jikSenators Chastise Govt. For Making Money Off Struggling Student Loan Borrowers, Not Offering Enough Reliefde

4 4 4 4

(Sapurah Lashari)

For several years now the government has offered federal student loan forgiveness programs aimed at helping borrowers to avoid defaulting on their debts. While recent reports have shown that the popularity of the programs has exceeded expectations, a group of six senators say the Department of Education could do more given the billions of dollars in payments it receives from federal loans each year.

Six senators — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH), Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT), Sen. Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Sen. Edward Markey (MA) — sent a letter [PDF] to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan scolding the Department for turning federal student loans into a source of revenue while students struggle to make ends meet.

The Department is “squeezing students who are struggling to get an education” in order to maximize profits, the senators say, pointing to the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent estimates indicating that the federal government is expected to produce $110 billion in profits from its student loans over the next decade.

“Congress did not create federal student loans to generate revenue for the federal government – to the contrary, it gave the Department of Education a host of tools to ensure that federal student loan borrowers are treated fairly and with dignity,” reads the letter.

Instead of using those tools and following Congress’ directives, the senators say the Department has continued to let student loan borrowers be buried in debt.

As an example, the letter cites the Department’s failure to give borrowers a clear idea of how to exercise an option under the Higher Education Act that allows for the cancellation of student loan borrowers’ debts the college acts in a way that hurt the quality of their education or their finances.

“Similarly, the Department of Education has broad authority to compromise, modify, discharge, and cancel student debts,” the letter states. “Instead, the Department continues to gouge borrowers who struggle to meet their payments, subjecting them to debt collection, wage and benefit withholding, and other harsh penalties even when it is clear that the debtors can not pay.”

The senators also pointedly accuse the Department of failing to protect students from collapsing for-profit college chain Corinthian Colleges Inc. last year.

“The Higher Education Act also requires the Department of Education to offer student loan discharges to students whose colleges close their doors,” the letter states. “Instead, last year the Department of Education undertook an elaborate plan to use federal funds to bail out …Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and deprive students of the ability to discharge their federal student loans.”

The senators say they aren’t asking the Department to stop making money off federal loans, they are asking that more steps be taken to ensure “vulnerable young people struggling with the burden of federal student debt have meaningful opportunity to build a sting future for themselves and their families.”

Senators to Education Department: Stop Profiting Off Student Loans and Fulfill Congressional Directives to Help Struggling Borrowers [Sen. Elizabeth Warren]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

jikPassenger’s Lawsuit Blames American Airlines For Wife’s Deathde

4 4 4 4

(benh57)

A Canadian man who flew with his wife on an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Mexico in March 2013 has filed a lawsuit against the airline, blaming it for his wife’s death.

He claims that when his wife started to experience respiratory distress and couldn’t breathe, he told the crew that she had a pre-existing lung condition, and they would need an ambulance to meet their plane, reports ABC News.

Instead, his suit says two crew members showed up at the plane with a wheel chair.

The husband also claims that although crew administered oxygen to his wife while she was in the midst of the episode, and she improved, she was forced to give the oxygen equipment back.

“While disembarking the aircraft and over [the plaintiff’s] objection, a member of the flight crew demanded that [she] give up the oxygen supplied earlier by the flight crew that had been keeping her alive,” the lawsuit said. According to the complaint, she died about 30 minutes afterward.

The airline declined to comment to ABC News.

American Airlines Named in Lawsuit After Passenger Dies [ABC News]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

jikTaco Bell Testing Cap’n Crunch-Coated, Cream-Filed Donut Calorie Bombs For Breakfastde

4 4 4 4

If you’ve been considering starting your morning with the cream-filled Cinnabon Delights at Taco Bell but decided they weren’t sugary enough, the fast food chain is now testing a similarly cream-filled, deep-fried treat that is coated in Cap’n Crunch and has a mysterious pink dough.

Taco Bell, which might as well change its name to “Why The Hell Not?,” tells Nation’s Restaurant News that the “Cap’n Crunch Delights” are being tested in Bakersfield, CA, and are intended to be a throwback to Cap’n Crunch Crunch Berries cereal.

“It’s a nostalgic throwback brand from when you were a kid,” explains the Bell’s senior director of marketing, presumably in between bites of a chalupa-wrapped beignet filled with pure adrenalin. “We feel like it will appeal to what we call ‘kid-ults,’ or the kid-adults out there.”

While these sugar bombs are going to be on the breakfast menu, Taco Bell says they will also be available the rest of the day.

Over at FoodBeast, they already have actual photos of the calorie bombs in the wild:

TACOBELL is testing new CAP'N CRUNCH DONUT HOLES filled with MILK ICING. All the news on #… http://t.co/SUHUHC3DuA http://ift.tt/1C5bLKI

— foodbeast.com (@foodbeast) February 27, 2015

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

jik4 Things We Still Don’t Know About Net Neutralityde

4 4 4 4

(Julio Marquez)

The FCC voted yesterday to reclassify broadband and protect the open internet. In other words, at long last, we have a net neutrality rule. And that’s great! But there is still a lot we don’t know, and there are a lot of questions left unanswered. Here are the major things we don’t know, and parts we’re waiting to better understand.

1.) We still don’t know exactly what the rule says — and that’s completely normal.

As the Washington Post points out, some folks are already working themselves into a bit of a conspiracy-theory frenzy about the fact that the full text hasn’t yet been published, even though the vote happened 24 hours ago.

But a delay between FCC votes and the release of the full, finalized text of the rule they’re voting on is completely normal — it’s part of the process, just how the agency always works. You can argue whether or not the rule should have been made public before the vote, but after the vote there’s a very specific procedure the commission needs to follow.

The FCC’s staff have to make their final edits, which means accounting for the dissenting arguments. And as we observed yesterday, those dissents are lengthy and quite detailed. In other words, it’s going to take some time to capture all of that information and collect it into the final rule, as FCC guidelines require.

After that, the commission can get it up on their website for all of us to read.

2.) We don’t know exactly when the new rules will take effect.

A rule made by the FCC doesn’t become the law of the land until after it’s published in the Federal Register, which can’t happen until after the text is finalized. The Federal Register, overseen by the National Archives, operates on its own timetable and it could be days to weeks after the time the rule is ready before it’s published. And after that, rules usually allow for 30 days, 60 days, or even longer after publication to go into full effect, to give all relevant parties time to adjust the things they need to adjust.

Add it all together, and we’re probably not looking for any actual changes before May at the earliest, and possibly not until much later this year.

3.) We don’t know to what degree interconnection agreements are covered (or not).

Netflix has been at the center of the net neutrality arguments ever since the fight started up last January. The streaming video goliath had been in standoffs with major ISPs — Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and AT&T — over delivering TV traffic to subscribers. Netflix eventually had to pay the ISPs for direct connections in order to see streaming video traffic delivered to customers at reasonable speeds.

The disputes, though, didn’t happen at the “last mile” level, where the ISP runs a cable into your house and you request Netflix over it. They happened farther back, at interconnection — peering — points between the place where Netflix sends out data to a backbone carrier and your ISP picks it up from that carrier.

Netflix has argued repeatedly that the FCC should cover interconnection in any net neutrality rules; the ISPs have said the FCC can do no such thing.

What the FCC has to say about the matter so far is: “For the first time the Commission can address issues that may arise in the exchange of traffic between mass-market broadband providers and other networks and services. Under the authority provided by the Order, the Commission can hear complaints and take appropriate enforcement action if it determines the interconnection activities are not just and reasonable.”

That makes it sound like the FCC will not be putting any specific rules in place about what can or can’t happen with interconnection agreements, but that if one party (like Netflix or Verizon) files a complaint that the other party is being a jerk, the FCC can then take investigate to see if that’s true and, if so, take action (like ordering them not to be a jerk, or ordering them to pay a fine and stop being a jerk).

However, it’s unclear under what specific authority those investigations would take place, and what specific actions the FCC would be willing or able to enforce.

4.) We don’t know how this will affect “zero rating” programs or data caps.

Zero rating is when a company arranges it so certain data doesn’t count against your data caps. So for example, that thing where T-Mobile doesn’t count your streaming Pandora against your monthly data allotment? That’s zero rating.

Comcast has experimented with variations on the theme, as has Time Warner Cable. AT&T has tried a different approach, but with a similar outcome.

None of these programs actually change anything about the data connection: you access Pandora on your T-Mobile phone at the exact same speed you access any other streaming service. But because one counts against your data cap and the other does not, you are more likely to gravitate to the ones that don’t. And so those services that pay for zero-rating agreements become de facto preferred apps for millions of consumers.

So: are those kinds of arrangements kosher? Does using data caps as leverage, rather than data throttling or fast lanes, count as interference or is it just business? The answer is: we have no idea. The FCC’s released statements don’t address it at all, so we don’t know if the final rule will either.

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

jikMan Finds His Missing Log Cabin 3,750 Feet From Where He Last Saw Itde

4 4 4 4

(Klamath County Sheriff’s Dept.)

Though sometimes it feels like your keys, wallet or phone can just go walking away from where you left them, a man in Oregon was shocked this week to first find that his log cabin had been stolen, and then to find that it had somehow wandered 3,750 feet away from its original resting place.

The circumstances surrounding the case of the mysterious move are a bit complicated: A woman, her ex-husband and her ex-boyfriend type all own the property where the log cabin sat jointly, explains ABC News, but only the ex-boyfriend’s name is on the home loan and he apparently built the cabin.

Police believe the ex-husband sold the house to a neighbor for $3,000, placing it in the new owner’s field half a mile away, without the ex-boyfriend’s permission.

When he came back to the property months after last being there and found the log cabin missing, he called the cops.

“Quite frankly, it’s one of the most unusual moments I’ve ever seen,” the sheriff said, adding that the home was listed for $10,000 but the buyer bargained down to just $3,000.

“To quote him, ‘It was a steal of a deal,'” a sheriff’s department official said at a news conference. Get it? Literally.

Thus far, no charges have been filed during the ongoing investigation.

Missing Log Cabin Found 3,750 Feet Away From Original Location [ABC News]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

jikCan New McDonald’s CEO Turn Tide Against Antibiotic Abuse In Farm Animals?de

4 4 4 4

(БРАТСТВО)

Since the Food and Drug Administration won’t set down hard-and-fast rules on non-medical antibiotic use in farm animals, it’s up to the farmers and the companies who buy the most meat to make a change that will cut down on the use of drugs that result in bigger cows, pigs, and chickens, but also put us all at risk for drug-resistant pathogens.

That’s why some public health advocates are looking to Steve Easterbrook, who will take over as CEO of McDonald’s on Monday and who is in the rare position of being able to effect change on a large scale.

The fast food giant reportedly buys upwards of 2% of all beef sold in many countries where it operates, and even more chicken, making it one of the largest single buyers of meat.

McDonald’s own guidelines [PDF] acknowledges that there are concerns about the use on farm animals of antibiotics that are medically important to humans, and say that antibiotic use at its meat-supplying farms “shall be used in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements.”

Which is the issue, as the current regulatory requirements don’t forbid farmers from using antibiotics for growth promotion. The FDA merely asked drug companies to stop selling drugs solely for this purpose. Additionally, the FDA guidelines still allow for everyday prophylactic use of antibiotics, which many critics say only requires farmers change the reason they use the drugs from “growth promotion” to “disease prevention” without any significant effect in the amount of antibiotics going into the animals’ feed.

So we have a situation where the FDA is putting the onus on big meat buyers to demand change while the big meat buyers say “We’re doing exactly what the FDA requires.”

Thus it’s up to consumers to demand more drug-free beef, pork, and poultry. And it’s working, with companies like Chipotle, Panera and the recently IPOd Shake Shack already selling only antibiotic-free products.

Meanwhile Tyson, Perdue, and Chick fil-A have all recently made pledges that could have a significant positive impact on the availability and cost of drug-free chicken.

Given increased public interest in drug-free meat — especially among younger Americans — and McDonald’s sagging sales to that same demographic, the public health advocates at the Natural Resources Defense Council believe that McDonald’s new CEO McCheese could enact more strict antibiotic-use requirements for its suppliers that will make us all safer in the long-run and earn McDonald’s some new customers.

“Sitting at the controls of that enormous supply chain, Mr. Easterbrook now has the opportunity to adopt a progressive antibiotics stewardship program that would reverberate through all corners of the global meat and poultry industry and truly set his company apart from the fast food pack,” writes NRDC’s Jonathan Kaplan, pointing out that Chipotle, Panera, and Shake Shack are all mainstream chain operations making money by “tapping into growing consumer demand for healthier, safer and more sustainable meat choices. They seem to be enjoying growth and brand success that McDonalds must envy.”

McDonald’s has done so much tinkering with its menu in recent years, to little effect other than the irritation of franchisees, but it could possibly improve its business without menu changes simply by going drug-free with its Big Macs and McNuggets.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

jikDon’t Lie About Paying For Online Reviews. It’s Against The Lawde

4 4 4 4

(Sybren Stüvel)

In this era of social media and crowdsourced reviews, businesses with happy customers do what they can to publicize positive feedback. But if a company compensates customers for reviews and fails to disclose that tit-for-tat relationship, it’s illegal and deceptive marketing.

Just ask the Georgia-based auto-shipping company targeted in the Federal Trade Commission’s first case involving misrepresented online reviews.

The FTC announced today that AmeriFreight, an automobile shipment broker, agreed to settle charges that it violated the FTC Act when it deceptively represented that its favorable online reviews were based on unbiased reviews from customers.

According to the complaint [PDF], AmeriFreight – which arranges the shipment of consumers’ cars through third-party freight carriers – provided consumers with a discount of $50 off the cost of services if they agreed to review the company’s services online.

If customers refused to make an online review, the company would allegedly raise the cost of services $50.

The company also supplied customers with “conditions for receiving a discount on reviews,” which stated that if people left an online review, they would automatically be considered for a $100 “Best Monthly Review Award” given to the most creative write-ups.

After a vehicle was shipped, the company would contact consumers to remind them of their obligation to complete the online review.

In an attempt to drum up business, AmeriFreight would then encourage new customers to Google top-rated car shippers with the Better Business Bureau. “You don’t have to believe us, our consumers say it all,” the company boasted.

However, the company never disclosed the material connection between customers’ positive reviews and compensation made for the endorsements.

Under the proposed settlement, the company is prohibited from misrepresenting that their products or services are highly rated or top-ranked based on unbiased consumer reviews, or that customer reviews are unbiased.

It is also required to clearly and prominently disclose any material connection, if one exists, between them and their endorsers.

“Companies must make it clear when they have paid their customers to write online reviews,” Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “If they fail to do that – as AmeriFreight did – then they’re deceiving consumers, plain and simple.”

FTC Stops Automobile Shipment Broker from Misrepresenting Online Reviews [Federal Trade Commission]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist