has signed a contract with.

Having Internet Essentials gives Comcast the leverage to go to a community and say, “we have this low-income program; sign more contracts with us so we can help disadvantaged families in your area.” And cities do. More reach, more leverage, less competition: a win all around for Comcast.

So is it just window-dressing?

Just because Comcast gets to win all around, of course, doesn’t mean low-income families have to lose. A terrible internet connection is still better than no internet connection, and over a quarter million families probably are better off now than they were before. That’s not a bad thing.

But as often happens with Comcast, the good news they’re selling isn’t the whole story. When it comes to the digital divide, and to fairly serving the underserved, there’s a long way yet to go.

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

We post a lot of stories during the week, and we know that most of you have jobs, families, lives, hobbies, nagging itches and other more important things to do than read every single thing we write. So for those who might be playing catch-up on the weekend, here are some of the things you might have missed…

FEATURE STORIES:

•Fraudulent WEBLEARN Debit/Credit Card Charges Possibly Linked To Earlier “$9.84″ Scam

•Despite Regulations, Survivors Face Foreclosures After Reverse Mortgage Borrower’s Death

•Why You Should Care That Facebook Spent $2 Billion To Buy Oculus

•Drug Companies Say They Won’t Sell Antibiotics For Non-Medical Use In Animals, But Are They Telling The Truth?

•4 Out Of 5 Payday Loans Are Made To Consumers Caught In Debt Trap

•15 Things Everyone (Including Renters) Should Know About Homeowner’s Insurance

TELECOM & NET NEUTRALITY:

•Verizon: Everything Is Great, Let’s Not Mess It Up By Fixing Net Neutrality

•It’s Not Just You: Pretty Much Everyone Hates Their TV & Internet Providers, Survey Finds

•AT&T Promises: Kill Net Neutrality And You’ll Pay Less For Internet

FOOD:

•10 Meaty Secrets Of The Steakhouse

•Let’s Just Call The Burger-Within-A-Burger What It Is: A 10,000-Calorie Stack Of Meat & Cheese

•Pizza With 90 Slices Of Jalapeno Pepperoni Has Advertisers Sweating Over Its Naughty Name

ONGOING COVERAGE:

•Complete coverage of the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger and why it’s bad for consumers

•The latest stories on the ongoing GM ignition recall

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(Theo Curmudgeon)

Not a good way to end the week for General Motors, which not only added 971,000 vehicles to the ignition-related recall that had already been issued for 1.6 million car, it also confirmed that the defect is indeed tied to 13 deaths.

While the previous recall had stopped with model-year 2007 vehicles, the additional recall affects 2008-10 Chevrolet Cobalts, 2008-11 Chevrolet HHRs, 2008-10 Pontiac Solstices, 2008-10 Pontiac G5s and 2008-10 Saturn Sky vehicles.

The concern is that some of these newer vehicles may have been repaired using the same defective ignition switches that were used in the older cars. GM believes that only about 5,000 of the 971,000 cars will actually need an update, but says it is adding these cars out of caution.

Initial reports about the GM recall had tied the defect — in which the ignition switch can turn back into the “off” position unexpectedly, making vehicles difficult to control or stop, and deactivates the air bags — to 13 deaths, but GM would only confirm a dozen.

Detroit News reports that Transport Canada had been investigating the June 2013 incident involving the crash of a 2007 Cobalt in Quebec, but that GM confirmed on Friday that a failure of the ignition was indeed involved in the fatal incident.

This recall expansion comes the day after GM directed its dealers to stop selling their current inventories of Chevy Cruze vehicles with 1.4-liter turbo engines. The carmaker has yet to make public the reason for this move, but stop-sale orders are sometimes given in advance of safety recalls.

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(Groupon)

Groupon is running a shady deal, readers told us. They recently sent a 20% off coupon code to customers, promising 20% off a local deal. Neat. Jenny nabbed three $12 vouchers for a local store, spending only $18. Yet her 20% coupon only got her a discount of $1.20. She was disappointed that it was only taking ten percent off, and complained to Groupon and to us. The deal, it turns out, wasn’t shady at all.

“They sent me a response back that sounded like they didn’t even read my email, and of course they didn’t fix it,” she wrote to Consumerist. “Thought their customers should know.”

We conferred with Groupon’s media relations, and learned what really happened here. First, the coupon can only apply to one voucher; she bought three. A lot of customers probably missed that bit of fine print.

Here’s where the misunderstanding comes in, though: $1.20 is 20% off. That’s the discount that she’s getting off the amount that she paid for the Groupon, not the redeemable value at the store.

Things got confusing when we heard from Meghan, who was trying to use the same fab coupon to buy some kayak lessons. She got 20% off one lesson. That would be fair, and well within the rules of this sale, except for how this particular deal works. Instead of buying a single voucher that gets her four lessons, it’s set up so that each hour is a separate voucher, and the minimum purchase possible is 4.

That wouldn’t be a problem, except that the policy where you can only use the coupon on one voucher still applies. “I’m not a math whiz,” she wrote to Consumerist, “but I was thinking 20% off of 40.00 would be closer to $32.00 or $8.00 off?” Your math teachers did well: that is what the deal was supposed to be.

We’re still waiting to hear back from Groupon about Meghan’s deal. We’ll update this post when we hear something back.

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

(twofishblu)

This might seem like a completely backwards question, especially when you consider the recent mega-breach of credit and debit card numbers at Target. But it could be that the wider adoption of credit cards and electronic payments contributed to huge decreases in crime rates in the United States in the 1990s.

Cards, after all, have built-in fraud protection: if someone takes your cards in a good old-fashioned mugging, you can report them stolen and limit your liability. That’s certainly not the case for cash.

A recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found some ideal data to figure out whether less use of cash really does decrease crime. The now-familiar Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards that replaced paper welfare checks in the 1990s rolled out in different parts of Missouri at different times. As people living in impoverished neighborhoods no longer have to cash their checks and carry large amounts of cash around, street crime should decrease. Right?

That is indeed what happened. The overall crime rate went down 16.6%, and rates of assault and larceny fell as well. What the change didn’t affect was the incidence of robbery: maybe, the researchers speculate, because robberies are relatively rare compared to lesser street crimes, so having less cash circulating in the local economy doesn’t affect the rate of robberies very much.

Less Cash, Less Crime: Evidence from the Electronic Benefit Transfer Program [NBER]

As Cash Use Drops, Do Crime Rates Follow? [Bloomberg Businessweek]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Round Two action continued today, with two Worst Company tournament newcomers each taking on established WCIA vets. In the end, one of those freshmen fighters was sent packing, while the other managed to eke out a victory against a company who has left such an indelible mark on the tournament’s history that it belongs in the WCIA Runner-Up Hall of Something That Rhymes With Fame But Means The Opposite.

SEAWORLD VS. TICKETMASTER

For the last four or five tournaments, Ticketmaster was a lock to make it all the way to the Final Four. The company even had a shot at the Final Death Match back in 2010 before losing out to Comcast. Any hopes for Ticketmaster making another run at the Golden Poo in 2014 were dashed this afternoon when it lost a buzzer-beater to tournament upstart SeaWorld.

SeaWorld had an impressive WCIA debut in Round One, sending Johnson & Johnson home without even a Tylenol for its pain, but today’s match was much closer, with the controversial theme park operator not even able to get 53% of the vote against the combined powers of Ticketmaster and Live Nation. SeaWorld will test the time-tested theory that everyone hates banks when it goes up against Chase in the quarterfinals.

WALMART VS. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH

In Round One, Abercrombie pulled off a huge upset, handily beating Delta Air Lines (and looking good while doing it). But all that hair-mussing must have taken the overly-scented wind out of A&F’s sails, as the clothing retailer got the ever-living crud beaten out of it by WCIA powerhouse Walmart in today’s Round Two match.

The nation’s largest retailer took home more than two-thirds of the vote today, but it will have a much more difficult mountain to climb when it faces two-time tournament runner-up (and one-time winner if you include the Golden Poo given to Countrywide many moons ago), Bank of America in the quarterfinals.

We’re halfway through Round Two. Voting resumes on Monday morning!

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Dig in. (Tampa Bay Rays on Twitter)

Over at the Tampa Bay Rays clubhouse, or wherever baseball people hang out (a clubhouse makes sense, right?) I imagine there was a conversation after the Arizona Diamondbacks revealed its 18-inch, $25 corndog stuffed with cheese and bacon. And it went a little something like this…

“Isn’t that cute? They want people to pay for something excessively extravagant! Let’s turn this game up.”

And thus, the team’s Fan vs. Food challenge was born in the name of a bit of friendly inter-league competition: The Rays are pushing a promo where whoever can eat an entire four-pound burger and its accompany pound of fries can win two tickets to a game, plus a T-shirt to replace the one you’re going to split wide open in the pursuit of that reward.

Let’s take a look at the uncropped version, just to get a real feeling for the scale of meat involved here:

by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

We wouldn’t trust the suggestion to sleep in the Atlantic Ocean even if there’s “tasty salt water for free.”

Sometimes you just need a nap. A refreshing, wake-up-invigorated-to-tackle-the-rest-of-your-day nap. But what happens when you’re not at home and are unfamiliar with the best place to lay your head? Fear not, because a pair of Dutch developers have the solution: Google Naps.

Google Naps, a parody of Google Maps (obviously), aims to uncover “the world’s coziest and coolest places to take a well-deserved nap,” The Next Web reports.

The program uses your computer or device’s location (it won’t work if you deny it access to your location, and you can’t do a search, both of which are definite negatives) and overlays user-submitted data on the best nearby napping spots. Napping locations are depicted with yellow icons sitting on benches, fields, beds and bridges.

Users can submit the best places to take a snooze in all corners of the world from China to South Africa, so you’ll never be without a comfortable place to catch a few Zs again. Although it doesn’t appear that the locations are vetted by anyone; there are a number of spots located in the ocean or submitted by users with innuendoes as names.

A quick search in our area of Washington, D.C., and you’ll find a plethora of options. Okay, so you might not want to actually nap in these places, but the user-submitted “Why should I sleep here?” rationalizations are at least good for a little laugh.

Our personal favorite is a bench outside the Federal Trade Commission offices because as one user named Snoozer puts it “Federal Trade Commission – cares about consumer welfare.”

“Federal Trade Commission – cares about consumer welfare.”

If you’re tired from doing all sorts of touristy things you can “hang out with Obama” on a bench near the White House. (The benches may exist, but we doubt the Prez will be power-napping on any of them during his lunch hour.)

If you like to be one with nature, you might prefer a field near Meridian Hill Park where there’s “lots of shade from the trees. Also fresh water from the pond.”

We may have found one area where Google Naps could be useful – college capuses.

It appears that users in Columbia, MO, have gone to town locating the best napping places at the University of Missouri.

“Nice view overlooking the quad.” – from Columbia, Missouri.

We’re not sure how long Google Naps will be around, but the developers are hoping the real Google Maps doesn’t take offense to the parody site.

Hello, please don’t be mad this is just a joke, a parody. We don’t mean to damage your brand or anything, we just want to bring a smile on the faces of Google fans. So please don’t take this to court, we only have a few hundred Euros in the bank. And we also don’t want to go to jail because we’re too busy with other things at the moment. But whenever you are in the Netherlands you can have a nap on our couch if you want, just e-mail us. We can also make coffee and bake eggs if you like that (for a small price).

If history is any indicator (remember, Dumb Starbucks?) it won’t be long until the parody developers hear from Google.

Google Naps: a parody of Google Maps that helps you find the best places for a snooze [The Next Web]

by prakash chandra via Consumerist