понедельник, 6 июля 2015 г.

uAT&T Claims 11.7M People Could Get Gigabit Fiber If They Get To Buy DirecTVr


4 4 4 9
  • AT&T and DirecTV are still hoping their mega-merger is on track for approval. While they wait, the FCC has been asking them to clarify some of their earlier statements about why this deal is a good idea for the public. And buried in those new answers is the nugget that post-merger, AT&T plans to bring fiber networks to almost 12 million customers… kind of.

    AT&T claimed in April that merging with DirecTV would free up the cash for the merged entity to reach an additional 2 million customers with wired broadband. Adding that to their other plans, AT&T now tells the FCC the total plan is to build out fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service to 11.7 million customers.

    The plan, as submitted to the FCC (highly-redacted PDF), presumably includes AT&T’s existing GigaPower subscribers and calls for the entire build-out to be completed within four years of the merger’s close. AT&T provided the commission with a more detailed, year-by-year projected timeline, but that information is not, alas, fit for public consumption:

    Super detailed!

    Super detailed!

    FCC filings aside, if AT&T’s upgrades are anything like Comcast’s Gigabit Pro service, would-be subscribers should perhaps not hold their collective breath. Kabletown’s 2 GB symmetrical service, which was supposed to launch in May and June and is slated to reach 18 million homes by the end of this year, has yet to launch anywhere or even to have a pricing structure announced.

    At this point, the merger seems likely to be approved. If that happens this summer, that would mean AT&T would theoretically be done with their fiber builds in the middle of 2019.

    [via DSL Reports]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uAmerican Apparel Closing Some Stores, Launching New Line In Turnaround Effortr


4 4 4 9
  • For much of the past year, American Apparel has been embroiled in a public dispute — and several lawsuits — with founder Dov Charney. It appears that problems for the retailer aren’t just confined to the former CEO’s alleged bad behavior, as the company announced it would undergo a $30 million cost-cutting effort in an attempt to return to its former funky glory.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the company launched a restructuring plan that includes cutting jobs and closing stores over the next 18 months.

    While the company didn’t specify how many jobs would be cut or stores would be closed, it said the new plan is an attempt to adapt to the changing retail industry while preserving jobs for the “overwhelming majority” of its 10,000 employees.

    Still, American Apparel says even if the cost cutting measures succeed, there’s no guarantee that it will have sufficient financing to meet funding requirements.

    In another effort to turn sales around, the company plans to launch a new fall merchandise line focused on basic clothing items.

    “Historically, the fall season has not been a major focus for the company,” Chief Executive Paula Schneider said. “The new styles are designed to increase revenue as we continue to evolve our product offering during this important selling season.”

    American Apparel to Close Stores, Streamline Workforce [The Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAmazon Is Data Mining Reviewers’ Personal Relationshipsr


4 4 4 9
  • In spite of her assertions to the contrary, Amazon insists that Imy is a personal friend of an author whose book she tried to review, but the site won't disclose how it came to this conclusion.

    In spite of her assertions to the contrary, Amazon insists that Imy is a personal friend of an author whose book she tried to review, but the site won’t disclose how it came to this conclusion.

    Any Amazon customer is likely aware that the e-tail giant knows a lot about them. That’s how the personalizes product suggestions and customizes the marketing e-mails it sends. But some Amazon users are now finding out that the site knows — or at least it thinks it knows — who your friends are, and is restricting their reviews accordingly.

    Blogger Imy Santiago writes of a particularly odd experience with Amazon that resulted after she tried to review an e-book she’d recently read.

    “Your review could not be posted to the website in its current form,” stated an automated message from Amazon, saying her review had violated the site’s review guidelines, but without saying where she’d gone wrong.

    After another failed attempt to post the review — also denied without giving a specific explanation — Imy wrote to Amazon hoping to get some more details on why her write-up was being blocked.

    “We cannot post your Customer Review… to the Amazon website because your account activity indicates that you know the author,” explained the response from the company. “Customer Reviews are meant to give customers unbiased product feedback from fellow shoppers. Because our goal is to provide Customer Reviews that help customers make informed purchase decisions, any reviews that could be viewed as advertising, promotional, or misleading will not be posted.”

    According to Imy, Amazon is making an “erroneous and quite presumptuous assessment” in asserting that she knows the author of the book she’s trying to review.

    In her appeal to Amazon, she concedes that the independent publishing community is a small one and that she may have had social media interactions with the author, but “knowing of an author online, and personally knowing an author in real life are two different things. By your definition it would mean that bloggers such as myself are being barred from reviewing books they legitimately purchased, which in turn contravenes with the notion that reviews for a verified purchase are highly encouraged.”

    Imy says it is “unfair to the authors whose work I love, to be punished for a claim that simply cannot stand. I don’t know any authors on a personal level.”

    Her appeal fell on deaf ears, as the response from Amazon simply restated, “We removed your Customer Reviews because you know the author personally.”

    As to how the company came to this conclusion, we’ll never know.

    “Due to the proprietary nature of our business, we do not provide detailed information on how we determine that accounts are related,” concludes the denial of Imy’s appeal. “We cannot share any further information about our decision and we may not reply to further emails about this issue.”

    We’ve written to Amazon for comment on this story and will update if we hear anything back.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uAmerican Airlines CEO Denies Claims Of Industry Collusionr


4 4 4 9

  • While the Department of Justice investigates the possibility that airlines colluded to keep ticket prices high, the top executive at American Airlines is trying to assure his employees that the company did nothing wrong.

    The Dallas Morning News reports that Doug Parker, CEO of American Airlines — which recently merged with U.S. Airways — sent a message to employees over the weekend.

    “On behalf of your entire leadership team, let me be crystal clear: there has been no illegal behavior on the part of American Airlines,” Parker said in the letter. “We will comply fully with the demands of the [Civil Investigative Demand] and this fact will be proven.”

    Last Wednesday, the Dept. of Justice announced it had requested information from airlines as part of an investigation into “unlawful coordination,” but hadn’t specified exactly which airlines were involved.

    Parker goes on to tell employees that the airline is unaware what set off the investigation, aside from recent public comments about aircraft capacity.

    In fact, he says that capacity with the airline has grown faster than demand in recent years, leading to fares actually falling.

    “We at American have definitely answered a number of questions from investors, analysts and the media over the years about capacity,” Parker wrote. “But there is nothing illegal about that – indeed, transparency is rightly expected by all of our external stakeholders.”

    American previously faced an antitrust lawsuit related to its proposed merger with U.S. Airways back in 2013. Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal cited the lawsuit and consequent findings in a letter sent to the Department of Justice last month calling for an investigation into possible collusion.

    While the merger between the two companies eventually went through, Blumenthal says the issues found beforehand are still problematic.

    “DOJ’s original complaint painted a stark picture of an extremely consolidated market, in which a few firms wield enormous market power to the detriment of consumers and competition – and in which high-level executives believe there is an unmistakable link between fluctuations in capacity and fares hikes,” he states. “The Justice Department also correctly predicted that this kind of behavior would continue should the merger be allowed to proceed – as it ultimately was.”

    Parker said in his letter to employees that the airline hoped that it had reached a resolution with regard to the merger that satisfied the Dept. of Justice concerns.

    “So it is discouraging that less than two years later, with traffic and capacity up, and fares down, DOJ still doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the airline industry is as competitive a business as there is in the world,” he wrote.

    Parker: ‘There has been no illegal behavior on the part of American Airlines’ [The Dallas Morning News]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uShould Hotels Be Required To Include Mandatory “Resort Fees” In Published Room Rates?r


4 4 4 9
  • In order to minimize surprise when it comes time to pay, airlines in the U.S. now need to include all mandatory fees in their published airfares, but the same isn’t true for hotels. Many destinations now tack on so-called “resort fees” that claim to cover things like access to in-hotel gyms and pools, but which are mandatory for all guests whether you use those amenities or not. Even though these required add-on charges can significantly increase a guest’s total bill, hotels do not have to include the fee in their listed rates.

    Back in 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued warning letters to 22 different hotel operators — the agency didn’t name names — that weren’t being transparent enough about their resort fees.

    Advocacy group Travelers United recently called on the FTC to take legal action against hotel operators who fail to include all mandatory fees in their listed rates.

    “If a hotel charges a mandatory fee, it should be included the nightly room rate,” writes the group. “Failing to do so deceives about the true cost of the room and undermines the power to comparison shop.”

    But when L.A. Times travel writer Hugo Martin spoke to an FTC attorney about the issue, the agency didn’t seem terribly interested in going after resort fees.

    “At this time, we don’t have evidence to prove that not including the resort fee in the room rate is deceptive if a hotel prominently discloses the resort fee upfront and includes it in the total price” said the FTC staffer.

    So the question is: Are these fees being “prominently” disclosed?

    Knowing that many Las Vegas hotels include resort fees, we picked three at random to see how they displayed their fees.

    TREASURE ISLAND:

    ti1
    After selecting the dates and number of guests, the TI website gives you several options with their corresponding prices. The “Total” price is for just the room rate without any mention of a resort fee… But when you go to actually book the room —

    ti2
    This is where you find out about the $29 (plus tax) resort fee that you can’t opt out of. With taxes, the fee adds $97.44 to your total stay, increasing your total bill by more than 50%.

    HARD ROCK

    hardrock

    This hotel’s site includes the $25 (plus tax) resort fee up front before you get to individual room rates, but in very small print and apart from the per-night numbers.

    hardrock2
    Here again, the “Total Room Rate” does not actually include the mandatory fee, even though it’s nearly 2/3 the dollar value of the nightly room rate.

    hardrock3
    It’s not until you get to this payment screen that you actually see how much of an impact the mandatory fee has on the total invoice, increasing the amount due by around 70%.

    THE VENETIAN

    This is by far the most expensive hotel of the three we looked at, meaning the resort fee will have a smaller overall impact on the resulting tab, but the hotel’s website seems to do the most to not include the fee.

    venetian1
    No mention of the fee in the initial offer page, though the Venetian does give an average nightly room rate.

    venetian2
    Things get a little more transparent on the next page, where there is a mention of the rate not including a $29 (plus tax) resort fee. But when you go to actually book the room you want —

    venetian3
    The “Grand Total,” which includes the room tax and the nightly room rate still does not include the resort fee, which the hotel says is “payable upon check-in.”

    While the FTC might not be able to force hotels to include resort fees in their total rates, it could provide clear guidance to the industry on best practices for displaying these fees so that consumers aren’t misled. The agency could also take legal actions against hotels that go too far in their attempts to hide their mandatory fees from guests.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uAmazon Celebrates 20th Birthday By Creating A New Holiday For You To Buy Thingsr


4 4 4 9
  • Black Friday is coming four months early for Amazon Prime members. The online retail giant is celebrating its 20th birthday in a big way its upcoming deal-filled Prime Day.

    The company announced the birthday extravaganza Monday, saying it plans to offer “more deals than Black Friday” to commemorate turning the big 2-0.

    Next Wednesday, July 15, Amazon Prime members in U.S., U.K., Spain, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Canada and Austria will find exclusive deals every 10 minutes starting at midnight.

    “Prime Day is a one-day only event filled with more deals than Black Friday, exclusively for Prime members around the globe,” Greg Greeley, vice president of Amazon Prime, says in a statement.

    To get the excitement flowing for Prime Day, Amazon announced it will host a PrimeLiving Photo Contest.

    The contest asks customers to submit photos using the hashtag #PrimeLiving, showing off how their Prime benefits. The company will pick one winner from each Prime-eligible country to wing a $10,000 Amazon gift card.

    Amazon did not elaborate on whether or not Prime Day is a one and done event or if the company might bring it back each year.

    Step Aside Black Friday – Meet Prime Day [Amazon]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uNewest Oreo Addition: Same Flavors, Less Cookier


4 4 4 9

  • It seems like every new month brings a new Oreo flavor, from cotton candy to lemon and brownie batter. (And that’s just this spring and summer!) The cookie conglomerate’s newest cookie, though, isn’t a new flavor at all. It’s just 40% less cookie.

    “Oreo Thins” are hitting store shelves on July 13. If your first thought is “diet Oreo,” you’re not alone — but parent company Mondelez swears that’s not their intention, the Associated Press reports.

    Apparently the thinner cookie is, instead, meant to invoke sophistication: Oreos are for kids, according to their maker, but Oreo Thins are for grown-ups. The skinnier cookies aren’t meant to be twisted or dunked but instead just eaten — despite the fact that apparently half of Oreo eaters do in fact dunk or dismantle their sweet treats.

    “If people want to do that, it’s clearly up to them,” a senior Oreo executive told the AP.

    So why is Oreo sucking all of the joy out of life? Because the thinner cookies sold like gangbusters after a trial run in China, and — despite cotton candy, s’mores, red velvet, and brownie batter — Oreo’s cookie sales are apparently slumping in North America. The company hopes that the thinner new product, which costs the same amount as the old product, will reverse the trend.

    Oreos get thin, going for ‘sophisticated’ air [Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist