четверг, 14 мая 2015 г.

uLow Gas Prices Make People Less Interested In Hybrid Carsr


4 4 4 9
  • (stellarviewer)

    (stellarviewer)

    It should come as no surprise to people with any common sense that fuel-conserving hybrid cars were very popular when gas prices were high last decade, but aren’t as popular now that gas prices are closer to $2 per gallon than $4. The premium that customers must pay for a hybrid vehicle offsets the fuel savings nicely when gas prices are high, but takes longer to recoup when they fall.

    The New York Times calculates that just a few years ago, a hybrid sedan owner could expect the higher initial cost of the vehicle to be offset by fuel savings after about five years. At current gas prices, it takes about twice that long, and that doesn’t even take the expensive replacement battery pack that hybrid cars eventually need. That repair can cost thousands of dollars at a dealership.

    We’ve known for a few years now that for the most part, people who buy hybrid cars do not go on to buy another when it’s time to trade it in. While better fuel economy is one factor, fuel economy for regular old gasoline-powered cars is also much better than in 2000, the year the first Priuses hit roads outside of Japan.

    With Gas Prices Less of a Worry, Buyers Pass Hybrid Cars By [New York Times]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uAppeals Court Blocks Utah Law That Would Have Banned Price-Fixing On Contact Lensesr


4 4 4 9
  • In recent years, many of the country’s biggest contact lens manufacturers moved to set minimum sale prices for their products, meaning any retailer wishing to discount these lenses couldn’t go below that price floor. The practice — which would have been illegal until a 2007 Supreme Court ruling — has come under scrutiny from federal lawmakers, and Utah state legislators passed a bill earlier this year that would outlaw this form of price-fixing in the state. However, a federal appeals court has temporarily sided with the lens makers and blocked that law from being enforced.

    Utah’s Contact Lens Consumer Protection Act [PDF] would prohibit contact lens companies from any practice that “has the effect of fixing or
    otherwise controlling the price that a contact lens retailer charges or advertises.” Lens companies would also not be allowed to discriminate against a retailer based on its retail price for lenses.

    Bausch & Lomb, Alcon, and Johnson & Johnson have all begun to implement these price floors. Together, these three manufacturers account for nearly 80% of the U.S. contact lens market.

    While physicians may recommend and prescribe specific brands of medication for their patients, they are not allowed to sell to them directly. Optometrists, on the other hand, can provide both the diagnostic work to determine a prescription and sell contact lenses directly to consumers.

    Additionally, most contact lens prescriptions are brand/model-specific, without any sort of generic equivalent. Thus, the only way for a retailer to compete with an eye care professional was on price.

    In 2013, Alcon, owned by drug giant Novartis, was the first to set price floors for its products. It explained at the time that it was trying to combat “showrooming.” That’s where the patient gets the prescription and other relevant information from the optometrist, but rather than by from the eye doctor, the patient goes online or to a discount retailer to get their lenses for less.

    Lens manufacturers claim that they go to great expense to educate and inform eye care professionals, only to see their lenses bought elsewhere.

    By setting the price floor, it takes away much of that incentive for patients to look elsewhere for their lenses. Since there aren’t generics, the lenses would be the same price at the eye doctor as they would be from an online discounter who is barred from selling for less.

    B&L and J&J soon followed suit with price floors of their own.

    The new Utah statute sought to make price-fixing a misdemeanor offense, but only in terms of the contact lens market.

    Alcon, J&J, and B&L sued the state of Utah [PDF] in federal court, seeking an injunction against the law being enforced and alleging that the Utah legislature had overstepped its authority in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    Both Costco and 1-800-CONTACTS filed opposition briefs in the case, as they stand to lose contact lens customers if price floors remain in place. Costco claims that eye care professionals who don’t have to compete with discount retailers will be able to “leverage their control over prescriptions and brand selection to also control and monopolize contact lens sales.”

    It’s not like the eyeglass market, where the price of the lens is only part of a consumer’s buying decision. A retailer can compete by offering a wider variety or more fashionable selection of frames, for example.

    For nearly 100 years, most attempts at setting retail price-floor agreements were viewed as violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. But then in the 2007 case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it manufacturers could indeed set price floors in some situations.

    In overturning earlier precedent, SCOTUS had pointed out that retailers facing price floors could use the money they would have ceded through discounts and invest it in “greater customer service” so as to gain a competitive edge.

    Costco counters that the lens companies’ pricing agreements “do not require or even encourage [eye care professionals] to invest in tangible or intangible services or promotional efforts that might improve patient care.”

    Earlier this week, the District Court judge denied the request for a preliminary injunction, saying that the lens makers were unlikely to be successful at trial.

    But only days later, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted that injunction [PDF] while giving the state — and Costco and 1-800-CONTACTS — until May 26 to file responses with the court.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uBlue Bell Lovers Turn To Craigslist For Exceedingly Expensive Pre-Owned Treatsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Kusine)

    (Kusine)

    With local grocery stores’ freezer shelves still void of any Blue Bell Creameries products and no timeline for when they might return, those with a serious love of the ice cream brand are turning to a black market of sorts to get their fix.

    The Washington Post reports that the massive recall of Blue Bell products potentially contamination with listeria has left fans willing to empty their wallets for the pints, tubs, sandwiches and bars posted in online marketplaces such as Craigslist.

    The ice cream company recalled all of its products last month after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found listeria bacteria in several frozen treat items produced in Blue Bell’s plants. That strain of bacteria, which may date back at least five years, has been linked to three deaths and at least 10 illness in four states to illnesses.

    While federal health officials have warned consumers to toss out any Blue Bell products they may have sitting in the freezer, not everyone is heeding the warning.

    Instead, some consumers are posting their stash of Blue Bell items on Craigslist for outrageous markups when compared to grocery store prices.

    Some posters are selling half-eaten containers of Blue Bell products.

    Some posters are selling half-eaten containers of Blue Bell products.

    A post from the Austin Craigslist page shows two gallon-size Blue Bell containers of Strawberry and Natural Vanilla Bean ice cream, along with two fruit bars for $4,000.

    “Mother load of Blue Bell!” the post states. “I’m selling containers only for legal reasons, but I looked up the codes and these were not part of the listeria recall. Product inside is free with purchase. My family ate what is missing and we are fine. Buyer assumes all responsibility. Serious buyers only.”

    While that poster may have offered several Blue Bell items for sale, others have a much more limited supply.

    Houston’s Craigslist page includes a post for a Blue Bell Fudge Bar for $100. That’s right, it’s just one bar.

    Screen Shot 2015-05-14 at 4.32.33 PM“I have one Blue Bell Fudge bar left,” the post states. “It may be a while before we get anymore.”

    Another Austin post that has since been flagged for removal aimed to sell a pint of Blue Bell Krazy Kookie Dough for $10,000.

    According to the Washington Post, that ad promised “Blue Bell goodness” to prospective buyers.

    “Purchased just mere weeks ago, this is like an oasis in the desert for you ice cream lovers,” the seller stated. “Buyer assumes all responsibility for transport, and or any Listeria contracted from product as well.”

    The market for pre-owned Blue Bell treats reportedly began last month when a CBS affiliate in Texas found products for sale on eBay. Those items were selling for a more reasonable price (compared to the Craigslist posts) of around $50 for a gallon.

    However, eBay told the station it had removed all the listings, because of the health risks the may posed to consumers.

    In other Blue Bell listeria outbreak news today, the company announce it has agreed to a new testing and reporting regime at its Texas and Oklahoma plants, Food Safety News reports.

    The agreement with the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry says the company inform state health officials at least two weeks before starting production of ice cream to be sold in the marketplace so the agencies can assess progress and test results.

    Additionally, Blue Bell will provide trial production runs of its products for separate listeria testing by the two states.

    “The products must consistently test negative before they can be distributed to the public,” the DSHS says in a statement. “A trial run with negative test results must occur for each production line before the line can begin making ice cream for sale.”

    The agreement further stipulates that for two years after production begins again the company must report within 24 hours any presumptive positive test result for Listeria in a product or ingredient.

    And or one year after resuming production, Blue Bell must implement a so-called “test and hold” procedure for products, meaning they must show negative results before being distributed.

    The new black market for Blue Bell ice cream [The Washington Post]
    Blue Bell Agrees to Listeria Testing and Reporting Regime for Plants in Texas and Oklahoma [Food Safety News]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWhy Cord-Cutters Aren’t Getting The Holy Grail TV Of Streaming Services Just Yetr


4 4 4 9
  • As a growing number of consumers drop — or never sign up for — traditional pay-TV services, it’s easy to point to Netflix as a big reason. And yet, Netflix and similar services don’t actually replace the TV experience, especially when it comes to sports. Newer offerings, like Sling TV and PlayStation Vue, replicate the live TV watching experience, but falter compared to traditional pay-TV when it comes to things like DVR functionality.What’s stopping the big players from offering an all-in-one online service now?

    It’s not necessarily a technical issue. Streaming services like MLB.tv, Sling, Showtime Anytime, and others show that you can have both live and pre-recorded content available on the same platform.

    There’s definitely the issue of affordability at play. In order for a streaming service to win over new customers, it has to be at an attractive price point. Alas, amassing a vast library of on-demand streaming titles costs a lot of money, as do live-TV carriage deals with the networks. So far, over-the-top video services have decided to keep customers’ bills low by choosing one or the other.

    If Netflix were to go to the broadcasting biggies to make a deal to carry live TV online, there’s no way it could afford to keep its monthly rate at the sub-$10 level that has made it so attractive to consumers. Similarly, if Sling were to try to bolster its on-demand library to match that of Netflix, its $20/month base rate would be untenable.

    Additionally, part of the reason that Sling can afford to include ESPN — easily the most expensive channel in any basic cable lineup — in its base package of channels is by not allowing Sling users to record, rewind or watch ESPN programming in a way that would let them skip the commercials. A number of the big-name networks on Sling — AMC, TBS, CNN — have a similar arrangement that only allows users to view these channels live.

    PS Vue has more ability to rewind and record, but shows can only be kept for a limited time and attempting to fast-forward through an ad break on a recorded Vue show is pointless: the fast-forward only moves you 10 seconds ahead at a time, but often requires more than that for the stream to buffer and restart. Vue also currently lacks on-demand content other than the programs you have stored to the cloud.

    The streaming service that currently comes the closest to offering something approximating live TV and a large movie/TV library is HBO Now. New shows don’t technically air live on the service, but they are made available within minutes of when they hit TV. Of course, HBO Now is several dollars more per month than Netflix or Amazon and its TV show archives, while sizable, are limited to HBO.

    Hulu Plus has a very large archive of TV shows — including current seasons of some shows — and movies, but pays for them not just from $8/month subscriptions, but by interrupting many of these videos with repetitive, sometimes glitchy ads.

    It’s possible that many TV viewers don’t care if they can’t watch Big Bang Theory or The Blacklist for a few days or months after they air live, but the same can’t be said of live sports. Many people on the bubble about cutting their cord would probably say goodbye to pay-TV if Netflix or Amazon started including live game streams.

    Netflix’s head of content Ted Sarandos was recently asked about the possibility of bringing live sports to the streaming service.

    “I will never say never,” he answered, according to Re/code. “I don’t think the on-demand to sports is enough of an addition to the value proposition to chase.”

    Sarandos points out that it’s currently the leagues that have the leverage in terms of streaming deals.

    Just look at NFL Sunday Ticket — the premium service that gives DirecTV customers live access (on TV and streaming) to all out-of-market Sunday afternoon games. Even though DirecTV reportedly pays more for the service than it gets from the Sunday Ticket subscription fees, it’s so important for retaining DirecTV subscribers that AT&T would have been able to walk away from its merger with DirecTV if the satellite company failed to renew its exclusivity contract with the NFL.

    “[I]t’s not like we’re going to get in and de-leverage the leagues,” said Sarandos. “We’re going to go in and overpay like everyone else does, so it doesn’t get me that excited.”

    It’s inevitable that we’ll eventually be presented with the option of an all-in-one streaming service that will be sufficient for replacing live TV and offer the convenience, customization level, and portability of streaming services. The question is whether it will be more or less expensive than the patchwork of streaming and pay-TV services that millions of American consumers currently pay for.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uMysterious Substance On Package Sickens Apple Store Employees, Sends 4 To Hospitalr


4 4 4 9
  • Retail stores receive lots of packages every day, but no one expects them to send employees to the hospital. That’s what happened at an Apple Store in Monterey, California, when a package covered with a mysterious chemical made store employees ill, sending four to the hospital and forcing authorities to evacuate that area of the mall.

    After a delivery to the store, some of the employees said that they were nauseated and dizzy, and someone called 911. A hazardous materials team arrived with other emergency personnel, evaluating eight people on the scene who reported feeling ill, and transporting four people to a hospital.

    What was the mysterious biohazard? Authorities still haven’t announced what could have made so many people ill, but they were able to determine that it had leaked onto the outside of the package, and the contamination had most likely occurred in transit.

    The Apple Store and other surrounding stores stayed closed well into the afternoon, and local authorities kept investigating.

    Package Covered In ‘Unknown Liquid’ Prompts Apple Store Evacuation, Hazmat Response In Monterey [CBS SF Bay Area]
    Monterey Apple store evacuated after package sickens employees [SF Gate]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uUnited Offers “Bug Bounty” Of Up To 1 Million Miles For Hackers Who Find Vulnerabilities In Website, Mobile Appr


4 4 4 9
  • While big companies are known to quietly seek out the services of white-hat hackers to test for weaknesses in their networks and websites, it’s not every day that a major airline publicly offers a “bounty” to people who can diagnose vulnerabilities in its systems.

    United’s Bug Bounty program rewards independent researchers with airline miles for discovering and reporting issues that affect United’s websites, mobile apps and online portals in a way that could put customer data at risk, Wired reports.

    United said in an announcement on Thursday that the new program is an extension of its commitment to protecting customers’ privacy and the personal data they share with the airline.

    “We believe that this program will further bolster our security and allow us to continue to provide excellent service,” the company said.

    The airline offers three bounties (or mileage amounts awarded) depending on the type and severity of bug found.

    High severity bugs, such as a vulnerability that would allow a hacker to execute code on a United property, result in a pay out of as many as 1 million miles.

    Medium severity flaws, which the airline says includes the ability to identify information of customers or bypassing login requirements, can result in a reward of up to 250,000 miles.

    Smaller vulnerabilities, like third-party issues that affect United, come with a bounty of up to 50,000 miles.

    Of course the airline put in several stipulations and restrictions to the program.

    For one, it’s first-come-first-serve, meaning only new discoveries qualify for rewards.

    Bugs that only affect legacy or unsupported browsers, plugins and operating systems and bugs on the internal sites for United employees and agents are not eligible for submission. Additionally, employees and those living in their households are not permitted to take part in the program.

    While the program is centered on finding vulnerabilities in United’s systems, it doesn’t cover all areas of the airline, such as an aircraft’s network.

    In fact, participants are prohibited from testing on aircraft or aircraft systems such as inflight entertainment or inflight Wi-Fi.

    According to the program’s rules, anyone who attempts to breach those systems will be permanently disqualified and could face criminal or legal action.

    The susceptibility of those networks came to light back in April when the Government Accountability Office released a report that identified security weaknesses within the airline industry including the possibility that newer airplanes with interconnected WiFi systems could be hacked.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Transportation Security Administration quickly followed up the report by issuing an alert warning airlines to be vigilant about monitoring for such threats.

    United Will Reward People Who Flag Security Flaws—Sort Of [Wired]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uReport: Cleveland’s Cox Cable Customers Will Soon Be Subject To Data Capsr


4 4 4 9
  • Cox cable customers are about to join many of the rest of us nationwide in a club that nobody particularly wants to be in: the not-so-illustrious crowd of those who have usage limits on their home broadband service, and have to cough up extra cash for any extra bits and bytes.

    DSL Reports brings us the news that Cox Communications (no relation whatsoever to yours truly) is all set to start testing their new data caps in the Cleveland, Ohio area at the start of next week.

    Cox, according to DSL reports, will inform their customers on May 19 that the company will be charging $10 for every 50 GB over the monthly limit that their subscribers go.

    From June through September, the overage fees will appear on customers’ bills but will not need to be paid, in order to give them time to acclimate to the new regime. Customers will have to start paying the fees in October, a source told DSL Reports.

    Customers theoretically be notified both in an email and by an in-browser pop-up when they’ve hit 85% and 100% of their monthly data allotment. Cox services, of course, will not count toward the data caps.

    If that sounds familiar, that’s because it is, in fact, the exact same overage fee structure (50 GB for $10) that Comcast claims is not really a “cap” at all. The key difference is that Comcast currently offers a flat 300 GB monthly limit across all of their speed tiers (except for one particular low-limit, low-speed program), and doesn’t allow or require customers to buy data tiers the same way mobile providers usually do. Cox, on the other hand, is more like a wireless company in that sense, and currently offers a variety of access tiers:

    • Starter: 150 GB/month
    • Essential: 250 GB/month
    • Preferred: 350 GB/month
    • Premier: 700 GB/month
    • Ultimate: 2 TB/month

    Home broadband data caps are not exactly a popular stance right now with anyone except the companies who make money from them. Consumers hate them, and find their ISPs communications on the matter generally confusing.

    But industry leaders want to hurry up and charge everyone overage ASAP. AT&T and Verizon are on the record as huge fans of data caps on home network use, and Comcast expects to take their “trial” caps nationwide within the next few years.

    But regulators may have consumers’ back, when it comes to the spread of data caps. Rumors abound that if Comcast tries to go national on their “thresholds,” it will draw the ire of the FCC. The GAO has also delved into the matter, finding that network congestion — the flimsy excuse ISPs always use — is rare but that monopolies who can do and charge for whatever the heck they want are prevalent.

    One fact is indisputably true: every year there are more online services available, promising bandwidth-gobbling, ever-higher-definition products to consumers. As we keep barreling into the all-streaming, all-cloud, all-4K future, bandwidth caps and consumers are going to keep butting heads in deeply unpleasant ways.

    Exclusive: Cox Planning to Impose Usage Overage Fees [DSL Reports]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist