понедельник, 4 мая 2015 г.

uTurns Out Kids Can React On Camera To New Technology As Well As Weird Old Stuffr


4 4 4 9
  • Pictured: Unrestrained glee.

    Pictured: Unrestrained glee.

    The Internet just loves it when kids are put on camera reacting with things, but it seems we are not content to find out how children behave when faced with Walkmans and cameras that use film, but words also come out of their mouths at the sight of shiny, new technology. Who knew?

    In a first for the latest episode of “Kids React” from YouTubers TheFineBros, our young heroes get their little mitts on something new instead of old — an Apple Watch — and respond with predictable amounts of adorableness.

    “Eee! New stuff!” squeals one, her eyes lighting up like she just saw all of The Directions (that’s better than just one, right?) walking toward her.

    “Can I keep it?” one savvy kid with no compunction asking the question an adult in the same situation would want to ask but would instead remain silent, afraid of rejection.

    As hip and with it as we expect the younger set to be, many of them didn’t realize what this thing is. And others are disappointed it doesn’t do all the things they’d want it to — or maybe if someone “doesn’t have enough money to buy a phone but they have the money to buy this.”

    The whole thing is as amusing and cute as kids can be, and it’s Monday, so you might need this:



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uCablevision CEO: Pay-TV Is The “Milk & Eggs” Of His Business; Internet Is The “Soda & Chips”r


4 4 4 9
  • As we noted earlier today, Comcast now effectively has exactly the same number of Internet customers as it does cable subscribers, and the Internet users will soon outnumber those who get their TV from Comcast. And while a pay-TV customer brings in significantly more gross revenue for a cable company than someone who is broadband-only, these companies are likely making more profit off their Internet users.

    This is according to Cablevision CEO James Dolan, whose New York-based company also announced its quarterly earnings this morning. And like Comcast, it is seeing its cable subscriber numbers drop amid increased prices and competition from streaming products.

    Speaking about the earnings this morning, Dolan likened the cable/ISP business to running a convenience store, where you’ve got certain items that customers rely on you to carry and those other items that you rely on customers to buy so that you make a profit.

    “Our philosophy is that video is akin to the eggs and milk in a convenience store. You have to have it, but you don’t make money on it,” Dolan explained, according to FierceCable.com.

    That’s where the “soda and chips” of selling broadband comes in.

    “You can charge more, you can differentiate and the margins are good,” said Dolan.

    And so it appears that the company’s new goal is to make sure as many people buy their soda and chips from Cablevision.

    That’s why the company is currently the only pay-TV provider making the standalone HBO Now streaming service available to its customers. That not only gives some consumers with DSL (or without any Internet access) to get faster service, it also allows Cablevision to share in some of that $15/month charge for the service. The company’s quarterly earnings don’t include any information about this deal as the quarter ended March 31, shortly before the launch of HBO Now.

    Cablevision also recently announced that its customers will be able to order Hulu Plus with their online service. That’s another way for a pay-TV company to make even more revenue from an existing customer base.

    It’s really no different than the existing pay-TV model where the customer pays for a base level of service and then buys premium services from the cable company, who then takes a piece of the cost.

    However, there has been a lot of handwringing from some in the pay-TV industry that making these online entertainment options readily available through the cable company would lead to further cord-cutting.

    FierceCable reports that Cablevision COO Kristin Dolan is not seeing cannibalization, but is seeing more people sign up for broadband.

    We’ve spoken to other analysts who support this “if you can’t beat ’em, make some money from ’em” approach. They say any cable companies that don’t make deals to sell HBO Now, Netflix, Hulu, or other subscriptions directly to customers are setting themselves up for disaster.

    “Consumers are going to buy these things anyway,” one analyst told Consumerist. “It’s not like people aren’t aware of Hulu or HBO Now. These aren’t secrets. By not getting into revenue-sharing with these services, pay-TV operators are just watching their money go to someone else.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uNHTSA Won’t Open Investigation Into Unintended Acceleration In Toyota Corollasr


4 4 4 9
  • Toyota will not face another probe regarding unintended acceleration in its vehicles, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced over the weekend.

    The Agency denied a consumer’s petition for an investigation into low-speed surging in nearly 1.7 million model year 2006 to 2010 Toyota Corollas, according to a notice [PDF] posted by NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigations (ODI).

    The petition claimed that unintended acceleration may cause the vehicle’s brakes to fail, resulting in the car not stopping in time to prevent a crash.

    NHTSA’s rejection of the petition comes eight months after the petitioner alleged experiencing multiple low-speed surge events while driving a 2010 Corolla; the last incident resulted in a collision with a parked vehicle in June 2014.

    According to the denial notice, NHTSA investigators evaluated the petition by performing over 2,000 miles of test driving of the petitioner’s vehicle, reviewing the June 2014 accident report and vehicle data recorder, as well as reviewing nearly 160 similar consumer complaints submitted by the petitioner.

    The agency also looked into the petitioner’s claims that an expert witness in a lawsuit involving a Corolla vehicle in Oklahoma City found that a software issue led to unintended acceleration.

    Investigators say that during testing of the vehicle they closely followed the detailed instructions provided by the consumer regarding the conditions of the surging events, but did not find any unusual performance of the throttle or transmission systems.

    “In addition, testing of the incident vehicle brake system found that it functioned normally and could hold the vehicle stationary…Testing also showed the vehicle’s brakes could bring it to a full stop in less than three feet at the speeds provided in the petitioner’s account of the crash,” the notice states.

    NHTSA’s review of data from the Corolla’s Event Data Recorder – which the petitioner interpreted to show the gas pedal was in idle position during the crash – determined that the vehicle’s brakes didn’t come on until immediately after the impact. Investigators also say that it’s possible that the gas pedal was actually depressed during the accident.

    “ODI does not believe that the brake switch data recorded by the EDR is consistent with the petitioner’s statement that the vehicle accelerated with the brake applied and vehicle testing demonstrated that acceleration would not occur if the brake pedal had been applied with any meaningful force,” the NHTSA analysis states.

    In reviewing the 163 similar unwanted acceleration complaints cited by the petitioner and filed with NHTSA by Corolla drivers, investigators found that most accidents involved drivers pressing the gas instead of the break, or pressing both pedals or braking too late.

    “No evidence of throttle or brake system faults were found in post-incident inspections of these vehicles and there is no indication of faults in those systems in the available service histories before and after the events,” investigators state. “Based on this analysis, ODI does not believe there is evidence of a vehicle based defect.”

    As for claims that a computer software issue in Toyota vehicles was to blame for the unintended acceleration, NTHSA investigators found the computer systems in the vehicles were made by two separate companies, meaning there was no basis to relate the petitioner’s vehicle to the one mentioned in the previous lawsuit.

    In all, investigators determined that further investigation into the issues raised by the petition is not warranted.

    The Associated Press reports that while the petitioner hasn’t had time to review the entire NHTSA report, he believes the conditions in which the vehicle was tested varies drastically from those when the alleged unintended acceleration occurred.

    Had NHTSA moved forward with an investigation, it would have been the second for Toyota regarding unintended acceleration in the last six years.

    The previous investigation, which began in 2009 following the tragic death of an off-duty California Highway Patrolman and his family in a Lexus, ended in March 2014 when the automaker reached a deal with the Department of Justice to pay $1.2 billion to close a criminal probe over the issue.

    In the California case, the vehicle went off the road at around 120 mph, but not before someone in the car called 9-1-1 urgently seeking help because they could not get the car to slow down.

    This incident and other reports led to the recall of millions of Toyota vehicles, along with hundreds of civil lawsuits, some of which have been settled and some that continue to linger in the legal system.

    NHTSA tied the sudden acceleration problems to five deaths. However, the root cause of the problem has been a much-disputed topic. Some have claimed it was a problem with the vehicles’ electrical systems, while Toyota blamed it on unsecured floor mats that became trapped under the accelerator or brake pedals, making it difficult or impossible to control the speed of the cars.

    Back in March 2014, it was reported that federal prosecutors found evidence that Toyota made misleading statements about safety problems that were revealed by its own internal audits, and that the company made misleading statements to the government and to the public about those safety issues.

    US safety agency rejects request to probe unwanted acceleration in Toyota Corollas [The Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uRyanair Flight Takes Off Without Toilet Paper, Civilization Somehow Continuesr


4 4 4 9
  • (Josh)

    (Josh)

    European discount airline Ryanair has made headlines for reasons related to their bathrooms in the past: five years ago, we took note of their plan to charge customers to use the toilets, and to remove some toilets from the plane altogether. Yet some passengers on a flight from Murcia, Spain to London, England were horrified to learn that there would be no toilet paper or milk on board their flight.

    There’s one thing that no one seems to be pointing out in any of the news coverage of this, maybe because it’s all UK-based and they simply assume that Brits know how long it takes to fly home from Spain. However, the flight itself takes about an hour and forty-five minutes. While we empathize with people experiencing bowel and bladder emergencies, and waits on the runway can be lengthy, that still isn’t a very long time to firmly cross your legs and will the plane to move faster.

    Unfortunately for passengers who planned on using the plane’s restrooms, passengers only learned about this after boarding, so they couldn’t buy a pouch of portable tissues or grab a handful of toilet paper from the airport’s public facilities.

    In a statement, Ryanair explained that their choice came down to delaying the flight to wait for a fresh delivery of toilet paper and milk, or taking off on time and suffering without.

    Our crew explained to passengers that we wished to prioritise an on time departure for London Stansted rather than wait for these items to be delivered and cause a significant [air traffic control] delay for all our customers.

    People do hate travel delays more than they hate delaying trips to the loo, so they probably made the right decision here.

    No toilet roll on Ryanair flight from Murcia to London [Gloucestershire Echo]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uFCC Chair: Comcast Made Right Decision Scrapping Merger; Plan For Net Neutrality Is “Not To Lose”r


4 4 4 9
  • FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler speaking at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference on May 4, 2015.

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler speaking at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference on May 4, 2015.


    We’re barely into May, and it’s already been an incredibly busy year for the FCC. Even major issues like a spectrum auction and a ruling on municipal broadband were overshadowed by the two huge proceedings around net neutrality and the Comcast/TWC merger. And so when FCC chairman Tom Wheeler sat down for a “fireside chat” at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in New York this week, he had a lot to say.

    On Mergers
    When asked if he was surprised that Comcast walked on the Time Warner Cable merger, Wheeler responded that backing off “was a pretty responsible decision by [Comcast CEO] Brian Roberts.”

    “It was a good decision one, because it would be a long, drawn-out process to challenge our decision,” he continued, “and two, because of the whole attitude of, it’s time to move on. Let’s move on.”

    “This is an industry that is going like this,” Wheeler finished with a forward-rolling gesture. “So why do you want to keep fighting that fight?”

    And as for future large deals?

    “We’ll look at each of them on the merits,” Wheeler reiterated. “One of the things that was really key on the Comcast review is that it was incredibly data-driven. 14 months this lasted… an awful lot of economic data, an awful lot of market data, an awful lot of data on inside how the industry operates … It would not have been in the public interest to do this.”

    The public interest, Wheeler added, includes but is not solely driven by competition.

    “Competition is a key component of what is in the public interest. The justice department and we were going on parallel paths. They have very strict competition rules and decisions that they have to make; ours is a little fuzzier in terms of what’s the general public interest. Clearly competition is one of those.”

    What’s Next For Net Neutrality
    The other elephant in the FCC’s living room? The Open Internet Rule, or net neutrality. Was Wheeler surprised, the moderator wanted to know, by the sheer volume of comments that came in?

    “I remember that there was a day early on when we had a hundred thousand, a hundred fifty thousand comments being filed and you’d go, ‘whoa!’,” Wheeler answered. But bulk isn’t everything; comments have to be taken on their own content. Still, though, the massive outpour highlighted something very important with net neutrality in particular.

    “That’s why this decision, this debate was so damn important. Because that’s what these 4 million people” — about three quarters of whom were in favor, Wheeler digressed briefly, leaving a solid million people who were not — “the point of the matter is that this proved the power of the open internet to free expression. And it just happened that the issue being decided and the ability to communicate using that technology happened to coincide.”

    Wheeler continued, “I think that the bulk of the comments indicated how when you’re talking about the internet, you’re talking about something very personal to people. And they then use that personal medium of theirs to express themselves. That is what was so important.”

    As for the lawsuits, there are now “over a dozen” court challenges to the Open Internet rule in play. None of them are surprising, Wheeler said. “I said all along, the big dogs are going sue. There’s nothing surprising — the big dogs will sue when there’s something they don’t like.”

    But Wheeler is confident that the FCC will prevail. “Long about July-ish — probably filed in the next ten days, two weeks — there will be motions filed in the court to stay the [open internet] order, to keep us from enforcing it. Probably that’ll be decided in the kind of Julyish timeframe by the court. And I’m confident that we’ll do well in that situation, for a variety of reasons.”

    “So then we go to the actual argument itself, before whichever appeals court,” Wheeler continued. (The ultimate jurisdiction for the suits has not yet been determined.) “And when you stop and think about the fact that the Verizon decision, which overturned the 2010 open internet rules, was basically built on the concept that the agency had imposed Title II common carrier kind of requirements without stepping up and saying, ‘You are a Title II common carrier’ — we solved that. That issue’s gone. That was the big issue last time, and the courts sent that back to us on remand, ‘thank you, we have addressed that issue,’ so I feel pretty confident on the outcome of the court cases.”

    The moderator prodded: “But if you do lose, what’s your short term plan?”

    Wheeler responded, “Not to lose. That’s our short-term plan.”

    Coping With Congress
    The FCC of late faces opposition not only from industry but also from Congress, which has many members upset that the FCC is actually doing their jobs as assigned. There is a bill to kill net neutrality, a resolution to block it, and Wheeler (along with other commissioners) was hauled before a veritable gauntlet of committees as soon as the Open Internet order was adopted.

    The moderator mentioned these proposals, and asked Wheeler if he thought Congress would help or hinder the work of the FCC. Wheeler reiterated that he respects Congress (to the mod’s surprise) and their work, but that did not prevent him from airing some concerns.

    “What I testified [most recently] was, I had serious concerns that these proposals, which are described as ‘transparency’, are actually delay” tactics to prevent rulemaking.

    “And the public interest is served by getting to decisions. We shouldn’t be building roadblocks along the way. What’s going on here is, okay, there are specific things that the FCC has to look at, both in my tenure and in all the years to follow. And will there be the traditional kind of process, which is open, transparent, and somewhat rapid? Because the alternative is to slow it down even more. So what we’re talking about is: will the activities that are necessary to enforce the Open Internet rule be slowed down by the imposition of new processes that clog up the existing administrative process?”

    The Revolving Door
    Of course, before Wheeler was a regulator, he was a lobbyist and a venture capitalist. Most regulators come from industry… and many go right back to it when their time in D.C. is done.

    Wheeler expressed ambivalence about going back to industry work when his term with the FCC expires. “I’m not exactly a spring chicken,” he conceded. “I’ll be 71 when I leave this job, so I may just play with the grandkids.”

    But he saved his strongest words for a question about how his former allies — lobbyists and industry — have responded to his tenure at the FCC.

    “When I was an advocate for the cable industry and the wireless industry, a couple of things were important,” Wheeler explained. “One, they were nascent industries. It was thirty years ago. … That having been said, I was an advocate for these new innovative services. And I hope I was a good one. I hope I was a good advocate for them.”

    “But I have a different assignment today,” he concluded. “My client today is the American people. And I want to be the best damn advocate I can be today for the American people.”



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uAirlines Raking In More Cash From Bag, Reservation Feesr


4 4 4 9
  • While airlines didn’t bring in as much income last year as they did in 2013, a new report says they’re still sitting pretty thanks to people willing to pay reservation and checked bag fees.

    According to the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, airline net income fell from $12.2 billion in 2013 to $7.5 billion in 2014 — but that’s not really a huge deal as those figures could include one-time gains or losses, points out the Associated Press.

    And besides, that’s just net income: Pre-tax operating profit rose at the 27 airlines in 2014 to $14.6 billion, up from $11.3 billion in 2013.

    It’s where they’re making money that’s telling: Airlines pulled in $3.5 billion in bag fees, which is a 5% bump up from 2013. Charging reservation-change fees brought in $3 billion in 2014, which is a 6% increase.

    Those are the only ancillary fees reported to the BTS as separate items, however. There are plenty of other extras airlines get revenue from: Think about every time you pay for more leg room or an aisle seat, buy a movie to watch in flight or order another wine for dinner. Those fees all get lumped together and cannot be identified separately, the bureau notes.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uMPAA Will Pay You $20,000 For Your Pro-Copyright Researchr


4 4 4 9
  • The MPAA's website for its research grant program makes no mention that research papers must be in line with the group's stance on copyright and piracy, but a leaked e-mail from the MPAA General Counsel tells a different story.

    The MPAA’s website for its research grant program makes no mention that research papers must be in line with the group’s stance on copyright and piracy, but a leaked e-mail from the MPAA General Counsel tells a different story.

    Are you a college-affiliated academic who could use an extra $20,000? Do you have strong feelings in favor of copyright protections? Then the Motion Picture Association of America has a deal for you!

    The folks at TorrentFreak point out that the MPAA has been quietly running a research grant program that pays up to $20,000 for research into “increasing public understanding of digital technology, marketplace, and intellectual property policy issues that affect creators and distributors in the United States and around the world.”

    Ostensibly, that’s a good thing. Consumers and businesses should all be having an informed discussion on the evolving impact of copyright and intellectual property in the digital age. It’s a complicated and sometimes counterintuitive issue that has implications for everything from international trade agreements to some stupid free video game your 4-year-old plays on your old iPod Touch.

    And former U.S. Senator-turned-MPAA CEO Chris Dodd himself has called on the academic community to “provide unbiased observations, data analysis, historical context and important revelations about how these changes are impacting the film industry.”

    But it’s what is going unsaid publicly by the MPAA that is cause for concern. A recently leaked e-mail from the top MPAA lawyer to executives at Paramount, NBC Universal, Sony, Disney, Warner Bros, and FOX reveals something the MPAA doesn’t put in its website for the research grant program.

    The MPAA General Counsel writes that the goal of the grant program is twofold: “to solicit pro-copyright academic research papers and to identify pro-copyright scholars who we can cultivate for further public advocacy.”

    First, this statement seems to be counter to Dodd’s belief in unbiased research by referring to the solicited works as “pro-copyright.” That would seem to imply that any research that calls into question the MPAA’s stance on these issues would not be accepted.

    Beyond that, the MPAA isn’t just looking for research that it can use to bolster its case for stronger anti-piracy laws and stricter rules on consumers’ use of their products. It’s also aiming to develop a stable of go-to talking heads and researchers for the long term.

    And, as TorrentFreak notes, that appears to be where the real MPAA money is for academics, pointing to the more than one million dollars that the MPAA has provided for the Carnegie Mellon project on piracy. CMU research has resulted in multiple papers that the MPAA now uses to support its position on the topic.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist