Thursday, July 31, 2014

जनता का आदमी


As anyone with bad eyesight could probably tell you, having options when it comes to the cost of contact lenses is extremely important. Just ask my fiance, because apparently I have “very expensive eyes.” I’ll take that as a compliment, but the idea that I won’t have the opportunity to find the best priced lenses next time I fill my prescription is a very real possibility, and one that’s already hurting some of the 35 million consumers who wear contacts.


On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel met to consider whether decisions by three of the four major U.S. contact lens makers to set price floors for their products constitutes anticompetitive behavior by limiting competition and possibly resulting in higher prices, Reuters reports.


The moves by Alcon, owned by Novartis AG; Bausch & Lomb, owned by Valeant Pharmaceuticals; and Johnson & Johnson – the maker of Acuvue brand lenses – prevent many low-cost retailers (think 1-800-CONTACTS) from discounting their lenses.


The new policies bring up several questions surrounding the motivation of these producers. Two antitrust experts tell Reuters there’s a chance the companies see the price floors as a way to give optometrists an incentive to prescribe their lenses instead of a competitors’ lenses, possibly creating a kickback of sorts.


Contact lens makers, discount retailers, industry trade groups and and our colleague, Consumers Union senior policy counsel George Slover, offered their opinions during the subcommittee’s testimony Wednesday.


Joe Zeidner, general counsel for from 1-800-CONTACTS, told the committee that the decision by the lens makers would undoubtedly run up prices for consumers.


“They (consumers) will see higher prices. They will lose their ability to shop around,” Zeidner said.


Slover testified [PDF] that there really is no reason for such a provision to be implemented to begin with.


“In any event, the new practice constitutes an antitrust violation from a legal standpoint, from a practical standpoint it is anti-competitive to refuse to allow discounting,” he said. “Consumers are denied more affordable alternatives. They pay more than they need to, and sellers who would like to make those affordable alternatives available are denied the opportunity to do so. That’s not good for consumers, however you look at it.”


Officials with Johnson & Johnson testified that while the company discontinued discounts, they lowered prices of their products.


“By instituting uniform pricing, lowering our prices and making the process by which we make those prices available, we believe we can better compete in contact lens market,” Millicent Knight, an official with Johnson and Johnson said.


It’s hard to fathom HOW J&J could “better compete,” given that it is already controls 47.1% of the contact lens market.


Alcon was the first company to jump on the idea of price floors last summer. The other two makers followed suit, with Johnson & Johnson discontinuing rebates when its policy went into effect this summer.


A spokesperson for Novartis, the company behind Alcon, tells Reuters that the company implemented its new price floor policy to combat the practice of so-called “showrooming” where optometrists educate patients on a product only to have them go to an online retailer to purchase at a lower price.


All three makers hold a significant portion of the contact lens market, while industry officials estimate that only about 10% of contacts are sold online.


Those online retailers are trying to brace themselves for the effect of the new pricing model by urging consumers to stock up.


contacts


One Consumerist reader sent over an email he received from 1-800-CONTACTS notifying him of the changes.


“A new policy, known as Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), is being implemented by many contact lens manufacturers. This policy regulates the lowest price we can sell their lenses for and will cause the overall price of contact lenses to increase with the elimination of sales, rebates and discounts.


“In the next day or so, we will be sending you additional information as well as an opportunity to stock up on your brand using discounts and rebates before they are no longer available.”


The letter goes on to list a number of Acuvue brand contact lenses that will be effected by the pricing change starting August 1.


“In a truly competitive market, if one manufacturer tries this kind of rigid pricing, another would step in and take advantage, appealing to cost-conscious consumers with a lower price,” explains Slover. “Yet that kind of competition could now be absent in the contact lens industry. We hope antitrust enforcers will take a close look at these anti-consumer industry practices.”


U.S. Senate panel to look into price setting for contact lenses [Reuters]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

papa-johns-spicy-pulled-pork-pizzaSure, summer is a time for eating barbecue, but we’re not so sure that it should be a time for strange barbecue mashups in our chain pizzerias. Yet Papa John’s is taking what we can only assume is mediocre pulled pork and slathering it on their bland, salty pizza.


Well, that isn’t fair. I am not a particular fan of Papa John’s, but clearly a lot of people like or at least tolerate their pizza. Brand Eating reports that in addition to “Carolina-style” pulled pork, the pizza also features pepper jack (not pepper Jill) cheese and crushed red pepper.


The pulled pork pizza will be a limited-time offering, only in stores until August 24th.


News: Papa John’s – New Spicy Pulled Pork Pizza [Brand Eating]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


I’m not here to burst your happy grilling bubble, but come on — can you really consider yourself a master of the art of grilling if you haven’t tried cooking with hot lava? What about lightning? Maybe. But bending the forces of nature to do your culinary bidding? There’s no topping that, at least not yet. Call me when you beat an egg with a tornado.


Don’t feel too ashamed, my fellow normal people who do not have access to hot lava or lightning on demand, it’s not like Pat and Terry next door are going to top you anytime soon, as these two methods aren’t things anyone should be trying at home.


Over at DesignBoom, however, a video made by a London-based creative team knowns as Bompas & Parr shows how it could be done if you’ve got the right tools: An artificial volcano, allowing grillers to get molten hot liquid to 2,100 degrees using an industrial furnace, an ice flue and dry ice.


The resulting stream of hot lava flows beneath a normal grilling surface to cook steak and corn on the cob, basically instantly roasting both foods.


The B&P team also cooked with lightning, using a high-voltage laboratory that again, isn’t going to be easy to replicate but is super cool.


I don’t even have to warn you not to try this at home, because unless you happen to have the abovementioned tools or live on top of an active volcano (in which case you’d have other things to worry about besides ribeyes), you’re not going to be able to top Pat and Terry next door anyway. But it’s still fun to watch.



B&P Cook Out from robert wysocki on Vimeo.




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


While marijuana has been legal in Washington state since the beginning of this year, it’s not like the streets are filled with people lighting up bongs and toking on pipes. Because if you do, you’re going to get a ticket for public marijuana use. That being said, the Seattle Police Department says one officer has been reassigned after apparently going a bit ticket-happy and issuing about 80% of the city’s pot citations so far this year.


Chief Kathleen O’Toole of the Seattle PD writes on the department’s web site that the first biannual report on marijuana enforcement shows that 66 of 83 marijuana tickets were issued by just one officer.


He added notes to the tickets requesting the attention of City Attorney Peter Holmes in some cases, addressed to “Petey Holmes,” writes O’Toole.


In other cases, the officer added notes that he flipped a coin to decide which smoking citizen to cite, or referenced the changes to marijuana laws as “silly.”


Because of the above incidents, O’Toole says he’s been reported to the Office of Professional Oversight and has been reassigned — meaning he won’t be on patrol duties while the matter is under investigation.


“Please know that officers who perform professional and constitutional police service and enforcement will always have my full support,” she writes, in a bit of a “HINT HINT don’t do this, got it?”


Officer Reassigned Following Investigation Into Marijuana Citations [Seattle Police Department]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


Broadband data caps might not be affecting everyone just yet, but that could easily change as the current wave of ISP merger mania continues. A preliminary government report taking a look at data caps, both wired and wireless, was released this week. It finds that ISPs and subscribers are far from being on the same page when it comes to how much data consumers move.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), at the behest of Rep. Anna Eshoo of California, looked at broadband data caps by examining ISPs policies, conducting focus groups with the public, and interviewing tech experts and public interest advocacy groups.


The report (PDF) is still preliminary; the final version won’t be released until November. Even so, though, the report is a good gauge of the pitfalls and potential benefits of usage-based pricing plans. The short version? Consumers don’t feel they’re getting all of the info they need, and are worried about their home and mobile broadband providers soaking them for extra cash.


1.) Everyone expects limited data on their phone; nobody wants it on their home network.

The GAO looked at four mobile carriers and 13 wireline ISPs. All of the wireless companies employed metered data usage, but only seven of the 13 traditional broadband companies did.


In all eight focus groups the GAO conducted, participants “expressed strong negative reactions” to the idea of metered or capped broadband at home. Consumers observed that the internet is increasingly important to all aspects of their lives and that having reduced access could be harmful, particularly to students, telecommuters, and lower-income households.


They also did not want to have to worry about data usage at home, after years or even decades of being used to unlimited access. And participants also worried that ISPs would use broadband caps as a way of jacking up prices for internet service.


2.) Consumers are confused about how much data they use, and the tools ISPs provide aren’t helping.

The focus group participants expressed confusion about how much data usage different sites and applications actually require. For example, the report says that consumers were afraid that leaving social media sites like Facebook or Twitter open all day, or doing a heavy amount of online shopping, would run them into trouble with potential data caps. (Both are actually comparatively low-data activities.) Some participants also said that having many users in their households, with multiple devices each, posed additional challenges in correctly tracking data use.


Although the ISPs customer service representatives and websites provided data-usage estimates, the GAO found that those estimates weren’t consistent. They also found that “hidden” data usage, like system and software updates, accounts for up to 30% of home data use and is trending upward. As a result, consumers don’t necessarily have the information they need to subscribe to the right plan, and may pay for data they don’t need or face surprise overage charges.


3.) Consumers aren’t sure how their carriers handle excessive data usage.

The report finds that focus group participants with wireless data plans often expressed uncertainty about plan details such as their data allowance, and about whether their plans were subject to throttling. However, when it came to mobile data most participants were not concerned that their plans had data caps; instead, they were mainly focused on avoiding extra charges.


The GAO also found that among seven the wireline broadband ISPs with caps, every company handled theirs a little differently. Some imposed overage charges for extra chunks of data, some granted discounts for low usage, and some claimed to have caps but didn’t actually do anything about it at all when customers went over.


4.) Neither wired nor wireless carriers have yet found the sweet spot to meet their customers’ needs with lower-cost options.

When it comes to mobile broadband, the GAO reports that the median wireless customer uses about 102 Mb per month of data on their plan — and yet only a small fraction of subscribers to one of the wireless carriers use a 500 Mb plan. That suggests that a not-insubstantial number of consumers, afraid of ever meeting an overage charge or cut-off, are paying for more data than they need.


As for wired broadband, the GAO report mentions one anonymous company that offers a discount for accepting a low data cap — a threshold 20% of their customers fall below, they told the GAO. Of course, as we learned earlier this year, that’s Time Warner Cable… and their very own CEO admitted that nobody wanted to limit themselves to that data cap for such a puny discount.


5.) Lack of competition means consumers can’t vote with their wallets.

The report did note several potential benefits of broadband caps to businesses and even some consumers. But it also noted that for many consumers, opting into a usage-based plan, should their ISP jump to one, won’t be a choice. Broadband competition is notoriously minimal in most areas; the GAO report cites an FCC statistic that “54% of households are in census tracts” that have more than two wireline ISP options (usually one DSL, one cable). Even if every residences in every one of those census tracts had a choice (and they don’t), that’s still barely half the country with options.


The focus group participants said they would switch away from an ISP that implemented metered broadband if they could, but probably wouldn’t have a choice. Some of the experts the GAO interviewed also pointed out that in a marketplace without competition, ISPs have no incentive to provide a good variety of data plans to subscribers.




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


The Walmart on State Route 436 in Casselberry, Florida is very popular. Unfortunately, it’s popular with a demographic that retailers shouldn’t want to attract: criminals. Specifically, shoplifters. Some very talented shoplifters, like the man who allegedly removed 18 televisions from the store while dressed as a woman.

When contacted by a reporter from local station WFTV, a Walmart spokesperson countered that the huge number of arrests reflects well on the store, not poorly. Why is that? It means that the store’s efforts to “thwart crime” are effective.


Still, the brazen criminals of Casselberry have created some dangerous situations for local cops. Last week, two officers tried to stop an alleged shoplifter who was trying to leave in his truck. The suspect refused to stop, even when one of the cops was hanging on to the truck’s window.


The mega-retailer is doing some things differently: anyone caught shoplifting gets a trip to jail instead of a court date. There are probably other measures that the store has taken that they don’t want members of the public to know about.


In the last month, local police have made 37 arrests at the store in question in Casselberry. Police say that they’ve made 202 arrests so far in 2014. Since they’re averaging more than one arrest per day and the article we got those statistics from was published yesterday, those stats must be up to at least 38 and 203 by now.


Police: Casselberry Walmart a target for criminals [WFTV]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


It’s becoming harder and harder for GM execs to claim that the company was largely unaware of the problems with the Chevy Cobalt and other vehicles with an ignition problem that has resulted in at least 13 deaths, dozens of accidents and the long-delayed recall of millions of cars. A new report shows that car rental companies have been telling GM to look into the issue since at least 2005.

Bloomberg News reports that, following a fatal Sept. 2006 crash involving a Cobalt, an investigator for Vanguard Car Rental — then the parent company of rental biggies Alamo and National — wrote to GM urging it to look into the incident.


“[D]ue to the serious nature of this accident we feel that it is imperative that you open a claim and inspect this vehicle for possible defects,” reads the message, uncovered thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request.


Additional documents turned up by Bloomberg show that Enterprise — which purchased Alamo and National from Vanguard in 2007 — pushed GM to investigate a potential Cobalt defect after routine crashes in which the airbags failed to inflate, going back to 2005.


The failure of an airbag to deploy is not definitive evidence that a car’s ignition switch was inadvertently turned to the “off” position, but if the switch is turned off, the airbag will not work as intended in a crash.


According to Bloomberg, Enterprise first pressed GM to investigate following a March 2005 crash in a Saturn Ion — another vehicle involved in the mass ignition recall — that killed the driver and her husband, and resulted in serious injuries to their teen daughter in the back seat.


In July 2005, GM replied to Enterprise that it had inspected the vehicle but didn’t find a defect or malfunction.


Enterprise then asked GM to investigate a fatal Jan. 2006 crash involving a rented Cobalt. The car veered off the road and hit a tree, killing the driver. The car’s airbags did not deploy.


Bloomberg reporters found that GM referred the case to an investigations unit, but could not turn up any documentation showing what occurred after that referral.


An auto industry consultant and former board member at Dollar Thrifty Automotive group likens car rental drivers to canaries in the coal mine for the automotive industry; they’re the first to get their hands on these new cars and, with so many drivers putting so many miles on these cars so quickly, rental cars are usually the first to highlight defects.


“It’s really like a test fleet,” she explains to Bloomberg. “You put a lot of miles on very quick, and any initial defects on the car rise to the surface, and, in fact, that’s the way auto companies were supposed to use this. They were supposed to be able to detect defects very early.”




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


Opening your monthly mobile phone bill to find it significantly more expensive than it’s suppose to be can be infuriating. Finding out that it’s more expensive because you were charged for products you never requested is even worse. But wireless cramming is a practice that more and more consumers – and wireless providers (huh?) – are finding themselves victims of.


A new report [PDF], and subsequent hearing, on the subject by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Wednesday revealed that the practice of placing charges for third-party goods and services – think Hollywood gossip or daily horoscope texts – on consumers’ phone bills is growing more prevalent by wireless carriers, despite their so-called self-regulation practices.


“I don’t think the telephone companies were happy or content that the crammers were defrauding their customers,” Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal said, “but they almost certainly welcomed the revenue.”


And that revenue translated into billions of dollars for wireless providers and the third-party companies who produced the products.


Still, those working in the wireless industry contend that carriers are doing their best to stop the hurtful practice.


Michael Altschul, an official with wireless trade group Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, said during the hearing that wireless carriers agreed that “placing an unauthorized, misleading or deceptive third-party charge on a consumer’s wireless bill is wrong and simply not acceptable.”


But don’t go blaming the carriers for all that cramming, because they, too, are apparently victims. Or at least that’s what Altschul implies.


“Carriers have been victimized by fraudsters who crafted elaborate schemes to defeat the industry’s self-regulation and third-party monitoring,” he told the committee.


It’s incredibly difficult to see carriers as victims when they’ve benefited greatly from cramming practices and continued to allow consumer protection gaps to exist in their safequards.


The committee report found that third-party billing on wireless phone bills has evolved into a billion dollar industry for carriers such as AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile, each of which generally retain 30% to 40% of each vendor charge.


And those self-regulation and third-party monitoring policies being purported by the industry? They don’t appear to hold up well when it comes to actually protecting consumers.


The report revealed most wireless carriers were aware of the growing cramming problem at least six years ago, but continued to retain lax oversight and self-regulation policies leaving ample opportunity for scammers to strike.


Those casual policies included touted safeguards such as “double opt-in” requirements which were often skirted by scammers. Additionally, some policies allowed vendors to continue billing consumers even when the vendors had several months of consistently high consumer refund rates – at times those rates topped 50% of monthly revenues.


However, major U.S. carriers Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile each agreed in November 2013 that they would stop billing for a certain type of charge – premium SMS messages.


Since the carriers may have largely stopped charging for PSMS, officials with the FTC told the Senate Committee that “complaints have fallen off a cliff.”


But there is a new source of cramming: direct carrier billing.


According to the report, the practice of cramming through digital content – apps, videos and songs – downloaded through app stores has increased nearly 30% from 2009 to 2012.


And even if carriers do discontinue cramming and direct carrier billing, they are still open to action by federal regulators.


Such action happened earlier this month when T-Mobile became the first major carrier to be charged by the Federal Trade Commission for allegedly making hundreds of millions of dollars off those premium text-messaging subscriptions that were never requested by subscribers.


For its part, T-Mobile officials say the FTC complaint was unfounded and without merit because of the company stopped charging consumers after their 2013 promise.


Just this week, the FTC announced a series of recommendations that could slow, or even cease, the practices of cramming and direct carrier billing.


The commission also had a hand this week in shutting down a mobile cramming operation that allegedly stuck consumers with more than $100 million in unauthorized charges.


In all, that action included charges against six companies and six individuals that used deceptive practices, including fake websites with bogus offers of “freebies” or gift cards, to trick consumers into providing their mobile phone numbers. The defendants then placed monthly subscription fees for a variety of “services” on consumers’ mobile phone bills without their authorization.




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Girls can now choose from decorative stars or a more realistic solar system, just like the boys.

Girls can now choose from decorative stars or a more realistic solar system, just like the boys.



Somehow there are still retailers out there who are late to get the message: Yes, some boys like science. But so do some little girls, and the fact that Lands’ End had science-themed shirts featuring “realistic images of planets and our solar system,” while its T-shirts for girls only had unrealistic stars and dogs in tutus was very disappointing to the mother of one girl who happens to be bonkers about all things space. She wrote a letter telling Land’s End so, prompting the retailer to announce that it’s adding new sciencey shirts for girls as well.


A few weeks ago, the mom posted an open letter to Lands’ End on Facebook (via HuffPo), writing that her nine-year-old daughter loves science and wants to be an astronaut someday. So she was excited when she saw the Lands’ End catalog with science-themed tees for boys, including “a ‘NASA Crew’ tee design that she immediately declared to be ‘the coolest shirt ever.’ “


But then when they flipped to the girls’ section to find her size, “instead of science-themed art, we were treated to sparkly tees with rhinestones, non-realistic looking stars, and a design featuring a dog dressed like a princess and wearing a tutu.”


She says her daughter was very confused, because she and many of her friends love science.


“In 2014, why are you selling ‘mighty’ tees for boys and ‘adorable’ tees for girls?” the mom asked, citing Lands’ End’s descriptions.


The retailer has now responded with a line of shirts pretty close to the science-themed boys’ shirts (though it still has dogs in tutus because of course there are plenty of girls who love a good dog/tutu combo).


“You asked, we listened — take a look at our brand-new girls’ science tees,” Lands’ End announced Wednesday on its Facebook page. “Our first two tees are live on the site — pre-order now to reserve her size (due to the quick turnaround, the shirts will ship in August). Based on your response to the tees, we will continue to add new styles moving forward.”




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Can a picture of two cheese curls be pornographic? It sounds impossible, but the site Cheese Curls of Instagram has elevated what should be random, orange-coated lumps of snack food to fascinating sculptures just by propping them up in front of a blank background and giving us needlessly detailed captions.


After all, a former Consumerist staffer found four pieces of religious iconography in a single bag of Cheetos. By that standard, people worldwide must be mindlessly gobbling what could be millions of beautiful sculptures every year. Don’t believe us? Just peruse the Cheese Curls of Instagram gallery.


highfive


See it? If not, read the title and look again. “After Urinating on their Subordinates to Assert Dominance, these Two Monkeys Give Each Other a High Five.”


Some of the sculptures are suitable for a science museum, like this one:


evolution


Look like nonsense? No, read the title:



By Means of Natural Selection, Life has Flourished in the Evolutionary History of Primates and the Emergence of Homo Sapiens as a Distinct Species of Hominids



We won’t even embed this next photo, since it will become Not Safe For Work as soon as you read the caption:



In an Adult Film, Peter North Takes his Role as a French Professor Seriously by Wearing a Beret While Performing in a Scene with a “Failing Female Student Earning Extra Credit”, and after he Finishes, he Points to the Director Because he Knows he Nailed it



You’ll just have to click through and enjoy the filth over on Instagram.


Unfortunately, you’ll have to find a market for these sculptures yourself, or start your own Instagram account. Frito-Lay doesn’t have a buyback program. They probably don’t even have a Cheeto art museum.


cheesecurlsofinstagram [Instagram, where else?] (via Foodbeast)




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (the place that crashes cars into walls for science) recently ran a dozen popular small cars, including the Chevy Volt, Ford C-Max Hybrid, Mini Cooper Countryman, and the Mazda 5, through its “small overlap” front crash test, where only the front corner of the vehicle is involved in a collision. While several of the tiny cars had okay results, only one earned an overall “good” rating from the IIHS.


The Mini Cooper Countryman was the only small car among the dozen tested to earn that overall “good” rating in the overlap test, which was introduced in 2012 to simulate collisions where a car strays across the median and hits an oncoming vehicle, or where cars smash into objects like trees or poles.


For years, car makers were building vehicles to pass the IIHS head-on frontal crash tests, in which the full front end of a vehicle collides with a solid object, but the small overlap test shows that not all car makers have been thinking about what happens when it’s just the corner of the vehicle.


“In the small overlap test, the main structures of the vehicle’s front-end crush zone are bypassed, making it hard for the vehicle to manage crash energy,” explains the IIHS. “The occupant compartment can collapse as a result.”


To earn a “good” rating in the overlap test, the car’s occupant compartment must resist intrusion, its safety belts must prevent the driver from pitching too far forward, and its side curtain airbags must provide enough forward coverage to cushion a head at risk of hitting the dashboard or window frame or things outside the vehicle.


“The Mini Cooper Countryman gave a solid performance,” says Joe Nolan, the Institute’s senior vice president for vehicle research. “The Countryman’s safety cage held up reasonably well. The safety belts and airbags worked together to control the test dummy’s movement, and injury measures indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a real-world crash this severe.”


The IIHS points out that the small overlap rating for the Countryman — the 4-door version of the Mini Cooper — doesn’t apply to the two-door model, which hasn’t been tested.


Four other small cars — the Volt, the C-Max Hybrid, Mitsubishi Lancer, and the Scion xB — showed minimal damage to their respective crash test dummies, but fell short of an overall good rating for concerns about their structures or restraint systems. However, all but the Scion xB are still considered “Top Safety Picks” by the IIHS.


Of greater concern are the four cars earning “poor” overall ratings in the overlap test — the Fiat 500L, Mazda 5, Nissan Juke and Nissan Leaf.


IIHS’s Nolan says that “Collapse of the occupant compartment is the downfall” for these four vehicles. “A sturdy occupant compartment allows the restraint systems to do their job, absorbing energy and controlling occupant motion.”


Test showed that the structure of the Fiat 500L was being pushed into the driver’s survival space, “knocking the steering wheel back and to the right of the driver,” which puts the airbag out of position, meaning the dummy’s head slid off to the left side.


According to the IIHS, the Mazda 5 is among the worst-performing cars in the small overlap test, along the 2014 Kia Forte, and the 2012 Prius v.


“When we tested the Mazda 5 we saw a host of structural and restraint system problems. Parts of the occupant compartment essentially buckled, allowing way too much intrusion,” Nolan says.


The test dummy in the Mazda 5 showed high risk of injuries to the left thigh and left lower leg. The steering wheel moved to the right, meaning the dummy’s head barely contacted the front airbag before sliding off the left side.


Additionally, the safety belt failed to keep the dummy’s head and torso from moving too far forward. The dummy’s head made contact with the left side of the dashboard.


Even worse, the side curtain airbag didn’t deploy at all, says the IIHS and the driver door unlatched during the test, putting the driver at risk of being ejected.




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


While we disagree with some who think that Comcast is an admirable company, we certainly don’t advocate using a gun to resolve your disputes with the cable company. Apparently our talk-it-out ways are not shared by a New Mexico woman who is accused of pulling a gun on a Comcast tech following a dispute over unexpected charges for a service call.

According to the criminal complaint [PDF], police in Albuquerque were dispatched on July 28 to a private home to check on a possible aggravated assault incident.


The homeowner told the officer that she’d had a Comcast tech out to do some requested work on her home and that she’d been led to believe that the work would be free of charge.


But when the tech arrived and she found out otherwise, the customer was not happy. She called Comcast customer service, where a rep confirmed there was a fee for the call. Then the tech told the homeowner that if she didn’t sign the document agreeing to the charges, he’d have to leave.


She refused and the tech began to leave.


This is where their stories differ…


Her Side of the Story


The homeowner says the tech left but then returned, claiming he’d left behind a tool bag on the outside of her home, but which she’d brought inside after he left.


The woman refused to let the tech come on her property and told him to leave. He said his supervisor would still need to come back and get the tools.


The homeowner told police that the man was standing in her driveway and refused to leave, so she went inside to get her handgun.


Pointing the gun in the air, she says she asked the tech, “Are you going to leave now?”


He responded by driving away without his tools.


The homeowner then called the police to complain about the Comcast tech. She admitted to officers that the tech was not attempting to enter the home; that he was only standing in the driveway and refusing to leave.


His Side


The tech claims that while he was packing his tools back into his truck, someone at the home grabbed a bag of tools — worth an estimated $400 — and took them inside the home.


He then knocked on the door and asked for his tools back, but a woman — not the homeowner — who answered the door allegedly refused to give them back.


While he was walking away from the front porch, he alleges that the homeowner exited the house and pointed the handgun at his torso, telling him “You need to get off my property now.”


The tech says he agreed to leave and then called 9-1-1.


…..


Police searched the home and turned up a handgun and the tech’s tools. The homeowner was arrested and booked on charges of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. She was released after a few hours behind bars.


Comcast customer pulled gun on technician after objecting to bill, police say [Ars Technica]


Comcast customer jailed in gun case [ABQjournal.com]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


It’s been about nine months since a federal jury found Bank of America liable for the “Hustle,” a pre-bubble Countrywide Financial program that removed safeguards to the mortgage underwriting process, resulting in a mountain of toxic, worthless loans. Yesterday, the judge in the case finally decided how much BofA — and the former Countrywide exec in charge of the program — should pay.

For those coming late to this story, in the years leading up to the crash-slam-splat of the housing market, Countrywide realized there was quick cash to be made in approving as many mortgages as possible and reselling them to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before anyone realized the loans weren’t worth the sandwich bags on which they’d been written.


In order to increase the number of loans it could resell, Countrywide started the High Speed Swim Lane (aka HSSL, and most popularly the Hustle), which expedited the mortgage underwriting process by effectively doing away with it. A number of loans were approved with minimal review. In the end, about 43% of the Hustle loans resold to Fannie or Freddie were toxic.


BofA and former Countrywide Exec Rebecca Mairone were found liable of civil fraud in Oct. 2013, and federal prosecutors were originally asking the court to penalize the bank to the tune of around $868 million, based on the actual losses experienced by the bailed-out mortgage-backers at Fannie and Freddie.


But the judge suggested to prosecutors that they rethink their penalty not in terms of how much Fannie and Freddie lost, but in terms of the ill-gotten gains seen by Countrywide. So in Jan. 2014, the feds revised that request to more than $2 billion and also suggested a $1.1 million personal penalty against Mairone, who astoundingly found a job that didn’t involve digging ditches under the hot sun. No, she somehow managed to convince JPMorgan Chase to put her in charge of its foreclosure review team. She has since left that position.


The prosecutors later suggested upping Mairone’s penalty even further upon learning how well compensated she was, but yesterday the judge opted to go for a mere $1 million slap on the wrist against the former Countrywide exec.


The judge says Mairone may pay her penalty in quarterly installments equaling 20% of her gross income.


And yet her attorney says his client will appeal.


“We continue to maintain that Rebecca never intended to defraud anyone and never did defraud anyone,” Mairone’s legal eagle tells the Wall Street Journal. “Unfortunately, more powerful people chose her as a scapegoat because they thought she was an easy target.”


Bank of America got off with a penalty of $1.27 billion, higher than the original request but significantly lower than the revised amount.


The bank had tried to argue that it ultimately lost money on those toxic mortgages so it shouldn’t have to pay such a high penalty, if anything at all.


But that’s a ridiculous argument, as Countrywide’s longterm failure to profit off toxic mortgages doesn’t negate the fact that it committed fraud by selling those worthless loans to Fannie and Freddie.


Of course, BofA is looking to appeal the case.


“We believe that this figure simply bears no relation to a limited Countrywide program that lasted several months and ended before Bank of America’s acquisition of the company,” a rep for the bank said, presumably while simultaneously e-mailing colleagues at other banks looking for a new job.




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


For college students, it’s a wonderful thing to find a store willing to pay more than a pittance to buy back the textbooks you’ve been pretending to read all semester. People who discovered the Boston-based site Valore Books were happy with the estimates they got for the value of their books, but less happy when their checks failed to show up.

There are plenty of complaints online about every business, but Valore has an awful lot, including complaints to the Better Business Bureau. One student shared his saga with the station, explaining that he sent off his books in December, then spent weeks calling the company, asking about the whereabouts of his money. He even offered to stop by their nearby office and just pick up his books, but that was one of the last things the company wanted.


After a Better Business Bureau complaint and waiting for another whole semester, he finally received his money. Yay?


The BBB of Eastern Massachusetts told WBZ that Valore is “as one of the most complained about businesses in [their] territory.” As an online business, it receives complaints from across the country, but that’s no excuse.


What is their excuse? Sure, every textbook-related business experiences crunch times in approximately August, December, January, and May. That’s the nature of it. WBZ couldn’t get an interview with anyone at Valore, but did receive a statement from the company. Their excuse? Business was too good this past spring. The company explained:



Our competitive sellback prices created greater than expected demand this spring, which unfortunately led to some payment and customer service delays in our process. However, all customers have been made whole by either receiving payment or having their item returned to them. When we have been unable to return an item to a customer who has requested it, we have issued payment as a goodwill offer. To date in 2014, inquiries to the Better Business Bureau have represented fewer than .1% of all sellback orders on our site, and while a very small percentage, we treat every one of them very seriously and have resolved each in a timely manner.



While a startup that aims to get students more money for their books is an admirable business, the part where you actually get checks into customers’ hands is important. Remember that, aspiring entrepreneurs.


I-Team: College Students Say Local Textbook Company Is A ‘Scam’ [WBZ]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


The Post 9/11 GI Bill aims to further the education of United States servicemembers and their immediate family members, but a new government report reveals that most of those funds are going to further increase the bottomline at for-profit colleges.


Iowa senator Tom Harkin released a report [PDF] Wednesday that found for-profit colleges enrolled a record number of veterans and collected $1.7 billion in Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits during the 2012-13 school year – representing nearly a quarter of all GI benefits received during that timeframe.


To illustrate just how much money the for-profit college industry receives from servicemembers and their families, one should consider that the entire GI Bill program cost four years ago was about $1.7 billion.


FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES RAKING IN THE BIG BUCKS
The report highlights the top 10 recipients of GI Bill funds, and (no surprise here) eight of those schools are from the for-profit sector, including the soon-to-be dismantled Corinthian Colleges Inc.


top 10


All together those eight companies have received $2.9 billion in taxpayer dollars by enrolling veterans in their schools in the past five years, including $975 million during the 2012-13 school year.


To make things even more infuriating, seven of those for-profit college companies are currently under state and/or federal investigation for bogus job-placement stats, grade manipulation, and misleading marketing practices.


“While the Post-9/11 GI Bill was designed to expand educational opportunities for our veterans and servicemembers, I am concerned that it is primarily expanding the coffers of the big corporations running these schools,” Harkin says in a news release about the report. “It is evident that more needs to be done to ensure that veterans and servicemembers, who have sacrificed so much for our nation, are receiving a quality education—and that taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted on shoddy programs.”


LITTLE EDUCATION HAPPENING HERE
Of course it takes money to provide education for thousands of students, but in the case of many for-profit institutions few students actually receive a quality education, yet they pay nearly double what they would at a public university, according to the report.


For-profit institutions boast some of the lowest graduation rates in higher education.


Back in 2012 the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), of which Harkin is chair, filed a report [PDF] that detailed just how troubling the dropout rates at for-profit schools were: 54% of students who began at for-profit institutions during the 2008-2009 school year withdrew by the summer of 2010.


top 10 withdraw


In fact, nine of the schools investigated in the 2012 study had withdrawal rates of at least 60%; the highest rate clocked in at 84%.


And just how many of those companies also showed up in the top 10 recipients of GI Bill funds? Four.


• Corinthian Colleges – operator of Everest University, WyoTech and Heald College – received $63 million during the 2012-13 school year. Yet, the company’s schools had a withdrawal rate of 66.5% during the 2008-2009 term.


• Apollo Group – operator of the University of Phoenix, the College for Financial Planning and the Institute for Professional Development – received $271 million in GI funds during the last school year. During the 2008-2009 term the school recorded a withdrawal rate of 66.4%.


• Career Education Corporation (CEC)- the operators of Sanford Brown and CTU – raked in $78 million last year, but in 2008-2008 the schools had a withdrawal rate of 61.7%.


• Education Management Corporation (EDMC) – the operator of the Art Institute and Argosy – received $163 million in GI funds during the 2012-13 school year, but had a dropout rate of 63.7% during the 2008-2009 term.


While Bridgepoint – the operator of Ashford University and owner of an 84% withdrawal rate – didn’t crack the top 10 in received GI funds for the most recent school year, it did make the top 10 when the entire length of the Post 9/11 GI Bill is considered. From 2009 to 2013, the company received $101 million in Post 9/11 GI Bill funds.


NO RULES? FEW WORRIES FOR FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
One reason these schools continue to receive millions of dollars in GI Bill funds, while only partially educating veterans and their family members, is the lack of an over-arching rule to determine the quality of programs a school offers.


Such a performance marker has been proposed twice in the form of the “gainful employment” rule. The initial rule was struck down by a court in 2011, but a second attempt was announced earlier this year.


Among the new requirements set out in the proposed regulations, institutions would have to certify that all career-education programs meet applicable accreditation requirements, along with state and/or federal licensure standards.


Programs would be deemed failing if loan payments of typical graduates exceed 30% of discretionary income or 12% of total annual income. Programs would be given a warning if a student’s loan payments amount to 20 to 30% of discretionary income, or 8 to 12% of total annual income. Discretionary income is defined as above 150% of the poverty line and applies to what can be put towards non-necessities.


gainful employement


Although the rule is not finalized or in effect, the Harkin report puts the eight schools receiving the most GI funds to the test. And, once again, not surprisingly, the majority fail.


When measured against the proposed gainful employment standards between 35% and 57% of the programs at Corinthian, EDMC, CEC and ITT Technical Institute would fail to demonstrate that they prepare students for employment in a recognized profession, according to the report.


“Today’s report should be a wake-up call to the federal government. It’s a serious problem that Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars are often inflating these companies’ revenues instead of actually providing a meaningful education to the men and women who earned those benefits,” Connecticut senator Chris Murphy, a member of the HELP Committee, said in a news release.


FINDING THE LOOPHOLE
So, just how does a school with a dropout rate of more than 50% that is currently under federal and state investigation receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds?


90:10


Easy: There’s a so-called “loophole” in the 90/10 rule that regulates just how much federal funding for-profit schools can receive.


See, the for-profit school industry is barred from receiving more than 90% of its revenue from the Department of Education federal student aid. The remaining 10% of revenue must come from other sources, such as private investors, wealthy corporations (like Goldman Sachs) and, apparently, the GI Bill.


According to the report, at least four companies – Apollo, EDMC, ITT and Strayer – receive close to or more than half of their reported non-federal financial aid revenue from the Post 9/11 GI Bill benefit funds.


HIGH COST BUT HIGH ENROLLMENT
While Harkin’s report is full of doom and gloom there may be one twinkle of hope when it comes to for-profit colleges: fewer consumers are enrolling than in previous years.


However, that glimmer of hope is fleeting, considering record numbers of veterans continue to enroll at the schools.


enrollment


The report found that enrollment of veterans at for-profit schools increased from 23% in 2009 to 31% in 2012, despite the fact that overall enrollment at the institutions has fallen in recent years.


In fact, fewer veterans are enrolling in traditional public universities; enrollment in that sector dropped from 62% in 2009 to 50% in 2013.


That’s a shame, too, because attending a public university would save taxpayers millions of dollars each year. The average tuition at a public university is just $3,914 versus the $7,972 average tuition cost at for-profit schools.


It’s unclear exactly why more veterans are choosing for-profit colleges over more economically-priced and recognized public schools, but there’s a pretty good chance it has something to do with for-profit’s purported convenience and aggressive recruiting methods.


CHANGE THINGS RIGHT THIS MINUTE
So, while the GI Bill was approved after D-Day as a way to educate the people who serve our country, the increased use of its benefits at for-profit colleges could be hurting veterans more than helping them.


Harkin concludes that to better ensure the future education of veterans and their families, it is crucial that the federal government establish rules to track how veterans fare in the higher education system and that provisions be made to strengthen the 90/10 rule.


“It is our responsibility as a country to serve those who serve us and to preserve the purpose of the GI Bill – to provide veterans with sound educational opportunities that lead to economic security and advancement,” he writes in the report. “Only then will the Post-9/11 GI Bill prove to be the success that the post-World War II GI Bill has been.”




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


When you’re turning to a sex manual from the 1920s for help in your failing marriage, well, let’s just say you can’t blame a book if it can’t be revived. But at least the family of a library patron who failed to return a 1926 how-to guide all the way back in 1959 has managed to finally bring it back, albeit 54 years late.


Over at the the Mid-Manhattan Library’s Biblio File blog (h/t to Pix11 News), Managing Librarian Billy Parrott writes of an oddball return from 2013.


A family member who was going through the now deceased library patron’s stuff in Arizona found a library book he’d failed to return more than 50 years ago – Ideal Marriage by Th.H. Van de Velde, M.D., written around 1926, was supposed to be returned in 1959, Parrott explains.


And it seems the “very wordy and very scientific” manual regarding bedroom business didn’t do much to keep the man’s marriage thriving, “a shocked in-law” wrote in a note along with the returned tome.


“We found this book amongst my late brother-in-law’s things,” the note read. “Funny thing is the book didn’t support his efforts with his first (and only) marriage… it failed! No wonder he hid the book! So sorry!!”


Who knows how many other marriages could’ve been helped by that manual, if only it’d been returned after two weeks on time. This is why you should always return books on time, kids! You never know whose marriage you could be ruining.


Better Late Than Never [Biblio File]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


Last week, Verizon announced that it was extending its “Network Optimization” policy, which throttles speeds for the top 5% of data users, to include LTE data for the first time. This move didn’t sit well with the few remaining Verizon customers with “unlimited” data plans, nor did it thrill FCC Chair Tom Wheeler (who is apparently in a letter-writing mood this week).

“I am deeply troubled by your July 25, 2014 announcement that Verizon Wireless intends to slow down some customers’ data speeds on your 4G LTE network,” writes the Chair in his letter [PDF] to Verizon Wireless CEO Daniel “fetch me a flaggon of” Mead.


Unlike some data-throttling plans that automatically slow the speeds for those users who gobble up gigabytes because they love watching House of Cards on their phones a little too much, Verizon’s Network Optimization only throttles data when those heavy users are currently connected to a cell site experiencing high demand.


The nation’s largest wireless provider justifies the continued bending of the meaning of “unlimited” by saying that Optimization is needed for “network management.”


The FCC already has a definition of what defines reasonable network management practices, clarifying that they must be “appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.”


In his letter to Mead, Wheeler reminds VZW that “‘Reasonable network management’ concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams.”


The Chair says it is “disturbing… that Verizon Wireless would base its ‘network management’ on distinctions among its customers’ data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology.”


He gives examples of legitimate network manager purposes, like “ensuring network security and integrity… by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by end users… and reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.”


But, writes Wheeler, “I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as ‘reasonable network management’ a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for ‘unlimited’ service.”


“What is your rationale for treating customers differently based on the type of data plan to which they subscribe, rather than network architecture or technological factors?” he asks Mead, adding that he wants the CEO to provide an explanation for Verizon’s statement that, “If you’re on an unlimited data plan and are concerned that you are in the top 5% of data users, you can switch to a usage-based data plan as customers on usage-based plans are not impacted.”


Verizon’s answers to these questions, and how the FCC responds, could have a huge impact on the wireless industry as Verizon is not the only carrier who throttles data on users with so-called “unlimited” plans.




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

Silly Justin: he thought that because Target advertised two different promotions for the Wii U he bought, he would get to take advantage of both of them. Nope. He learned that he could have $25 off or $10 off, but not both.


This may seem like a minor point, but the advertised promotions were what prompted him to choose Target for his purchase, and to bother ordering the item for in-store pickup. Saving $10 extra was worth the trip. Wasn’t it? Nope. Here’s the item he bought, preserved in screenshot form for perpetuity:


wii_page


Now, here are those deals that he wanted to take advantage of. Note that Target never says that customers have to choose one one or the other. That’s a common disclaimer for coupons and promotions, and perfectly fair.


Screen Shot 2014-07-30 at 3.00.28 PM


What happened when he went through with the purchase? He had to make a choice. “Apparently, in Target-speak, this means you get one or the other,” he wrote to Consumerist. We’ve said for years that Target exists in a reality vortex, so that sounds plausible. “So, when I opted to purchase this item and for in-store pickup, I sacrificed $25 for $10. How this makes any sense to anyone, I have absolutely no idea.”


Maybe the more time you spend dealing with Target, things like this start to make sense. That’s the only plausible explanation.




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी

For Dodgers fans in L.A. without Time Warner Cable, going to see a game live may the only way to catch a game. (photo: Atwater Village Newbie)

For Dodgers fans in L.A. without Time Warner Cable, going to see a game live may the only way to catch a game. (photo: Atwater Village Newbie)



As we’ve discussed in an earlier post, some 70% of people in L.A. are currently unable to watch the L.A. Dodgers because SportsNet L.A., a station jointly owned by the first-place team and the bottom-the-barrel cable company, won’t let other pay-TV carriers air the channel without paying a premium. While the FCC has generally stayed out of such messes, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has let TWC know that he’s not exactly happy with the current situation in Los Angeles.

“I am writing to express my strong concern about how your actions appear to have created the

inability of consumers in the Los Angeles area to watch televised games of the Los Angeles

Dodgers,” explains Wheeler in a letter [PDF] to TWC’s CEO-for-now Rob Marcus.


See, TWC wants other pay-TV carriers to a $4-5 month per customer to SportsNet L.A., and for the channel to be carried on the most popular tiers of service.


Some companies, like DirecTV have said they are willing to pay that fee — nearly as much as pay-TV operations ante up each month for cable’s most expensive network, ESPN — but that they would only do so if they could sell it as an add-on premium channel or as part of a sports package.


TWC recently said it is willing to enter into arbitration to settle these disputes, news that FCC Chair Wheeler finds encouraging.


But, writes Wheeler, “I am troubled by the negative impact that your apparent actions are having on consumers and the overall video marketplace.”


As such, he says the FCC will monitor the dispute. His office is also requesting that TWC provide it with an explanation of the proposed arbitration process, along with info on “how that process could bring relief to consumers expeditiously, and what other steps TWC will take to resolve this matter if arbitration is not successful.”


Since TWC isn’t currently making SportsNet L.A. available to satellite companies at an agreeable price, and since most consumers have only one choice for terrestrial cable TV service, the only option for Dodgers fans is to pay for an online package like MLB.TV, but even those games are blacked out during the live broadcast and only available for online viewing starting 90 minutes after each game’s conclusion.


(That is unless you use a DNS-spoofing service, high-speed proxy, or VPN to get around MLB.TV’s blackouts… just saying.)


Wheeler has requested that TWC turn over unredacted copies of certain documents within 10 days, including, “Any contract or agreement between TWC… and SportsNet LA…. providing TWC with rights to SportsNet LA;” “Any contract or agreement governing TWC’s… carriage of SportsNet LA, including any schedules or amendments to the contract or agreement, or any term sheet summarizing the terms and conditions under which TWC currently carries SportsNet LA;” and any documents showing which terms TWC has proposed to other carriers in the area, and what those carriers have proposed in return.


“I continue to have the hope that this dispute can be resolved in the marketplace,” concludes Wheeler. “Nevertheless, given the breadth and protracted nature of this dispute, it is appropriate that we begin to assemble the facts and build a record. Inaction is no longer acceptable.”




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


Restaurants that have tried to tell parents in the past that children or babies aren’t welcome inside have faced backlash for coming out and saying so in the past, but one restaurant has instead decided to just make it really difficult for anyone with a small child or infant to eat there.


Basically, you can bring your kids to this Monterey, Calif. restaurant, but it won’t provide high chairs or booster seats or allow strollers, reports KSBW.com.


Oh, and noisy, crying kids aren’t allowed in the dining room, per a sign posted at the eatery reading:



– NO STROLLERS –

— NO HIGH CHAIRS –

— NO BOOSTER SEATS –


Children crying or making loud noises are a distraction to other diners, and as such are not allowed in the dining room.



So if you happen to have a young, perfectly-behaved, silent child who can sit on her own and doesn’t need a stroller to get where you’re going, you’re fine, and you should probably alert the media because your kid must be an alien. Or an adult.


Otherwise, it’s a no-go, says the owner. He adds that despite criticism from some offended parents, he’s keeping the rules as is. Don’t like it? Not his problem — there are plenty of other places to eat, he says.


“If a place has the rules, that’s what the rules are,” the owner told the news station. “You go in and abide by the rules or you find a place more suitable for you.”


And despite any angry parents, he says business is doing just fine without catering to kids.


“Well, let’s put it this way — I haven’t had a down year for over 20 years and our business continues to grow,” he explains.


Popular restaurant on Monterey wharf posts no loud kids sign [KSBW.com]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

जनता का आदमी


We are living in a digital world, which means many things we used to do offline, like paying bills, are now handled online. But what’s a good customer to do when he can’t pay his credit card bill due to a keyboard infiltrated with orange juice? Speak up — and maybe get a free keyboard out of it.

One Capital One customer wrote on Reddit that after complaining to Capital One about not being able to pay a bill online, due to extenuating circumstances involving an unfortunate orange juice incident, a surprise came in the mail.


“I complained to Capital One that I couldn’t pay my bill because I couldn’t copy and paste a 2 into the account number, and my 2 key didn’t work because of an orange juice incident,” he wrote, “So they sent me a keyboard.”


Wait, what? Yes, a new keyboard, and a very nice card signed by two Capital One employees who seem to enjoy playing Santa.


And because we here at Consumerist always have our skepticism hats on when it comes to big companies doing anything nice, we reached out to Capital One to make sure this really happened.


“It’s legit,” a Capital One spokeswoman tells Consumerist.


“We encourage our agents to look for and act on opportunities to practice random acts of kindness for our customers,” she writes. “The program enables our agents to follow up on customer conversations in unexpected, personalized and creative ways.”




by prakash chandra via Consumerist

जनता का आदमी


Do you love having access to social media on your smartphone, but don’t bother to venture outside of Facebook? Sprint’s Virgin Mobile brand has introduced the perfect smartphone plan for both 74-year-olds and 14-year-olds: cheap mobile Internet access that limits you to a single service.

The new plan, Virgin Mobile Custom, will be available at Walmart beginning next Saturday, August 9. The plan lets each user control which services they have from their own phones, and also allows the person who is paying the bill control which services each phone can access from an app. The person controlling others’ services doesn’t have to be a Virgin Mobile customer.


Each line on the Custom plan starts at $7, which allows for 20 voice minutes and 20 text messages. From there, custom plans are available, all the way up to unlimited voice and text for $35.


It’s the data plan that caught our attention, though. Right now, customers have a choice of four apps, unlimited access to which will cost around $12 each. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Pinterest are the most popular social media services, according to Virgin Mobile USA parent company Sprint. The company may expand access to other apps if the custom plans take off.


If this catches on, it could only lead to more people commenting on Facebook headlines without bothering to click through to the original story. For that reason, we disapprove.


Virgin Mobile USA Launches Virgin Mobile Custom – Fully Customizable Cell Phone Plan with Rich Parental Controls [Press Release]




by prakash chandra via Consumerist