среда, 17 июня 2015 г.

uThe FCC Is Considering A Big Change To Lifeline — But What Is It, And How Does It Work?r


4 4 4 9
  • The FCC is going to be voting this week on a proposal to make a big change to one of their programs, Lifeline. The program — a subsidy that helps low-income consumers pay for phone service — may expand to help them pay for broadband, too. The topic is politically charged and coverage can be a bit confusing, so here’s a guide on what the FCC currently does with it and what they’re planning to do next.

    What is Lifeline?
    Lifeline is a program managed through the FCC that provides a subsidy for phone service to eligible low-income Americans. It launched in 1985 as a discount on landline service, and in 2008 expanded to allow for using the credit on pre-paid mobile service instead.

    The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is the entity responsible for administering the details of the plan.

    Who is eligible?
    Lifeline is eligible to anyone at 135% or less of the federal poverty level, or who is already enrolled in one of several existing state or federal assistance programs like Medicaid or SNAP (food stamps).

    Poverty levels are calculated annually and vary by family size. As of this year, the federal government officially considers “poverty” to be an income of less than $11,770 annually for an individual or $24,250 for a family of four. The maximum income cap for Lifeline eligibility, therefore, is $15,889 for an individual or $32,737 for a family of four.

    Currently, there are approximately 12 million Lifeline subscribers.

    How big is the subsidy?
    $9.25 per month.

    That’s total, not per service — you have to choose whether to apply it to landline or mobile service. And it’s by household, not by individual, so a family of five all living together, for example, still only gets one.

    How much does the program cost? How is it funded?
    The program costs about $1.7 billion, and the money for it comes from the Universal Service Fund.

    The USF is a fund into which telecommunications service providers pay. The amount they contribute is based on a percentage of their telecom revenues, but basically Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and anyone else who provides copper-wire or VOIP service is contributing, as are all of the mobile companies.

    Those companies have a tendency to pass through the charge as an extra fee — a few cents, a dollar and change — on their subscribers’ monthly bills. (Though the FCC stresses that there is no requirement they do so, and each company gets to make its own business decision about the suitability of passing through the charge.)

    In short, everyone contributes to the USF.

    What does the FCC want to change?
    Short version: FCC chair Tom Wheeler wants to tweak Lifeline so that eligible consumers can use the credit for land lines, mobile phones, or broadband service as they deem fit.

    Long version: The FCC began a pilot program testing Lifeline’s adaptability to broadband service way back in 2012. Throughout 2013 and 2014, 14 different kinds of pilot programs experimented with different methods of connection, subsidies, and so on. The final report (PDF) was published in May of this year.

    After the report came in, Wheeler circulated a proposal to “reboot” Lifeline to other members of the Commission, and in their June, 2015 open meeting the FCC will vote on whether or not to consider that proposal.

    What are the benefits of Lifeline? Why is it necessary? Why add broadband?
    Have you ever tried to apply for a job without a phone number they could use to call you back? Deal with doctors’ appointments or pharmacies? Apply for an apartment or reach your landlord? Find out if your kid has gotten sick or injured at school?

    To be a contributing and functioning member of society in the 1980s, you needed a phone at home. By 2005, it was clear that “a phone” didn’t mean “at home” but instead something you could keep with you. And now, thirty years after the program started, it’s clear that an internet connection is just as essential.

    Everything is online: job applications. Applications for and help with government and social services. Access to doctors. Education. Schools. You name it: any kind of service you need or connection you need to make is going to be online. That’s true for everyone now, at every level. And access is most definitely tied to economic class: as the FCC points out, over 95% of households with incomes over $150,000 have home broadband access, but less than half of those making less than $25,000 do.

    As Hannah Sassaman, from the Philadelphia-area Media Mobilizing Project put it to Consumerist, “You can’t apply for a job at Walmart, let alone to college, without a high speed broadband connection at home. A subsidy aimed at families who can’t afford the internet could be transformational for elders looking for healthcare, workers looking for family-sustaining jobs, and youth trying to access a dignified education.”

    Our colleagues at Consumers Union (the advocacy arm of Consumerist’s parent company, Consumer Reports) agree. “Our organization supports the FCC in its efforts to transition the program to support broadband to help bring all citizens online,” CU policy counsel Delara Derakhshani said in a statement when the expansion plan was announced.

    “Our nation continues to face a serious gap in broadband availability that leaves millions of Americans unable to realize the economic, educational, entrepreneurial, and social benefits that flow from these services,” she added. “We applaud the Commission’s work to get affordable broadband to as many people as possible.”

    So what are the sticking points?
    Lifeline is a highly politically charged topic in the current environment, and debates will be polarizing. However, there are two main areas of concern likely to show up.

    1.) Fraud. There has been fraud in Lifeline in the past. Eligibility can be difficult to re-determine, and as people move around — as households dissipate and re-form in new combinations — you can end up with households getting more than one benefit.

    However, the FCC put in place processes to reduce fraud and minimize waste back in 2012, including the creation of a national database that administrators could use to check for duplicate subscriptions. In the 2013-2014 year, after those changes took place, spending on the program dropped by about 24% and the number of participants dropped from 18 million to about 12 million.

    Additionally, the new modernization proposal, according to the FCC fact sheet, would not only add broadband to the list of eligible services but also would change, centralize, and more easily track the way consumers prove eligibility.

    2.) Sufficiency. $9.25 a month for phone or internet service doesn’t get you very far. Comcast’s Internet Essentials, for example, is a program that low-income families with school-age children at home can enroll in for about $10 a month. But the $9.25 subsidy doesn’t quite cover that $10, and would leave a family using it without a subsidy available for mobile phone use.

    What happens next?
    Once the FCC votes on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking — probably 3-2 — the matter moves into the public comment phase and goes through the back-and-forth pleading process for a couple of months before being edited and potentially adopted. The Commission could hold their final vote on whether or not to make a change as early as this fall.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uRestoration Hardware Expands Into Modern Furniture, Modern Doorstopsr


4 4 4 9
  • multilevel_tableRestoration Hardware is a service that delivers free doorstops to people in wealthy zip codes. They apparently also sell furniture, and managed to thrive during the recession by selling pricey items to rich people instead of bothering to discount their products for the masses like other furniture stores. Now they’re launching a sibling brand, RH Modern, that you won’t be able to afford, either.

    Restoration Hardware keeps doing things that are counter-intuitive in modern retail: they’re focusing more on their colossal catalogs than on e-commerce, and are building massive stores or expanding existing ones in urban areas at the same time that other retailers are scaling back their real-life sales operations. It’s working for them, though: sales and profits are up, and the company keeps opening more “galleries.”

    Apparently, it’s time for the company to begin a spinoff. Super-modern furniture would be off-brand for Restoration Hardware, which sells more classic looks. The company’s solution is to start a sibling brand for homes that look more like an Apple Store than a Provençal country dungeon.

    The logic behind the brand is apparently that members of the millennial generation are starting to buy houses, and they like iPhones, so they will probably prefer contemporary décor in their homes.

    RH Modern will either have its own “galleries” in major cities, or a smaller space to itself in existing stores. We don’t know yet how many pounds its inevitable catalogs (sorry, “lookbooks”) will weigh.

    Restoration Hardware is betting that Americans want even more $7,000 couches [Washington Post]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uTV Viewers Want A La Carte Options; Don’t Really Care Very Much About ESPNr


4 4 4 9
  • ESPN is by far the most expensive channel on any American’s basic cable lineup and its position as the sole place to watch certain high-profile content like Monday Night Football has given it a reputation as being essential. But a new report claims that if people had to pick and choose the stations they would want on a customized slate of cable channels, ESPN comes in far from the top.

    In fact, according to the survey from Digitalsmiths, ESPN came in 20th when respondents were asked to pick which channels would make up their ideal pay-TV bundle, just below FX and just above USA Network, neither of which account for more than $5 of your monthly cable bill. In all, fewer than 36% of customized packages would include ESPN.

    This seems to bolster Verizon FiOS’s recent decision to offer so-called “skinny” TV bundles, where customers pay for only the barest core selection of channels and then add on extra bundles of ten or so channels each grouped according to theme. Verizon omitted ESPN and its sibling networks from the core package and is currently being sued by ESPN’s parent company Disney.

    Sony’s recently launched PlayStation Vue live-streaming service likewise doesn’t carry any ESPN channels, but does include some live network programming. According to the Digitalsmiths survey, this network programming is still going to be key to most a la carte package. All four of the major networks were included in a majority of respondents’ a la carte pickings, with ABC (66.7%) leading the way.

    The results will likely improve the self-image of Discovery Channel, the second-most included selection at 62%. Likewise for both the History Channel (57.7%) and National Geographic (51%), the other most-desired cable stations in the survey.

    Here are the full results (click to enlarge):
    digitalsmithschart

    In general, sports-related stations showed their niche appeal in the survey, with Fox Sports 1 and NBC Sports Network barely cracking 20% of lists, and MLB Network at about half that demand.

    Though the survey included 75 channels and people were allowed to pick as many as they wanted, the average number of channels in respondents’ bundles was only 17, for which they’d be willing to pay around $38/month.

    Interestingly, that’s nearly double the $20/month that Sling TV charges for its live-streaming service, which does include both ESPN and ESPN2.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uCFPB Sues Auto Lender For Aggressive Debt Collection Tactics Against Servicemembersr


4 4 4 9
  • By now it should come as no surprise that lenders shelling out thousands of dollars to help consumers make purchases for things like houses and cars often use lies and threats in attempts to recoup those funds. And while those tactics might result in some payments, they will also likely draw the ire of federal regulators.

    Just ask Ohio-based Security National Automotive Acceptance Company: the latest shady lender facing a lawsuit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over allegations it violated consumer protection laws in order to collect debts.

    According to the CFPB complaint [PDF], since July 2011 SNAAC – which specializes in lending money to active-duty and former military to buy used motor vehicles in more than two dozen states – collected millions of dollars from thousands of servicemembers using unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.

    Both active-duty and former servicemembers tell the CFPB that they encountered trouble with the company if they missed or were late on payments.

    The CFPB claims that in order to collect on debts, SNAAC routinely exaggerated the potential impacts on servicemembers’ careers if they remained delinquent on their loan obligations, often telling borrowers they could face demotion, loss of promotion, discharge, denial of re-enlistment, loss of security clearance, or reassignment. The suit claims that these repercussions were almost certainly unlikely.

    In many attempts to collect debts, the CFPB claims SNAAC would threatened to contact the servicemember’s commanding officers or chains of command.

    The suit claims that in some cases, the company did contact servicemembers’ commands by telephone and in writing, disclosing details of the servicemembers’ debts and delinquencies and requesting assistance in bringing the accounts current.

    According to the CFPB, the correspondences suggested that the borrower was in violation of military law and other regulations, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The CFPB claims that SNAAC took advantage of the servicemembers’ inability to protect their interests, because many were unaware or did not fully understand the law’s provisions.

    SNAAC also allegedly made false and misleading threats to garnish servicemembers’ wages, despite the fact that no such allotments can be made without first obtaining a judgement.

    Additionally, the CFPB suit claims the company threatened to take legal action against several borrowers, even though SNAAC never actually intended to do so.

    Through the lawsuit, the CFPB is seeking compensation for harmed consumers, a civil penalty, and an order prohibiting the company from committing future violations.

    CFPB Takes Action Against Servicemember Auto Lender for Aggressive Debt Collection Tactics [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAirline Group Backs Away From That Whole “Carry-On Bags Should Be Smaller” Thingr


4 4 4 9
  • IATAbagsizeYou might recall a recent suggestion from the International Air Transport Association that airlines should adopt a smaller carry-on bag standard, at which time the industry group showed off the “optimal” design to meet that purpose. But amid consumer outcry, the IATA says it’s taking a time out from the campaign to reconsider.

    Though it was a suggested, voluntary guideline and not a new standard, many consumers, airlines and even lawmakers did not respond well to the proposed smaller maximum dimensions for carry-ons, notes the Chicago Tribune, prompting the group to backpedal in an announcement today.

    Saying it’s going to pause the rollout of its new Cabin OK initiative, the IATA says it will begin a “comprehensive reassessment in light of concerns expressed, primarily in North America.”

    “Our focus is on providing travelers with an option that would lead to a simplified and better experience,” said Tom Windmuller, senior vice president, airport, passenger, cargo and security. “While many welcomed the Cabin OK initiative, significant concerns were expressed in North America. Cabin OK is a voluntary program for airlines and for consumers. This is clearly an issue that is close to the heart of travelers. We need to get it right.”

    Beyond your average traveler who didn’t want to ditch their current luggage, legislators were also ticked off by the recommendation,.

    “I’m telling U.S. airlines that if our luggage has to go on a diet, the result cannot be another airline-industry profit binge,” said Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey. “We already have less seat-space, less leg-room, fewer options and higher costs — we have to stand up for consumers and say ‘no’ to the airline industry.”

    No U.S. airlines had adopted the smaller standard, however. Airlines for America says U.S. carriers aren’t on board with the new standard “because it is unnecessary and flies in the face of the actions the U.S. carriers are taking to invest in the customer experience — roughly $1.2 billion a month — including larger overhead bins.”

    “Our members already have guidelines in place on what size bags they can accommodate, making this action unnecessary,” said Nicholas E. Calio, CEO of Airlines for America. “We agree with IATA’s action to reassess this initiative and take into account stakeholders’ views and recognize work already underway to improve baggage facilitation.”

    Airline group backpedals on smaller carry-on standard [Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uHulu Playing Nice With Broadcasters In Battle To Beat Netflixr


4 4 4 9
  • When Bob's Burgers runs on Hulu, it includes a pre-show bumper telling viewers when to watch the show live on TV. When you watch Bob's on Netflix, the network is not referenced at all.

    When Bob’s Burgers runs on Hulu, it includes a pre-show bumper telling viewers when to watch the show live on TV. When you watch Bob’s on Netflix, the network is not referenced at all.

    For years, Hulu has lingered in the shadow of Netflix, and has had some trouble convincing consumers to pay $8/month for access to shows that still have commercials in them, when neither Netflix nor Amazon Prime insert ad breaks into their videos. But the service has recently begun playing nice with the very networks that have an ownership stake in the company in order to win access to better content.

    First, have you ever noticed how most broadcast networks don’t make the full current season of a show available for on-demand customers or for streaming through their own sites? It’s usually just a few of the most recent episodes.

    This is a practice called “stacking,” and it’s one that Netflix and Amazon approve of because it means that a TV viewer can’t just go and watch a whole season online — at least until it’s on one of their services.

    But the Wall Street Journal reports that when FOX decided to put its entire first season of the hit show Empire on cable companies’ on-demand platforms, Netflix wasn’t too thrilled. The streaming service said that this free availability of the show made it less valuable for a subscription service and sought a discount on the streaming license.

    Hulu — which is jointly owned by Comcast (NBC), Disney (ABC), and 21st Century Fox, the News Corp spinoff that includes the FOX TV network — not only didn’t have a problem with stacking the show, it also agreed to pay more than Netflix for Empire, notes the Journal.

    But the service isn’t just winning new content by paying more or being broadcaster-friendly about on-demand access, it’s doing something else that Netflix refuses to do: Give credit to the network a show originally airs on.

    For example, if you watch episodes of popular FOX animated show Bob’s Burger on Netflix, the only time you’ll see the “Fox” named mentioned is at the end of the credits, only because the company’s studio produces the show. But if you watch Bob’s on Hulu, you’ll not only get a pre-show bumper advertising FOX, but then a reminder telling you when you can watch the show on FOX.

    Even though Netflix has helped shows heavily serialized shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Lost gain audiences by allowing new viewers to play catch-up, the service has repeatedly stated that it is not in the business of promoting TV networks, many of whom don’t directly produce the shows they air.

    But Hulu CEO Mike Hopkins tells the Journal that “We look at network brands as a benefit to us.”

    And the co-chair of the Fox Television Group says that Hulu has “accepted the notion that the bigger we can build the show, the better it is likely to do on Hulu, not the opposite.”

    Hulu’s biggest obstacle to getting subscribers appears to be its insistence on running ads. Unless Netflix, which has been steadfastly against the idea of interrupting its content for ad breaks, changes its tune, we have a hard time imagining Hulu gaining the same size audience.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


u18-Year-Old Tracks Lost Smartphone Using GPS, Is Shot To Deathr


4 4 4 9
  • (jayRaz)

    (jayRaz)

    Authorities still aren’t quite sure what happened in a case in London, Ontario, Canada, where am 18-year-old man set out to find his missing smartphone using GPS and ended up shot to death. He tracked his phone remotely, and followed it to an address in the city of London. After a confrontation with three men in a car, he was shot and killed.

    It’s the parts between finding the phone and his death that police are still figuring out. Police aren’t able to find any connections between the phone’s owner and the three men in the car: there’s no evidence that they knew each other at all. The three suspects haven’t been identified, but the man tracking the phone had never had issues with law enforcement.

    Thanks to uninvolved witnesses, they know that the man had left his phone in a taxi, and set out to find it. The phone was traced to that address, and the owner of the phone approached the driver’s side of the car, a Mazda. The car drove off, and he tried to hold on to the vehicle. There were gunshots, presumably from inside the vehicle, and he let go of the car.

    After the shooting, the men crashed the Mazda into a fence and a telephone pole, and abandoned the vehicle.

    A police spokesperson explained that this shouldn’t necessarily scare people away from using phone-locating apps, but that they should exercise caution and bring in law enforcement if they think it’s possible that the device was stolen or that the person who has it may become violent.

    “It wasn’t the app that took away [his] life, it was the individuals, which would be rare, who happened to be armed with a gun,” the spokesperson told the CBC. Having a gun isn’t necessarily rare, but using it to scare off a dude looking for his phone is.

    Shooting over cellphone: case is ‘extreme’, say police [CBC]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist